The Ontario Pit Bull Ban -- Your Opinions?

Tweet

I got a link to this story sent to me today. --- From The Peterborough Examiner Monday, July 9, 2007 Lynn Reynolds http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=603838&catname=Editorial&classif= Re "First pit bull euthanized under new provincial law" (June 29) - Ziggy was a friendly, happy, tail-wagging, glad-to-be-hugged little dog with a very ugly label attached to her - "pit-bull cross." This label was given to her by a system which cannot prove that that is what she was. It took only one or two individuals to attach that label to her. She could, however, be proven to be a Welsh corgi cross. DNA testing could have eliminated the doubt about her lineage, but that was not allowed to be done. This little dog had harmed no one. Her only offense: she accidentally got out of the home where she was loved and cherished, and she supposedly "looked like a pit-bull" (which according to a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal, is "unconstitutionally vague as there is no such breed"). The "breed specific legislation" was rushed into being with little thought to its consequences, and with a great deal of protest from the dog-related community and concerned individuals, which is ongoing as I write this. Where are the people who enacted this law? They certainly weren't there to witness the killing of this innocent creature and the agony of those who had to do it. Nor were they here to witness the tears of the many people who have been involved with this dear dog over the many months of her incarceration. Where are these lawmakers as the young women who owned the dog faces huge costs incurred for the incarceration and court proceedings? If this dog had been correctly labeled the "corgi-cross" that she definitely was, her owner would have faced a fine and the dog would have gone home, probably the same day she was picked up. As it is, her body lies waiting to be buried, not even able to be claimed until all costs are paid. This young women, and her dog, and those forced into upholding this law are all victims: victims of a system which refuses to listen to the many protests against this unfair and uncompromising law. How many other dogs have already been unjustly sentenced to death and killed under this law? Many are sitting on "death row" right now! How many more people are going to be devastated emotionally and financially by this ill-designed law? This is not a protest about "biters" and aggressive dogs being destroyed. It's for the dogs who are being mislabeled and destroyed for no valid reason. Why are these unfortunate dogs not even allowed to be assessed and temperament-tested by a panel of knowledgeable professional trainers? Which breed of dog will be harassed and/or banned next? Could it be mine? To label an entire breed as dangerous because a few poorly-bred, untrained, improperly socialized dogs cause problems is like labeling all human individuals within a specific ethnic group as lazy or violent. Caring, responsible dog owners must continue to speak out against this unjust "breed specific legislation" to the members of our provincial government. Justice was certainly not done for those involved in this travesty. We couldn't save Ziggy. Let's pray we might be able to help the next ones in line awaiting the same fate. Lynn Reynolds has been showing, breeding and training dogs since 1979. She became involved in Ziggy's case when she was asked to pray for those devastated by the event. --- In case you were unaware: As of August 29, 2005, no new "pit bulls" are allowed to be brought into Ontario, Canada, including visitors (even short term). Penalties: - mandatory death of the dog - up to $10,000 fine - up to six months in jail As of October 28, 2005, all "pit bull" type dogs in Ontario must be muzzled, leashed, and sterilized. Penalties: - mandatory death of the dog - up to $10,000 fine - up to six months in jail As of November 27, 2005, no new "pit bull" puppies are allowed to be born in Ontario. Penalties: - mandatory death of the puppies - mandatory death of the parent dog(s) - up to $10,000 fine - up to six months in jail This isn't the first time since Michael Bryant proposed and passed this obscure and vague ban that a dog of 'pit bull type' (which in those terms, includes upwards of 40+ purebred breeds, as well as numerous mixes, such as the example in the story above) has been targetted or destroyed simply for appearing a certain way. In humans, I believe that's known as racial profiling, and is not only frowned upon, but is not ever to be used by police as a primary or motivating factor for suspicion of criminal activity. In dogs, apparently this is fine. It's ok to shoot a dog because they 'look dangerous' or because they 'appear[ed] to be a pitbull'. I personally am convinced that this entire bill was introduced so that Mr. Bryant could sensationalize one issue to make the people of Ontario forget the Liberal's broken election promises. He constantly says that he believes pitbulls are 'ticking time bombs' and are 'inherently dangerous'. The United States the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed. All of the experts support this view - experts that Michael Bryant refused to include in his round table discussions. Why is Michael Bryant manipulating the truth to make one group of dogs look like monsters? Again, the biggest issue is that because there is no real way to identify a 'pitbull type' without including dogs that just have the physical characteristics defined -- this has in the past targetted a stocky Lab Cross, a purebred Boxer and an American Bulldog. In case you're unaware of what an American Bulldog is, think 'Chance' from Disney's 1993 movie 'Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey' ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107131/ ). The average person doesn't have a clue what a 'pit bull' actually looks like, and would likely mis-identify several breeds in the search for a true 'pit bull' (meaning American Pitbull Terrier, or also the American Staffordshire Terrier). So who is in charge of enforcing these laws? Animal control officers. The same people who misidentified one of my purebred registered Siberian Huskies as a German Shepherd Cross when he was a puppy. Just another great reason that Breed Specific Legislation DOES NOT WORK. If they can't identify the dogs that are supposedly posing a threat to public safety, then why not just punish the deeds as they happen, and restrict people who have had dogs involved with bite incidences in the past on their dog ownership. If you are caught driving under the influence of alcohol, they suspend your license, make you take a substance abuse course and a responsible driving course (both at your expense) and charge you with a fine. If people have had dogs involved in serious bite incidences in the past, they should fine them, restrict their ownership to a certain amount of animals (or none) for a set period of time, make them take responsible dog ownership classes, and force them to enroll their subsequent dogs in obedience classes and then obtain a temperament test or Canine Good Neighbour/Citizen test by the time a dog reaches a certain age. This law does nothing to promote responsible dog ownership and the kicker is that the onus is really on the responsible dog owners who are losing their beloved (and innocent) family pets because they appear to be of the type targetted. Those dog owners that pose the problem to public safety by not socializing their dogs, by tying them up outside with little to no human interaction or those that breed their dogs for aggressive tendencies (and yes, dog fighting) will just find a new breed of dog. After all, ALL dogs can bite. All dogs can fight. They don't care about losing their dogs, because they weren't beloved family pets in the first place, so in my opinion, this law solves nothing. Now that I'm done with my opinion, what's yours? I'm open for debate on the topic.