pitbulljungle

Dutch government to lift 25-year ban on pit bulls

2008-06-10T06:43:00.000-04:00

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — The Dutch government says it will lift a long-standing ban on pit bulls because it did not lead to any decrease in bite incidents.

Agriculture Minister Gerda Verburg has informed parliament of the decision, which follows the advice of a commission of experts appointed to review the policy.

Instead, the country will focus on enforcing local leashing laws and owner education programs.
Spokesman Koen Geelink said Monday the ministry hopes to have a new policy in place by year-end, in which dogs that have displayed aggression will be tested by an expert.

The country banned the breeding and possession of pit bulls in 1993, after three children were killed by the dogs.

7 pit bulls confiscated in sweep

2008-05-29T09:16:00.000-04:00

The Lucas County dog warden yesterday confiscated seven pit bulls and wrote 52 possible citations during a sweep of Toledo, authorities said.

Dog Warden Tom Skeldon called the sweep an "ounce of prevention" as the weather warms and Toledoans walk their dogs outside again.

"This is the first big weekend of the summer, and we wanted to let the public know we would be out in neighborhoods at times when they didn't expect us to be," he said.

"I hope word gets around to people to keep these dogs as far underground as possible so they are not in a position to bite the kids or bite the mailman or whatever."

Of those animals confiscated, two were taken for being walked without muzzles, two for running at large, and three were being confined improperly, Mr. Skeldon said. The citations are issued until the owner claims the animal.

Family angry after dog mauls infant

2008-04-15T09:39:00.000-04:00

Apr 14, 2008 01:40 PM
Raveena Aulakh
Torstar News Service

KITCHENER-"Hello doggie." Those are the last coherent words Ginger Visneskie remembers before her 2-year-old daughter was attacked by a German shepherd last week.

Visneskie had parked her car in the back of her Westwood Drive apartment building at about 11:30 a.m. Tuesday. She, her daughter Lilly and a friend were walking to the Visneskies' ground-floor apartment when they met a neighbour walking his dog, Angus.

The dog had been bitten by a rat the day before, Visneskie said, so she stopped to check his paw.
She was still bent over when Lilly stepped out and said, "Hello doggie."

Neighbours who saw the incident say the dog pounced on the child, threw her on the ground and sunk his teeth into her face. While they looked on in horror, Visneskie pulled on the leash and freed Lilly.

In barely five seconds, the child had been bloodied and appeared to be in shock. Visneskie didn't bother calling an ambulance. She and another neighbour put Lilly in the car and raced to the Grand River Hospital.

For the first few hours, Visneskie feared for Lilly's life and her eyesight.

"He'd bitten so close to the eyes, I thought he'd gouged them out," the 29-year-old single mother said.

When doctors finished sewing up the dozen bite marks on Lilly's nose, near her eyes and just below her chin, she had 35 stitches. She will need extensive dental work, doctors told Visneskie, since her lower jaw had been pushed into the roof of the mouth.

She has started a series of rabies shots — five in total — and may need speech therapy. Four of her front teeth were dislocated.

Angus' owner, meanwhile, says he's shocked by what happened.

"She (Lilly) has patted him in the past and it's been fine," said John Seenstra. "I'm sorry about what happened."

Seenstra said he warned the girl's mother that his dog wasn't muzzled and he said he told Visneskie to pick up the girl as she approached.

"I don't want everyone to think I'm an irresponsible owner," he said.

Along with their intense anxiety about Lilly's injuries, the Visneskie family feels a lot of anger.
Visneskie and her brother Tony are seething over what appears to be business as usual for their next-door neighbour and his dog. Now, when Visneskie sees the owner take the dog for walks, she shakes.

"When I see (the dog), I see him clamping down on Lilly," she said. "I am so scared for her and other children in the building now."

After the attack, the family focused on Lilly's well-being, making sure she got all all the medical attention she needed. Now that Lilly is recovering, the family feels helpless no action can be taken to have the dog removed from the property and to charge the owner.

The Humane Society says it's investigating the incident after some initial miscommunication.
"There are laws that protect people from dangerous dogs," said Kathy Innocente, the society's community relations manager.

"A dog can be deemed dangerous but we need to first find out what exactly happened on Tuesday."

Charges can be laid on the recommendation of the Humane Society.

Seenstra said the dog is normally muzzled when it goes out for a walk. "But I forgot to put the muzzle that day."

That explanation is not good enough for the family.

"Look at my niece. She's stopped talking or smiling," said Tony Visneskie, who is helping look after Lilly. "We don't even know how long she'll be in and out of hospitals."

Visneskie said her landlord, Transglobe Property Management, has assured her the company is looking into options for dealing with the dog.

The Visneskies and other tenants in the building said this was not the first time the dog attacked someone. Last year, neighbour Cayla Woodworth saw the dog bite a woman who had just gotten off a bus.

"It can happen with anyone," said Woodworth, who is now keeping a close watch on her own daughter. "I saw Lilly minutes after the attack, when she was splattered with blood."

Meanwhile, Lilly's ordeal is far from over. She got her first rabies shot Thursday, and some of her stitches ruptured on Saturday, forcing another trip to the hospital.

Yesterday, she spent the morning in bed, hooked up to an IV, with fresh stitches on her face. Later, she was taken to hospital for a second rabies shot. Dental treatment can start once the wounds on her face and neck heal.

"I've been to more doctors in the past week than my entire life," Visneskie said. "It's so frustrating."

She now keeps a sturdy baseball bat within reach.

"I want it to be handy if that dog comes near my baby again," she said.

— The Waterloo Region Record

Ontario Government Recognized for Commitment to Animal Welfare

2008-03-24T15:17:00.000-04:00

World Society for the Protection of Animals Applauds McGuinty Government and MPP David Zimmer

TORONTO, December 6, 2007 – The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) has awarded the Ontario Government and Willowdale MPP David Zimmer for their efforts to improve animal welfare in Ontario.

Mr. Zimmer received a “Special Award for Leadership in Animal Welfare”. His private member’s bill to regulate roadside zoos resulted in a historic government commitment to improve animal welfare in Ontario. The government committed to many measures that will greatly improve the protection of animals including strengthening Ontario’s animal cruelty law (Ontario SPCA Act), which hasn’t been significantly revised in 88 years and establishing standards for zoos.

“For years WSPA has witnessed and fought against the suffering of countless animals, including those kept in roadside zoos,” said Melissa Tkachyk, WSPA Programs Officer. “We would like to recognize David Zimmer for championing this issue and the Ontario government for committing to change”.

The Hon. Donna Cansfield, Minister of Natural Resources and York-Center MPP, Monte Kwinter each accepted awards on behalf of the government. As the former Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Mr. Kwinter was in charge of the SPCA and played a pivotal role in achieving the government’s animal welfare commitment. The Ministry of Natural Resources is currently responsible for licensing the keeping of native wildlife in captivity.

Highlights from the government’s commitment include:

Making it a provincial offence to cause distress to an animal. Imposing penalties of up to $25,000 and six months in jail for an animal abuse conviction. Imposing a lifetime ownership ban for persons convicted of animal cruelty.

Giving Ontario SPCA agents broader authority to inspect commercial premises like zoos where mistreatment of animals is suspected.

Immediate increase of annual funding for the Ontario SPCA to $500,000 to support inspector and agent training (current annual funding is $119,000).

Requiring veterinarians to report suspected abuse, with protection from liability for doing so.

Banning animal fighting and associated equipment.

Providing $80,000 for the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) to offer free care for pets of women who have left an abusive spouse or partner.

Dog law problem; Pit bull puppies off to Quebec

2008-03-13T10:22:00.000-04:00

There is obviously a problem with Ontario's dog breed-ban law when the Peterborough Humane Society doesn't even agree with it and to avoid the law steps across the borders to another province to avoid the law.

The Peterborough Humane Society is taking seven pit bull puppies to Quebec in a bid to find them homes and save them from destruction.

The refugee puppies will be placed with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Western Quebec. The dogs are not illegal in Quebec.

Under Ontario's breed-ban law, the seven-weeks-old puppies must be destroyed, so Algar is driving them to the border Wednesday with a $200 donation and the hope of finding the dogs a good home.

"It's not their fault they're pit bull puppies," Algar said.

"(My staff) didn't want to do it. I don't blame them," Algar said. "I don't want to do it either."
Euthanasia laws are understandable if a dog bites or attacks another dog or person, he said, but the puppies aren't a threat.

The border run is a first for the Peterborough Humane Society, but may not be the last and others may be doing the same thing.

Since the provincial pit-bull ban came into effect in 2005, Algar said, he's been working on finding a way to save dogs who must be euthanized based on their breed.

The dogs are being sent to an SPCA organization that has the same morals as Peterborough's, Algar said, and he's hoping the relationship between the two groups will help save other dogs.
The puppies were seized by the local humane society Feb. 21 under an SPCA warrant. Algar said the shelter received a report about a "thin dog" at a Parkhill Road apartment. No one was home when the inspectors arrived, he said, and a card was left on the door.

The second time they returned they heard voices inside but no one answered the door. Algar said inspectors and city police officers were waiting for a locksmith to open the door when someone told them a woman had jumped out a second-storey window clutching a blanket. She was stopped after a short foot chase, Algar said.

"She just set the blanket down and the puppies were in the blanket," he said.

Inside the home inspectors found two adult pit bulls, a male and female, he said. Both dogs were unlicensed and weren't fixed.

The owner of the dogs now faces 13 charges under the Dog Owners Liability Act, including one charge for every puppy born, Algar said. She is to appear in Provincial Offences Court March 17.
Algar said the two adult dogs will be spayed and neutered by the Humane Society.

The Humane Society must do the "right thing" and comply with the law, Algar said.

"But the right thing is not killing animals because the government says we must kill the animals," Algar said.

We agree and wonder about the wisdom of a law that forces death on puppies that have done nothing wrong other than be born.

This doesn't excuse the owner of the mating dogs. If the owner follows the law, the puppies aren't born and places like the Humane Society are not put into such a situation.

Dog Bite Statistics - Are We Being Lied to by Politicians With a Hidden ‘Dangerous Dog’ Agenda?

2008-03-05T06:07:00.001-05:00

Posted By Alison Green
Date: 4/03
Posted Under: Breed Specific Legislation, Canine Columns, Dangerous Dogs

Figures released to Norman Lamb of the Liberal democrats have been splashed all over the media alongside headlines proclaiming a rise in “dog attacks”. Pictures of snarling beasts, most often bull breeds or the current “devil dog” the Rottweiler have been used to help emphasise the point.

But wait one second…STOP THE PRESS… the figures do not show a rise in dog attacks. Allow me to explain.

A few years ago I did an awful thing.

I was at a barbeque on a lovely summers day with my family and our dogs. My children where playing with the other children and one of my dogs was playing with the resident boxer, the sun was shining and all was right with the world. My dog tired of his game with the boxer, picked up his ball before dropping it in my lap and sitting down looking at me hopefully. I smiled, picked up the ball and threw it for him.

The minute that ball left my hand I realised what I had done and yelled loudly to recall my dog but it was too late. As I yelled, my dog ran straight into my daughter knocking her flying down on the hard ground. Thankfully my daughter, although bruised and sore for a while, had no broken bones. My dog didn’t know what had happened but had stopped, ball forgotten and gone over to lick at my daughter. I was mortified and have never taken a ball to another barbeque since!

Had my daughter been more badly hurt and been admitted to hospital, she would have been included in the recent figures paraded around the media as “dog attacks”.

What the media and Norman Lamb fail to mention in any article I have read, is that the figures do not separate dog bites from dog strikes. I know of quite a few people who have been admitted to hospital because their dogs greeted them a little too enthusiastically or accidentally knocked into them.

They will all be logged under the same code meaning “bitten or struck by a dog” yet the two meanings are often very different and certainly don’t scream “dog attack”. Many people have been struck by dogs, many have been bitten by dogs however few have been attacked by dogs. While even one true dog attack is unacceptable the medias use of these figures to “show” an overwhelming increase in dog attacks is misleading and nothing more than scaremongering.

The media have also focused on the “rise” in certain areas but do not seem to be aware of the fact that the strategic health authority for treatment restructured at the start of 2006 which, according to Ben Bradshaw when he supplied the figures to Norman lamb as a written answer, means a direct comparison is not possible before and after 2006.

Hospital workers are also “ a bit bemused” by the figures. It has recently been reported in one online newspaper that hospital bosses in west mids where surprised at the “findings” of an 80% increase in under 18’s being admitted due to “dog attacks”.

A spokesman for George eliot hospital in Nuneaton told a reporter for IC Coventry

Although we don’t have access to detailed statistics, we can say anecdotally that, if anything, the number of people needing treatment for dog bites is falling.

“We’re a bit bemused by these figures, to be honest. We don’t get anywhere near as many as we used to.”

The article goes on to state:

The same sentiment was also expressed by spokesmen for the University Hospital, Coventry, Warwick Hospital, and the Hospital of St Cross, in Rugby.

Maybe they are “bemused” because the figures are being stated as something they aren’t!
In recent years it has been pointed out that children 9 and under are more commonly admitted for “bites or strikes” from a dog and this is true. However over the last ten years in England, the number of children 9 and under who have been admitted to hospital for this reason, has actually risen the least of all age groups, by 4.1%. This equals just 39 more admissions when comparing 06-07 with 96-97. Using the same years comparison, the age group of 40-49 year olds show a massive increase of 136%. We rarely hear of large numbers of 40 odd year olds being attacked by dogs so would it be fair to assume we are actually looking at more strikes than bites?

It is not unusual for smaller children to be admitted to hospital more often than adults as a precaution. I completely agree with the reasons for doing so. Children are much more fragile and less able to tell you if there is a problem. If my children bang their heads I turn into the most paranoid mother about, constantly checking on them. Better to be safe than sorry so could this possibly explain the large number of young children being admitted? Children are also more likely to be knocked over by dogs simply walking or running past them.

There are many reasons that could contribute to any increase and could help explain why certain age groups are showing high numbers. The only thing the figures do not show is a definite increase in dog attacks.

The dog world does have problems and they are problems that need tackling. We, as dog owners, parents and members of the public, have all been let down time and time again by the law. The Dangerous Dogs Act was meant to protect us 16 years ago. It failed. Now the same people who helped bring in that law, are trying again!

The answer to our problems is simple. We need to look at facts and not create mass hysteria by telling only half of the story. We need to log dog bites and strikes separately and in more detail. We need to know what the injury is, who, where and why. We need to ensure we all know how to act responsibly and safely around dogs.

We need a law that holds the owners responsible for their dog’s actions and ensure they are fully equipped to deal with the responsibility that comes with owning any dog BEFORE they obtain one.

Norman Lamb has got one thing right. He is quoted in several articles as saying

“No-one knowingly puts their child in danger but it seems that the message is not getting through.”

So lets make a Dog Ownership Test a legal requirement and force that message home.

Dog laws must be enforced

2008-03-05T06:05:00.001-05:00

By: Hazel McCallion
March 4, 2008 10:25 PM -

I wanted to take this opportunity to comment on Rambo, the pit bull type dog that is impounded at the City’s Animal Services facility.

As you are probably aware, the dog’s owner has been charged under the provincial Dog Owner’s Liability Act, for having possession of a prohibited pit bull. As this matter is before the Court, it is not appropriate for me to discuss the particulars regarding the case.

When the pit bull amendments to the Dog Owner’s Liability Act were being discussed, the City of Mississauga strongly opposed the legislation. City Council’s concerns were expressed in writing to the Province and our Director of Enforcement attended public hearings in Toronto in 2005 and voiced our concerns, as did many other municipalities.

Once passed into law, the City of Mississauga must enforce the law. Failure to do so could result in serious liability issues if the City opted not to enforce the law and one of the dogs seriously injured a resident.

Regardless of anyone’s personal feelings about the legislation, City staff are expected to do their duty and enforce the law. Although the option to transfer prohibited pit bulls out of province is available to the Pound Operator under the Animals for Research Act, staff have not done so in the past for a number of reasons. Liability concerns and the substantial staff resources that are required to do this cannot be ignored, and there is also a significant cost involved in doing this.

These are key reasons why municipalities tend not to exercise the option (to relocate animals to other communities). As I understand it, when municipalities have done so, it is most often involving very young puppies.

Up until this point in time, decisions on how to administer the law have been made by staff, as is common across the province. I have requested staff to prepare a report for City Council setting out the options available under the legislation, as well as the pros and cons of each of them. This will allow City Council to fully discuss the matter and determine the appropriate procedures to be followed by the City of Mississauga in the future.

Regarding Rambo, once a charge has been laid, it is not up to the City to decide the fate of the dog. In cases where there is an outstanding charge for possession of a prohibited pit bull, the dog is well taken care of in the City’s Animal Control Services Section, pending the outcome of the court proceedings. It is up to a Provincial Crown to conduct the prosecution and, ultimately, the fate of the dog rests in the hands of a Justice of the Peace or Provincial Court Judge, who must adjudicate the charge based on the facts in each case applied to the law. Once a charge has been laid, neither the Mayor’s office nor Council can interfere with a matter that is before the Court.

Hazel McCallion is the mayor of Mississauga and a dog-owner.

Judge refuses Rambo bail

2008-03-04T10:21:00.002-05:00

Story and photo by Matthew Liebenberg,

National Post

A judge refused this afternoon to release Rambo, the young dog slated for death if a court finds him to be a pit bull. Rambo’s owner, Gabriela Nowakowska, made her first court appearance today in Mississauga, as a small group protested outside, waving placards asking for Rambo to be freed.

“We should get rid of this law,” said Victoria Hardy, who carried a placard against breed-specific laws. “It should be blamed on bad owners, not on the dogs.”

Now almost a year old, Rambo was running loose near Ms. Nowakowska’s home on Christmas Day when he was captured by animal control officers. Considered by Mississauga authorities to be a prohibited animal under the provincial Dog Owners Liability Act, he will be put down if found by the court to be a pit bull.

Holly Roithmeier’s placard asked that Rambo be allowed to leave Ontario if he can’t live here. “I think it’s horrible what they’re doing,” she said. “They shouldn’t euthanize the dog, he didn’t bite anybody.”

Ms. Nowakowska’s lawyer, Anik Morrow, asked the court’s consent for Rambo’s release. However, the Crown attorney requested time to consider the case and the court agreed to a meeting on March 14 to consider the motion. The date for a judicial pre-trial hearing was set for March 18.

“We’re very happy to engage this judicial process,” Ms. Morrow said afterward. “We know that Mississauga has a bit of a habit of snatch and kill, so we’re very happy that the dog is still alive. What I would like to do is to find a reasonable solution.”

Ms. Nowakowska told reporters she received Rambo as a four-week-old puppy from her boyfriend.

“I just want Rambo back,” she said. “It makes me feel sad because I don’t have him with me. My house is empty, there’s no one to greet me or keep me company.”

Help bring attention to an outrageous injustice

2008-03-03T13:42:00.002-05:00

The owners of Munchie, Sheila Yeung and Angela Feng, were working on Munchie's appeal and its financing when Toronto Animal Services killed Munchie. They weren't even told that Munchie had been killed; a reporter told them when he called them for their reaction.

This is an outrage. The case against Munchie was not proven; there is no record, no proof of any bite to the complainant or his dog. Cheryl Smith, renowned for her knowledge of dog behaviour, found Munchie non-aggressive. Munchie and his owners had not had all their days in court. Word on the street is that Toronto Animal Services abused Munchie by handling him only with a catchpole, never letting him outside and never allowing his owners to visit him. From beloved pet with a home, to a tormented captive in a municipal pound. From a report in the Toronto Star, Toronto Animal Services killed Munchie well in advance of the end of his appeal date.

This is an outrage. A case never proven. A dog seized and killed by Toronto Animal Services on an unproven case, without due process for the owners. All because of the bullsh*t McGuinty and Bryant law.

Write the editors of local and national papers and let them know what you think of this injustice, this outrage. Make sure you send to only one at a time so your letter doesn't go into a spam filter, and that your full name, address and phone number are on the letter.

Editor, Toronto Star - lettertoed @ thestar.ca (without the spaces)
Editor, National Post - letters @ nationalpost.com (without the spaces)
Editor, Globe & Mail - Letters @ globeandmail.com (without the spaces)
Editor, Toronto Sun - torsun.editor @ sunmedia.ca (without the spaces)

Tell Mayor Miller of Toronto what you think of this case:
mayor_miller @ toronto.ca (without the spaces)

Swamp them. Let them know we're angry, and we're not going to be quiet or go away.

For more information see Wag The Dog Blog.http://wagthedog.blogware.com/

In defence of the smart and loyal rat

2008-02-27T09:49:00.002-05:00

LISAN JUTRAS
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
February 26, 2008 at 9:43 AM EST

Question: What is a hamster bubble?

Answer: A) A new hamster toy that uses NASA technology;
B) A new sex toy that uses NASA technology;
C) The outcome of a meeting between the laws of economics and the laws of human squeamishness.

Rodent rescuer, Jane Sorensen of Montreal, with pet rats Bess (front), and Melanie, says many people often compare rats to dogs. (Christinne Muschi for The Globe and Mail)

I know, I know, you really want to read about answer B. But the answer is C. The Year of the Rat, which began on Feb. 7, has had unintended consequences for the rodent economy in China.
According to Chinese media, children have been clamouring for a pocket pet, resulting in a run not on rats, but on hamsters, with the price tripling in under a month. Rats, meanwhile (the legitimate heirs to the throne - or wheel, as the case may be) are being exterminated in unprecedented numbers in Beijing in preparation for this summer's Olympics.

Seems like rats, even in the Year of the Rat, can't shake the bad press they got after helping transmit the plague in 14th-century Europe and 19th-century China. Rats always get a bum deal.

A few valiant fanciers have tried to bring dignity to the reviled rodent, which is widely known to be the smartest and most loyal of all pocket pets.

After Hollywood weighed in with Ratatouille, a cartoon movie featuring an aspiring chef who happens to be a rat, rat sales soared in North America and Europe. Still, the rat's fortunes generally fall more than rise.

"As long as we've been living in settled villages, rats have been living alongside with us, so we have this long shared history ... and because of that we have both positive and negative associations," says Kathryn Denning, professor of anthropology at Toronto's York University.
Although they are worshipped at a temple in India, and were admired enough to merit a place in the Chinese zodiac, "in a lot of places, they're just considered to be unclean and harbingers of disease," she says.

Street kids who acquire rats as a kind of accessory may find the rodent's bad-ass reputation enhances theirs, while they enjoy its lesser-known positive qualities.

"People who actually get them as pets have their entire view revolutionized," says Jane Sorensen, who runs Small Victories rodent rescue in Montreal and has eight rats of her own. "They are charismatic animals. ... A lot of people will compare them to dogs."

Rat agility contests, originating in Sweden, showcase the creatures' trainability and intelligence. But despite these efforts, we will likely never lose our ambivalence about the archetypal "varmint."

In an essay by Birgitta Edelman published in Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Intimacies, the author writes that rats, which are associated with sewers, both disgust and compel us as they provide "a connecting link to the dark world down under."
She's an academic, so when you read "down under," you have to understand she's not just referring to our civic geography, but also to our anatomy, and possibly our psyche. It's one of those theories that is so crazy it just might be right.

(As if to prove this point, last week a drowned rat appeared at the nexus of geography and anatomy, in my downstairs neighbour's toilet bowl, apparently pushed up the drain by rising meltwater.)

Of course, it could just be their tails, which somewhat inexplicably disgust many people.
"There's something about their naked tails that people find icky," Prof. Denning says. Is it because they resemble earthworms? And don't earthworms live underground and thrive on decay? Hmm. The point goes to you, Ms. Edelman.

The all-but tailless hamster outsells rats by "50 to 60 per cent," says one employee at a PJ's pet store in Toronto.

"Hamsters are not very social," Ms. Denning points out, "and yet we regard them as being better pets because they're cuter." Ah, the eternal battle between cute and smart.

"Why are they cuter? They're cuter because they're rounder. What they have are features of neoteny."

The term refers to a certain infantile quality - disproportionately large eyes, rounded features - that we are hardwired to respond to positively.

But we all know that, in the long run, while cute wears thin, smarts endure. And besides, the Year of the Hamster? That just sounds dumb.

Ruff deal for the Staffie

2008-02-15T10:40:00.006-05:00

By Fiona Wickham and Denise Winterman

BBC News Magazine

They're being dumped in record numbers and branded a "yob dog", yet Staffordshire bull terriers are ideal family pets, say experts. So why is this nation of dog lovers turning against them?

Extremely reliable, highly intelligent and affectionate, especially with children. It's not a description most of us would associate with Staffordshire bull terriers, but it's how the UK Kennel Club sums them up.

In fact, the breed is one of only two from over 190 it recommends as suitable with children, the other being a Chesapeake Bay retriever.

But while the thought of a doe-eyed retriever makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, a Staffie - as they are commonly known - often leaves them cold.

Somehow these little balls of muscle have gone from being considered good family pets to canine outcasts among large sections of this nation of dog lovers.

Staffies and Staffie crosses are being dumped in record numbers and not enough people are willing to give them a new home. So how did the sociable dog that likes to be loved fall out of people's affections?

The breed is a bit of a contradiction and that is a big part of the problem, says the Dogs Trust. While their natures are loving, their perceived physical similarities with banned breeds - such as pit bulls - has resulted in them being tarnished with the "dangerous dogs" label.

"Because of their appearance, certain types of people think they've got themselves a fierce dog and in fact they'd far rather be in front of the fire having their tummy tickled," says breeder Veronica Brown.

A result of this misguided association they have become a "macho" fashion accessory among some young men, say welfare groups. They are a "psuedo pit bull" for those who want to look hard.

Cashing in

"They have become a status symbol among some youngsters and the type of person who gets one for that reason is not likely to be the most responsible owner," says Ali Evans, from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.

Child friendly dogs... many wouldn't think soThe consequences for the breed are worrying, say animal charities. Selling them has now become a lucrative business among certain groups and people wanting to make some quick cash are intensively breeding them.

"Some people now consider them as a source of income and are breeding them in their back gardens," says Ms Evans.

A pure-breed puppy with documentation to prove its Kennel Club registration and a health certificate costs around £600, so there is a market for cheaper dogs. Many are cross-breeds but still look the part. And looks count as the dogs are also being used as a protection, say animal charities.

That's not to say that Staffies can't be aggressive and dangerous. They can. Like all dogs, there can be moments of aggression which, coupled with the Staffie's strength, can lead to serious injuries. There have been many reported cases of Staffies attacking children, but these days the dogs are often trained to be more hostile. Owners build up their strength, making them hang off sticks to increase the power of their jaws.

It all fuels the negative image the dogs have now acquired and makes them harder to home if they are dumped by owners.

Mistaken identity

Birmingham Dogs Home says pure-bred Staffies and their crosses make up at least 40% of all dogs that end up with them. They make up a third of all dogs handled by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which has branches in London, Berkshire and Kent.

Staffies are often mistaken for pit bulls, such as thisThe media also has a part to play in attitudes towards the breed.

"Sometimes if there's a dog attack, they'll use a photo of a Stafford in the paper before the true identity of the dog has been made," says Ms Brown.

The dogs are being villainised, say responsible owners. Lorien Hill is mum to a five-year-old, Lucas, and has a Staffie, one of three she has owned over the years.

"Billy looks all rough and tough on the outside, yet he's the most gentle dog ever and in touch with the emotions of those around him," she says.

"They call them nanny dogs and that's because they're like babysitters. When Lucas is in the garden, Billy sits near him just watching."

She agrees they are often just a status symbol. As a result people assume Staffies are aggressive and make assumptions about why she owns one.

"Someone at the school gate was sarcastic to me about my dog," she says. "They said 'good you didn't get an aggressive muscly dog then'. People just assume.
Villainised breeds

"I think things are changing and they're beginning to go out of fashion as the hard boy thing. That might be why there's so many in the shelters, because a lot of people are put off because they're seen as a chav dog."

Staffies are not the first breed of dogs to be villainised. German shepherds, dobermans and rottweilers have all suffered bad press.

"What they all have in common is they are big and strong," says the RSPCA's chief vet, Mark Evans. "A smaller dog could be just as aggressive but there is less chance of it being a life-threatening attack."

As a result it does not make the headlines, he adds.

""We need to educate people about how to care for Staffies and also the wider population to dispel some of the myths," says Mr Evans. "What a dog is like is not down to their breed it is down to their owner."

A selection of your comments appears below.

I recently encountered an owner of a Staffie who told me I should put my dog (a labrador) on a leash otherwise the Staffie would attack. Why should it be my responsibility to protect my dog from his? Surely if he knows his dog is potentially dangerous he should not have been walking it in public, let alone off the leash. Matt MacLeod, Radcliffe-on-Trent, Notts

As a professional woman, mother of a 12-month-old and the responsible owner of three pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terriers I have absolutely no desire to 'be hard'. I have Staffies because they are the most delightful company. To suggest an outright ban on this breed is ridiculous.Miriam, Staffordshire

I own a labrador puppy and the majority of Staffordshire bull terriers she comes into contact with go for her. If it wasn't for my intervention it would have been a bloodbath. This is the reason why they have such a bad reputation; how can you say that they are loyal loving animals?Sarah, West Midlands

Is it possible that your dogs started it? If they get attacked on a regular basis I'd suggest monitoring their behaviour, it could be that your dogs are eyeballing other dogs which is essentially an invitation to a fight but one which a lot of people don't pick up on and so the dog that reciprocates gets the blame. Jaime, Manchester, UK

Walking our Staffie-cross in the countryside, a man walking two labradors saw that our dog was a bull-breed and let his dogs off their leads. What was he trying to prove? The two labs came over and growled at our dog (on a lead) and a fight broke out. I was so scared as the two labs were biting my Connor's face so he had to bite one of them in the cheek. Because of his breed he got the blame and ever since certain people shout abuse at me in the street. They shout "Those dogs don't deserve to live". Kate, age 14, Gloucester

For all of those living in cities and sick of seeing snarling Staffs with an idiot on the other end of the lead, try getting out into more rural areas and you'll see what wonderful dogs these are when paired with responsible owners. They're eager to please their owners but some idiots take advantage of this by praising aggressive behaviour.John, Dartford, Kent

In my local park, many people walk their dogs off leads. It is not acceptable, my children have the right to safety. I also think it should also be brought into the school curriculum to teach children how to behave around animals, in closed and open spaces. I have owned many different breeds, as I love dogs. I would not want to own a strong powerful dog. Dogs like people can be unpredictable. Laws, strong regulations and big licence fees should be as standard in owning any dog.Anon

I work with young offenders who insist on getting these dogs in the hope of adding to their reputation and image. They are very often disappointed that the dog does not want to attack everything in sight and indeed would rather be played with and given lots of attention. Press reports attempt to induce some kind of moral panic. Michael McBride, Motherwell, Scotland
I'm just waiting to encounter a Staffie round here that isn't called Tyson... or Killer... Maybe unless you can think of a better name you should be banned from keeping one of these dogs?Sarah, Brixton, London

I really would prefer that reporters stop referring to us as a "nation of dog lovers". It is not only extremely likely that over 50% of the population has no interest in dogs, my experience tells me that it is also very likely that many people would be happy to never see a dog again. Rich, Hampshire

Our Staffordshire bull terrier was taken from the garden on Friday, 8 February in Knowsley, Merseyside. He is such a trusting dog that he went without so much as a bark with the four lads (in hoodies and on push bikes) that took him. He hasn't been neutered so we hope he's been taken for breeding... any other reason is just unthinkable. Leanne, Liverpool

I love Staffies! My sister has one and I want one too. Unfortunately my wife won't allow it as we have a two-year-old and a second on the way. I've told her their reputation is not the correct image to have but to no avail.Barry Murphy, Dunfermline

I've had people cross the road away from and my dog - which is very rude. On one occasion a lady picked up her little dog and carried it past me, because she thought my dog would be aggressive. Nothing would be further from the truth, he's as soft as jelly. Her dog, on the other hand, was a yappy Yorkshire terrier - with a bad case of the little-big-dog syndrom. The press never comment on their aggressive nature?Laura, Cardiff

We have two Staffies. The oldest is very large and often mistaken for a pit bull, but if you broke into our house you'd only be in danger of being licked to death.Sharon Partington, Birmingham, England

I do not agree that Staffies are not dangerous dogs. I have two Jack Russells and walk them twice a day. The only dogs which have attacked them without provocation or advance warning are Staffies. In our local park a Staffie has recently attacked children playing football, one of them so badly he needed stitches. Staffies may be good dogs at heart, but because of their strength if they are not trained properly they get out of control and then become dangerous. Soline Druffin, London

It's great to see Staffies getting some true press for a change. I have been the keeper of my Staffies for nine years now and they have proven to be highly affectionate towards people especially kids and very sociable with other animals. They are able to take an accidental knock with no fear of retaliation and they are really great characters. It's a shame this trait goes unrewarded for so many of them.Lee, Hampshire

Like most things in this world it comes down to intent. A screwdriver is a handy tool when you want it to be a tool... they can also be a vicious weapon when intended so. Staffies are naturally peaceful, watchful, intelligent and loving. One of the few dogs in the world that will sit there and have its ears tugged on by a child - and not react badly. A breed I look forward to having as part of my family again one day.Paul, Birmingham

I own two Staffordshire dogs and they are the most affectionate dogs I have ever owned. They prefer to sit on our laps and go to sleep than go out for a walk. The hoodie culture gives this breed a bad name.Jill Shurey, Welwyn Garden City, England

Thank you very much for this story. I don't own a Staffie myself but there are several people in my family who have one and they are all very friendly and loving dogs. Hopefully this story will help raise awareness of their true personality.John, Aberdeenshire, UK

These dogs should be banned full stop. They are like walking around with a loaded gun. My puppy was attacked by one recently, a five-month-old cocker. Did the Staffy just bite? No! It bit and clamped on and would not let go. I had my hands in the Staffie's mouth but could not release its jaws from my puppy's leg, even with all my might. My hands were obviously cut and I have a vet's bill for hundreds of pounds for repair to my dog's leg. They are dangerous. Even my vet is sick of treating other animals attacked by them. Who buys them? People who want to be hard. I don't need a dog for that...Stuart, Gloucester

KENNEL CLUB DEFINITION OF THE STAFFY TEMPERAMENT

Indomitably courageous

Tenacious

Highly intelligent

Affectionate, especially with children

Bold

Fearless

Totally reliable

First order for pet dog cloning

2008-02-15T10:26:00.002-05:00

The South Korean firm hopes to clone hundreds more dogsA South Korean company says it has taken its first order for the cloning of a pet dog.

A woman from the United States wants her dead pitbull terrier - called Booger - re-created.

RNL Bio is charging the woman, from California, $150,000 (£76,000) to clone the pitbull using tissue extracted from its ear before it died.

The work will be carried out by a team from Seoul National University, where the first dog was cloned in 2005.

Commercial cloning

RNL Bio says this is the first time a dog will have been cloned commercially.

"There are many people who want to clone their pet dogs in Western countries even at this high price," company chief executive, Ra Jeong-chan, told the Korea Times.

The cost of cloning a dog may come down to less than $50,000

Cho Seong-Ryul, RNL Bio

The firm is expecting hundreds more orders for pets over the next few years and also plans to clone dogs trained to sniff out bombs or drugs.

One out of every four surrogate mother dogs produces puppies, according to RNL Bio's marketing director, Cho Seong-ryul.

"The cost of cloning a dog may come down to less than $50,000 as cloning is becoming an industry," he said.

Dog attack

The pitbull's owner, Bernann McKunney, gave the company ear tissue, which an American biotech firm preserved before the animal died 18 months ago.

She is said to have been particularly attached to the dog, after it saved her life when another dog attacked her and bit off her arm.

The university's team is led by Professor Lee Byeong-chun, who was previously in a team headed by the disgraced stem cell scientist, Hwang Woo-suk.

Mr Hwang's results on cloning human stem cells, initially hailed as a breakthrough, were found to have been falsified and he is now on trial charged with embezzlement and fake research.

But the team did succeed in creating the world's first cloned dog two years ago - an Afghan hound named Snuppy.

They continued with the programme, cloning more dogs and also producing clones of Korean grey wolves.

Dog gets death sentence

2008-02-14T11:11:00.001-05:00

Pit bull or just pitiable?
Court backs decision to put down dog accused of biting Toronto man
Feb 14, 2008 04:30 AM
Tracy Huffman Staff Reporter

Is he a pit bull or isn't he?

Did he bite a man and his dog or was the man threatening him with a knife?

The facts are unclear, but Munchie's fate may be sealed. This week a court upheld a decision by Toronto Animal Services to have the 4-year-old dog destroyed. Munchie has 30 days to live, pending an appeal.

The case began last September when Munchie escaped his downtown backyard. A scuffle ended with Munchie's quarantine and criminal charges against the man the dog is alleged to have attacked.

Sheila Yeung, one of Munchie's owners, said her neighbour had previously threatened to kill the dog and on that day he attacked the dog with a knife. When the dog broke free of his grasp, it ran into the house, she said.

Yeung, a 21-year-old Ryerson student, said she locked her door only to have the man break in, make threats and hold her at knifepoint. That man currently faces charges including uttering threats, break and enter and threatening with a weapon. None of the allegations has been proven in court.

But the man claims he and his dog were bitten. As a result, Munchie was quarantined and has remained with Animal Services since.

In October, Animal Services classified Munchie as a pit bull, and a threat to the safety of others.
Yeung said the dog is gentle and friendly. Munchie is a mutt who looks like a chocolate Lab, she said.

She does not believe he is a pit bull, and a Canadian Kennel Club-licensed judge agrees. After assessing the dog, Mike Macbeth concluded Munchie is not a pit bull but a mongrel that most resembles a field Labrador.

"I thought this case was a slam dunk. He doesn't have any characteristics of a pit bull. He looks like a skinny chocolate Lab," said Macbeth. But the court concluded Macbeth was biased and noted that of the eight dogs she has assessed for court cases, she has claimed none were pit bulls.

Eletta Purdy, manager of Animal Services, said looking at pictures of Munchie can be misleading.

"We believe he is a restricted pit bull," she said. "... We had evidence that the dog did attack and bit at least one person and one animal. Upon investigation of that incident, we believed it would continue to be a menace."

A restricted pit bull is one born and owned in Ontario before Aug. 29, 2005, when the province-wide ban on pit bulls came into effect.

Purdy said staff use accumulated knowledge, training and experience to determine the breed of a dog. In the case of a pit bull, legislation also provides guidance.

The Dog Owners' Liability Act defines a pit bull as a pit bull terrier, a Staffordshire bull terrier,
an American Staffordshire terrier, an American pit bull terrier or a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are "substantially similar" to those dogs.

Yeung and Angela Feng, 24, co-owner of the dog, said they're upset the court rejected the argument Munchie is not a pit bull. The court ordered they pay $15,000 in court costs, money they don't have.

Lawyer Terry Green argued the expert they hired has more experience and knowledge than those at Animal Services. "Munchie looks like Bill Clinton's dog Buddy. He's a chocolate Lab," Green said.

Yeung and Feng have 30 days to file an appeal or Munchie will be destroyed.

Moncton man rescue rats

2008-02-06T14:49:00.001-05:00

Local rat lover houses abandoned, neglected rodents while trying find them good homes

By NATHAN ROCHFORDTIMES & TRANSCRIPT STAFF

Clark Graham has 87 rats in his house. He knows this because he put them there.

No, he's not trying to unload an unreasonable amount of cheese and he's not grocery shopping for a pet python. On the contrary, Graham runs Angel's Heart, a rat rescue on the old Shediac Road.

Similar to the SPCA in the sense that it provides a home for abused and abandoned animals, Graham's non-profit rescue, one of the few in existence, has been in operation for seven years and caters to rat lovers across the Maritimes who, for a price, can adopt a cuddly rodent for themselves.

"There is no money to be made," Graham said. "I adopt them out at a reasonable price so they won't become food for snakes. I charge enough so they won't go for that."

Graham asks for a donation of $15 from people adopting a rat, which he hopes will deter anyone looking to buy cheap snake food. The money is then spent on feeding and housing the rats who can ring up $40 in grocery bills weekly.

"An adoption form must be filled out, people must be approved. I make sure my rats are going to a good home."

Graham said applicants must go through a rigorous interview process before being allowed to take their chosen rat home.

Most of his customers are contacted through his website where they are able to leave messages inquiring about possible adoptions. Some from as far away as Ottawa.

Gillian Goodwin, a local customer and veterinarian, met Graham through a friend.

Growing up she had always liked mice, but like many people, was afraid of rats. That changed thanks to a friend who introduced her to the animals she now considers, "little dogs."

Goodwin has eight rats of her own and fosters a number of rats for Graham on the side. She said, despite what people think, they are actually a very clean animal, grooming themselves almost as often as cats, and can be as social as most dogs.

"They're not a pet you can just put in a cage and ignore," he said, adding a rat needs at least an hour of human contact daily outside of its cage.

Which isn't a problem for Goodwin as all of her rats are house-broken and use a litter box.
"They're like little dogs only in smaller bodies," she said.

It was roughly six years ago when Graham took in his first rat. Before that he had always owned more traditional pets like dogs and cats.

"All my life I've had dogs, I've had cats," he said. "I've had almost all the animals there are."
But after a friend introduced him to rats that all changed.

"I fell in love with them," Graham said. "They are very affectionate."

Aside from having rats of his own he also takes in rats people leave in fields or abandon at shelters like the SPCA. Some have been neglected, even abused.

"Some were not social because they were abused," Graham said. "But I have a way with rats so I turned them into good little rats."

Despite people's usual dislike of rats Graham said all they need is a proper loving environment to thrive in. He said after taking one abused rat in it became so gentle he could feed it rice out of his hand without worrying about being bitten.

"You have to have patience, time and a lot of love for them."

However, because rats have an average lifespan of approximately three years, Graham has to make his love count.

"It does take a lot from you because they do not have a long lifespan so you have to deal with that a lot," he said. "I've lost my fair share of rats over the years, but the love you share with them is worth it."

The rats are housed in cages with the females separated from the males to prevent mass breeding, something Graham said would be inevitable if they weren't divided.

"They go in heat every few days," he said. "They can multiply very fast."

Doggone Laws

2008-02-06T11:49:00.000-05:00

By: Selma Mulvey Burford, Ontario
February 5, 2008 09:42 PM

Dear Editor:Regarding an editorial questioning the priorities of those writing in support of Rambo, the mixed breed dog currently in the spotlight, I'd like to clarify.

Like many, the author of this piece has been distracted by a well crafted red herring, the pit bull, and has failed to grasp the implications of Ontario's dog ownership ban. In a recent Superior Court decision two key provisions were struck down. The matter is on its way to the Ontario Court of Appeals.

People must understand the reason The Dog Legislation Council of Canada and other groups in Banned Aid are taking this through the courts at great cost is because laws of this kind do not affect dogs. (These laws) aren't about dogs. They are about dog owners. Actually, the owners of any type of property are equally at risk, once a precedent has been set, as we have seen with the racing car Bill 232, which is very similar in approach — vague, subjective and discriminatory. In Ontario today, we have legislated discrimination, brought in on the back of a nonexistent breed of dog. Pit bull is a slang term for a group of breeds, unrelated lookalike breeds and a huge number of mongrels.

Here's what all dog owners in Ontario now face on a daily basis, regardless of the breed or mixed breed of their pets:
1. Warrantless entry into a private residence if a peace officer (which could even be a private citizen) believes a dog inside is threatening either a human or domestic animal;
2. Seizure of the dog, using whatever force is deemed necessary, whether the owner is present or not;
3. Unreasonable search and seizure if a dog is deemed to be exhibiting menacing behaviour, which is undefined in the law.

Presumed guilty, stigmatized, open to unreasonable search and seizure, unequal before the law, forced to prove the impossible, restricted in mobility, open to unconstitutional vagueness and trial unfairness — all of this and more has been legislated against dog owners for no good reason.

We are still waiting for evidence proving that 'pit bulls' are responsible for more bites, attacks or fatal maulings than other breeds and mixed breeds in Canada, let alone Ontario. Dog bite records, fatality records, hospital records, safety council statistics — none support this bizarre piece of legislation. Yes, we have had a handful of serious attacks in Ontario over the past 15 years or so by dogs identified as pit bulls. We have had many more serious attacks by other breeds and shapes during the same time period. Where's the hysteria?

As a Canadian, I consider it incumbent upon me to fight this type of discrimination. Laws like this should not even be considered, let alone enacted. It's time to fight for your rights, people, while you still have some left.

Pair of pooches escape pit bull-phobic province

2008-02-04T12:17:00.000-05:00

By TIFFANY MAYER
Standard Staff

Under cover of the early morning darkness, Gracie and Capone made their getaway.

Within a few short hours, the duo boarded a plane bound for Calgary and began their exile.

They had no choice, being marked for death had they stayed in St. Catharines.

But such is life when your crime is being a pit bull in Ontario.

Friday morning, the pooches with gentle dispositions and names more suited to mean booze runners during prohibition, were taken into the care of the Pit Bulls for Life Foundation of Alberta thanks to Lincoln County Humane Society staff efforts to spare them from euthanization.
“In order to save these dogs, we’re going to do what’s necessary, but we can’t do it for each one,” said Kevin Strooband, humane society executive director.

Doing what’s necessary meant spending months trying to find a shelter or agency outside the province to take the dogs from the shelter.

Last fall, Capone was surrendered to the humane society when his owner was incarcerated. Gracie was abandoned when she was thrown over a 2.1-metre fence into a pen behind the Fourth Avenue shelter.

Without knowing whether they were born before a provincial ban on the breed took effect in 2005, the shelter’s only option for the dogs was to ship them out of Ontario or destroy them. Pit bulls born after October 2005 can not be put up for adoption.

Strooband said staff made the effort to save the dogs because of the animals’ calm temperament. Had there not been a ban, he said he would have adopted Capone.

“They’re amazing,” Strooband said. “(Capone) thinks he’s just a little guy. He’s so friendly. He doesn’t know he’s viewed as this nasty dog in Ontario.”

But more than two years after the ban, Strooband said it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find shelters or pit bull-rescue organizations to take the dogs.

The humane society has already shipped out dogs to Edmonton, Nova Scotia, New York and Pennsylvania to spare them a death sentence.

Brandy Campbell-Briggs, founder of the Pit Bulls for Life Foundation, which is based in Calgary, said her organization has an Alberta-first mandate, despite there being no provincewide ban there.

However, Edmonton has a bylaw prohibiting ownership of the dogs. Meanwhile, shelters in other cities have policies that won’t allow them to put the dogs up for adoption.

“Some shelters could send us dogs every day,” Campbell-Briggs said about an hour after picking up Capone and Gracie from the airport.

But they may not all be like the duo from Ontario. While Campbell-Briggs only offers refuge to dogs with no aggression toward humans and very little toward other animals, she was quite taken with her new wards who will stay in foster homes until they’re adopted.

“Capone is one of the most amazing dogs I’ve ever met. He’s a very well-behaved dog. It’s really a shame their fate is not a good one in Ontario,” Campbell-Briggs said. “I’m pretty sure both dogs won’t take long to place in (permanent) homes.”

Voices: Banning pit bulls

2008-01-24T14:13:00.000-05:00

Jan 24, 2008 11:01 AM

Is the pit bull ban fair?

Here’s what you had to say:

Absolutely. These dogs are designed to be vicious. Yes, they are very loyal and lovable to their owners, but if they detect a threat, they can become killers. Someone on my street has one, and whenever they walk by with the dog, I am very careful to get my kids out of the way of the dog. I am not at all comfortable having that dog anywhere near my kids. Paul Gardiner, Mississauga

I am amazed at the percent of people that thing the ban is fair. I am willing to bet that most if not all of those people couldn't pick a pit bull out of a line-up of pictures. For once, it is nice to see the media focusing on the good owners of pit bulls, instead of the ones that earned these beautiful dogs their murderous reputation. Carla Cummins, Dresden

The ban is in place for a reason. Have we forgotten so soon that these dogs routinely maul and kill people and other dogs? All puppies are cute, but in the case of these dogs, they too often grow up to become savage, unpredictable and uncontrollable killers. How did this person get the illegal dog, anyway? Shaun Smith, Toronto

I totally agree with the ban. The breed is very unpredictable and a represents a threat to the public at large. With regards to the current situation, the owner of this puppy should have been aware of the law prohibiting ownership of the animal. These dogs seem to represent a certain bravado to some people. Before the law was passed there were groups of teens roaming the streets in my area with four or five of these dogs in tow. I think this bravado still lives on in this pet owner too - what does the name Rambo conjure up to most people: aggression? You don't hear of many Bijons with that name. Tony Youngfox, Brampton

The pit bull law is the most regressive piece of legislation I've seen in 20 years. Since when do Canadians judge anything as guilty before there is any kind of evidence of bad behaviour? Yes, the pit bull is an animal breed, but their reputation is based on the mishandling by a few bad owners who wish to make a point about how tough they are. Don't euthanize an innocent dog. Deborah Fenton, Kingston

To go after owners of pit bulls is a good idea in theory but not very practical. Pit bulls are the animal equivalent to handguns. Whenever I have seen a pit bull, they are always accompanied by the same macho low life personality whom are always on the look out for a confrontation. Giving these morons access to one more potentially violent tool is irresponsible Scott MacDougall, St. George’s

The province's pit bull ban does nothing to curb the problem of dangerous dogs. The people who are creating, abusing and training dangerous dogs of all breeds are those that should be targeted. The legislature needs to revisit this issue and put a law in place that actually addresses the problem of dangerous and vicious dogs: a law that targets the people responsible for this problem and not the innocent animals that are victims as much as the humans who suffer from dog attacks as well. Meredith Gardiner, London

The pit bull ban is not fair. The issue should be the behaviour of individual dogs. Only dogs that are dangerous should be affected. Many breeds are capable of having badly trained individual dogs. Unfit owners should be targeted. Louise Patenall, Ancaster

I believe the pit bull ban is fair. It is a breed of dog that cannot be trusted and will turn on their own master after years of having one. The facts have already presented themselves. I think that should say it all. Kelly Burnley, Pembroke, ON

Why anyone would want to own any breed of dog that is infamous for maiming and killing other animals and human beings is beyond my imagination. I wonder if it's a power trip for people who lack self-esteem and feel powerless in their own lives. Jo Sorrill, Whitby

The ban has always been ridiculous and cruel in my mind. I also have yet to meet anyone who feels it's justified. I had a Staffordshire for seven years. I adopted her when she was four years old. I sadly had to put her down four months ago due to age and illness. It was devastating - she was by far the most well behaved dog I have ever met, and everyone who met her would agree. They are sweet and loyal and loving and need to be in the right hands, as all dogs should be Kristina Achilles, Toronto

I think it is time that all rational human beings (animal lovers or not) realize that this particular ban on certain breed types does not effectively solve the problem. It is a scientific fact that an aggressive dog is an aggressive dog - period. A large role in the making of an aggressive dog is played by the owner. As long as we have insecure people who play out their "tough, macho" fantasies through their dogs, the problem will persist. Abhijit Banerjee, Pickering

The pit bull ban is ridiculous. It is bad owners, not bad animals we need to be looking at here. Animals follow instincts and need to be trained. The fact that there are idiots who (according to the article) "drop the leashes and run" tells us what we need to know about who should be receiving the punishment for bad dog behaviour. Once again, innocents are paying for our short sighted selfishness. Julie Stewart, Toronto

Pit bulls are not a natural breed. They were created by thoughtless people for one purpose, to fight to the death. One has to question why, with over 700 breeds of dogs and various cross breeds available, why we need legislation to force people not to adopt such an animal a family pet. Ross McLean, Ailsa Craig

Banning specific breeds of dogs seems asinine to me. Pit bulls tend to attract more attention than other dogs, but there are lots of other dogs that will attack people if not properly trained too. The problem is not with the breed, but with the owners not properly training their dogs. Training of dogs should be mandatory, and the dog should need to pass the training criteria. Brett Lounsbury, St. Catharines

No, I don't think it's fair. There's tons of info and stats I could quote to prove that point but I think I'll simply say: the owner makes the dog. An aggressive owner can train any dog to become aggressive and dangerous. A kind and caring owner makes a loving and friendly dog whether pit bull or not. As can be attested by the many beautiful and friendly and sweet pit bulls out there. So all the pit bull ban does is change which breed those aggressive owners are going to train into dangerous dogs. Ida Jagaric, Toronto

Who came up with the brilliant idea of wiping out a whole breed of dog because it's easier than chasing down bad pet owners? We treat many dog bites in the ER every year. Even before the big ban of 2005, pitbull bites were responsible for under 1% of all the dog bites in a year. I've listened to horror stories from victims and I believe the problem lies with irresponsible dog owners. Maybe we're licensing the wrong end of the dog/master union. Perhaps people should have to prove their ability to be a pet owner. It seems like dogs are getting a pretty bad rep in Ontario. Laura St. Hiliare, Lindsay

It's not a "stupid law". It's a sane law. And since it's come into affect there's been practically zero attacks on children and people by the pit bull breed. Don't try and cloud the facts councilman. American Stafffordshire is a breed. Because there's slight variations within the breed, doesn't mean the dog does not exist. It's a weak argument. The people who own these dogs have them for a specific purpose. Just like the people who own guns, it gives them a sense of power. This dog was bred to fight and that's part of their makeup. There's no way to get rid of that trait. Jack Rumney, Barrie

If the dog hasn't done anything then leave it alone. Make sure the dog is living in a loving home where proper training is provided for it. Dogs are not aggressive but owners are and they are the ones that need to correct this aggression as soon as it’s spotted in the puppy. Giancarlo Cordova, Toronto

I am appalled at this article - this puppy who needs socialization, love and attention to become a non violent member of society is being held in a cage for nothing more than because he is the 'wrong' breed. In fact, animal control is now contributing to making this animal into what they fear. Diane Whittington, Toronto

Our neighbour’s full-grown pit-bull got off its leash and attacked my wife and child while we sat at the picnic table in our front yard in Parkdale. I kept an axe by the front door because I feared such an incident and was able to keep the dog from striking a target. My son was six months old at the time. I want to thank the Ontario government for recognizing the threat and making our family safer. David Greig, Toronto

you rather wait until this dog is fully grown and mauls some two-year-old and disfigures them for life? Sure he looks cute now at 10 months but when he is and adult fully grown dog he'll be hell on four paws. My next concern is how was this dog conceived? The parents were supposed to be neutered by law quite a while ago. Ken Hall, Havelock ON

Dog's Life Hangs In Balance As Owner Battles Pit Bull Law In Court

2008-01-24T14:09:00.000-05:00

Thursday January 24, 2008
CityNews.ca Staff

It seems only appropriate that a dog named Rambo might be the one to topple or alter Ontario's controversial law banning pit bulls.

The 10-month-old puppy got away from his owner in Mississauga on Christmas Day and was wandering the streets unleashed and unmuzzled in direct violation of the law. Animal control experts collared the dog and took him into custody. Rambo's owner, Gabriela Nowakowska, was charged with owning a prohibited animal and the dog faced the prospect of being put down.

But the 20-year-old is refusing to take the edict lightly and is now challenging the interpretation of the law - arguing her dog isn't really a pit bull at all.

You may remember the controversy when the legislation was first introduced in 2005. Many critics insisted there was no way to tell what actually constituted a pit bull-type breed and warned there could be legal challenges. But after a series of highly publicized attacks involving dogs, the Liberals pushed it through anyway.

The law forced all canines deemed to be pit bulls to wear a muzzle in public and be properly restrained. They weren't allowed to run free and while owners were allowed to keep their existing pets, the edict made it clear any new puppies or dogs from the breed wouldn't be allowed into the province. If newcomers were found three months after the ban began in August 2005, the rules were clear: they would have to be euthanized.

Now Nowakowska intends to challenge the ban in court, with high stakes on both sides. If she wins, the law could be struck down or altered. If she loses, her dog will be killed. The owner is raising a war chest to help her in the looming battle with the legal system and is getting contributions from those opposed to the ban.

To win, she'll have to prove a negative - that her dog isn't a pit bull. For now, Rambo remains in limbo, in a cage and in the custody of officials in Mississauga. His life depends on the outcome of the case, which will be heard on February 29th.

Source: Vick 'one of the heavyweights' in dogfighting

2007-06-04T13:11:00.000-04:00

By Kelly NaqiSpecial to ESPN.com
Updated: May 31, 2007.

He arrived at the hotel room, where our cameras were set up, in a T-shirt and jeans. "I'm nervous," he said, surveying our lights and camera equipment. "I've never done anything like this before."

Our confidential source said he's been involved in dogfighting for more than 30 years. He has trained and fought -- by his estimation -- about 2,000 pit bulls and was poised to tell "Outside the Lines" about the time in 2000 when his dog squared off against a dog owned by someone he referred to as one of the "heavyweights" of the dogfighting world: Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick.

"He's a pit bull fighter," the source said of Vick. "He's one of the ones that they call 'the big boys': that's who bets a large dollar. And they have the money to bet large money. As I'm talking about large money -- $30,000 to $40,000 -- even higher. He's one of the heavyweights."

On April 25, authorities raided a house in Surry County, Va., owned by Vick and reportedly found -- among other things -- 66 dogs (most of which were pit bulls), a dog-fighting pit, bloodstained carpets and equipment commonly associated with dogfighting. Vick was not at the scene and denied knowledge of dogfighting at the property. To this point, no charges have been filed against him. But questions about Vick and his possible connection to dogfighting linger.

This source -- who required anonymity as a condition of our interview -- has helped law enforcement by supplying information on dog fights that has led to dozens of felony arrests.

"I've fought dogs, I pitted them, I bred them and I've done everything with them," said the source of his three decades in dogfighting. He then went on to describe the scene from that night seven years ago, as he took his 42-pound dog into the pit (the area dogs fight in) to face off against Vick's dog. He says Vick did not get into the pit but had a member of his entourage handle his dog while Vick placed bets with the 20 or so people in attendance.

Outside The Lines
Michael Vick's role in dog fighting's hidden society and a look at why some athletes participate in the brutal and illegal activity are examined Tuesday at 3:30 p.m. ET on OTL.

"Then he started, you know, waving money," the source said. "He was betting with everybody … He said he got $5,000. He said he's betting on his animal."

Although the source said he doesn't know how much Vick bet that night, he does recall the matches' outcome: Vick's dog lost. He said Vick is known in the dogfighting community as "the man that comes with all the money" and his reputation is "[that] he brings a good dog and he's going to bet and he's going to bring a nice sum of cash."

ESPN contacted Vick's agent, Joel Segal, who did not respond to the source's allegations.
In the U.S., dogfighting is considered a felony in every state except Wyoming and Idaho. Despite that fact, according to The Humane Society, it's estimated that somewhere between 20,000-40,000 people in this country take part in this multibillion-dollar industry.

"I believe that dogfighting is on the upswing," said John Goodwin, the deputy manager of the Animal Cruelty Campaign for The Humane Society. "And I believe that certain elements of the pop culture have glamorized dogfighting and glamorized big, tough pit bulls."

American pit bull terriers account for 99 percent of the species involved in dogfighting, and a pit bull puppy can cost as much as $5,000. An average dog fight carries a $10,000 purse.

So why would a professional athlete risk his reputation -- and a lifetime of financial security -- to do this?

"For the thrill of it," said a member of the Professional Football Hall of Fame who asked not to be identified. "It's like gambling, no different than when Michael Jordan drops $100,000 on a hole of golf."

There's no official data on just how many professional athletes might be associated with dogfighting today. Before the current investigation against Vick, in the past couple of years, only two professional athletes stand out as having been linked publicly to allegations of dogfighting: former NBA forward Qyntel Woods (who faced possible charges of dogfighting before pleading guilty to animal abuse in 2005) and former NFL running back LeShon Johnson, who pleaded guilty to three charges related to dogfighting, also, in 2005. Johnson is serving a five-year deferred sentence. But those players only scratch the surface of what Goodwin calls a "subculture" of dogfighting among professional athletes.

Everybody in the dog world is worried about Michael Vick talking. Michael Vick is making large money; he's making millions, OK? And if he has to tell on some people [to avoid prison time], I think he would tell … I don't put nothing past him.

Confidential source
"You know, it's very interesting that we have got a whole roster of names of professional athletes that we know are involved in dogfighting," Goodwin said. "Surely, not every single one has come to light; I bet not even 10 percent have come to light."

If that's true, one reason might have to do with the "code of silence" among dog fighters. The source said many matches take place on rural farms, with lookouts stationed in the woods and down surrounding roads, up to eight miles away. He adds that sometimes, local sheriffs are paid off to look the other way -- that is, when they're not participating in the dog fights themselves. But with as many as 200 people in attendance at any given match, how is it possible that a high-profile athlete can attend dog fights and never have word get out to the general public?

"Dogfighting is a very private thing," answers the source, who said that Vick was still involved in dogfighting as recently as last year. "It's all Pit Bull Men. It's close knit: you got your little boys, then you got your heavyweight boys. It's a completely different class … And now [that] it's all over the media, and you have to keep it more private."

The source said he consented to our interview to change people's perceptions about dogfighting because they have "the wrong idea" about it and should see "just one" match for themselves before judging it. "They'll let this other thing go -- what is it called? UFC [Ultimate Fighting Championship]?" he asked. "That is every bit as bad -- you know, that's terrible. But then you have thousands of people that cheer, rah, rah, and they really love that. You see guys get their heads busted, you know, and they get their arms messed up, their legs twisted almost off. But then they fuss over this here, is wrong."

When asked what he thinks people's reactions will be when they learn of his account of Vick's involvement in dogfighting, the source was nonplussed.

"They shouldn't be really upset, OK?" he said. "Because it's only just an animal. It's just a dog that is raised up. He's put out there, you know, and he's chained up, OK. And the time he gets a certain age, this dog is going to want to fight. It is bred in him, OK? He knows what he is and he's going to fight. Just take him off the leash, let him go."

"Dogfighting is illegal for a reason," Goodwin said. "It's a severe form of cruelty."

"The gameness that the dog fighters strive for -- and 'gameness' is the willingness to continue fighting, even in the face of extreme pain, even in the face of death -- is something that's bred into the dogs," Goodwin said. "There are pit bulls that have been bred away from the fighting lines that are perfectly socialized, but the game-bred dogs -- bred for fighting -- just have it bred in them to want to kill any dog in front of them."

On Friday, Surry County Commonwealth Attorney Gerald Poindexter told The Associated Press that the investigation against Vick is "moving forward." When contacted by ESPN and asked for a response to the source's contention of Vick's involvement in dogfighting, Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts responded via e-mail, "Michael was drafted by the Falcons in 2001. The allegations regarding him are still under investigation, and until we have facts related to the investigation, we are unable to respond further."

The NFL released this statement: "Dogfighting is cruel, degrading, and illegal. We support a thorough investigation into any allegations of this type of activity. Any NFL employee proved to be involved in this type of activity will be subject to prompt and significant discipline under our personal conduct policy."

While the NFL continues to monitor the Vick investigation, there's another group closely monitoring it, as well … but for a different reason.

"Everybody in the dog world is worried about Michael Vick talking," the source said, shortly before leaving our interview room and heading back to work. "Michael Vick is making large money; he's making millions, OK? And if he has to tell on some people [to avoid prison time], I think he would tell … I don't put nothing past him."

Superior Court Strikes Down Key Elements of Flawed Pitbull Ban

2007-03-26T11:54:00.000-04:00

TORONTO, March 23 /CNW/ - Despite headlines proclaiming that Ontario's pitbull ban has been upheld by the Superior Court, the Toronto Humane Societyis thrilled that two key aspects of the law have been struck down. Firstly the vague definition of "pitbull and pitbull-like" has been found faulty. The ban, while it stands, now applies only to purebred pitbulls. This removes death sentences from literally thousands of dogs who have had the misfortune of being pitbull-like. Secondly, bylaw enforcement officers are no longer allowed to go to court armed only with a veterinarian's certificate stating that the dog in question is a pitbull. This is significant because you can't cross-examine a piece of paper. The combination of the clarified definition and the added civic responsibility of demanding witnesses actually attend court will make it far more difficult to prosecute questionable and spurious cases. In fact, it looks like the law has actually applied the traditional standard of fairness, which is to say most of the mixed-breed dogs that have been unfairly caught in the net of the original legislation are now innocent until proven guilty.

If you'd like any more information or want to come down to the THS,
please contact senior communicator Lee Oliver.

Ont. pitbull ban upheld by court

2007-03-26T11:51:00.000-04:00

TORONTO — The Ontario Superior court has upheld Ontario’s controversial pit bull ban legislation.

“We consider this to be a good day for public safety in Ontario,” Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant told reporters Friday.

“This is the first legislation of its kind, I would anticipate that it would now be copied in a number of jurisdictions across North America.”

The Dog Owner’s Liability Act bans Ontarians from acquiring pitbulls and says owners must neuter existing animals and ensure they’re leashed and muzzled in public.

Violators face a maximum penalty of $10,000 and six months in jail.

Ontario’s Liberal government introduced the ban following a series of horrific attacks that left people badly maimed.

The court did find fault with two provisions of the legislation.

In the first instance, it didn’t accept that pitbull terriers (as opposed to purebred pitbulls) be subject to the ban.

In the second, it said it wasn’t acceptable for bylaw enforcement officers going after violators to go to court armed only with a veterinarian’s signed document stating the animal involved is a pit bull. In the future, such expert testimony will have to be presented in person.

Caroline Wawzonek, a lawyer representing Toronto pitbull owner Catherine Cochrane, said the court decision will be appealed.

Cochrane’s constitutional challenge of the act was backed by the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, which represents a number of dog breeding and animal interest groups.

Prominent Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby, who led Cochrane’s legal team, argued in his presentation to the court last spring that the definition of pitbull in the provincial law is too vague.

Part Of Ontario's Pit Bull Law Struck Down

2007-03-26T11:48:00.000-04:00

Friday March 23, 2007

It's the first crack in the dam of what could be a very big legal flood.

An Ontario Superior Court Justice has struck down parts of the province's controversial pitbull law.

The legislation, which bans the breeds outright in Ontario, has been bitterly opposed by advocates who claim only irresponsible owners are to blame for problems with the dogs.

The court ruled two key parts of the law, including the definition of what a pit bull is, are unconstitutional. And the jurist found using a veterinarian to prove a dog's breed also violates the law.

Despite the outcome, the Attorney General - who pressed so hard to get the new legislation passed - insists 99 percent of the rules are still in place and that the vast majority of the law stands.

"This means that the law continues, which means no more pit bulls in Ontario," contends Michael Bryant. "No pit bulls sold, bred or imported into the province of Ontario.

"People should continue to leash and muzzle their pit bulls; pit bulls are banned are in Ontario, and that has been upheld by the Ontario Superior Court.

"Pit bulls remain banned, the purebred definitions of pit bulls are banned, anything substantially similar to those purebreds are banned."

But it appears the lawyers for the other side are far from satisfied by this judgment.

"We saved 'pit bull terriers' but not the other breeds," a statement from Clayton Ruby's law firm reads. "We made it impossible for the Crown to prove its case with a piece of paper signed by a veterinarian."

They vow to continue to appeal until they get the law quashed or changed.

Ontario Pit Bull Law

What breeds are included?

American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers or any other breeds sharing 'substantially similar' characteristics

When did it take effect?

It was in full force on Friday, October 28, 2005.

What are the regulations?

The amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act (DOLA) bar people from owning, breeding, transferring, importing, or abandoning pit bulls.

Pit bulls kept legally after the ban have been 'grandfathered', and will be allowed to stay for the rest of their lives.

Pit bull owners must have their dogs leashed and muzzled in public and sterilized. Additionally, owners aren't allowed to train them to fight, and can't let them stray.

The only time a muzzle isn't required is when the dog is on the owner's property, or on another person's property if they consent to the muzzle's removal.

Muzzles should be humane, but strong enough to prevent the animal from biting without interfering with its ability to breathe, pant, see, or drink.

The leash must not exceed 1.8 metres.

What are the penalties if laws are broken?

$10,000 fine ($60,000 for corporations) and/or

Six months imprisonment and/or

The court could order the person convicted to compensate the victim and/or

The animal could be taken away or destroyed

The law stipulates that the owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack regardless of whether the owner is at fault or negligent.

Courtesy Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General

500 dogs killed in pit bull ban's wake

2007-01-23T17:52:00.000-05:00

Humane Society says city's too quick in putting down dogs
By ZEN RURYK, CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

The city has put down 500 pit bulls and other similar dogs since the province targeted the canines in a tougher provincial law that took affect 16 months ago.

Toronto animal control officials report a 13% increase in the number of pit bulls -- and other dogs of similar breeds -- that have been destroyed when comparing the 16-month periods following and prior to the changes to the Dog Owners' Liability Act on Aug. 29, 2005.

The city euthanized 441 pit bull-type canines -- 59 fewer -- during the 16 months before the law took affect.

"It's significant enough -- certainly to those 59 dogs," said Eletta Purdy, manager of Toronto Animal Services.

She added yesterday that the increase is likely due to provisions that prevent animal officials from putting up banned pit bulls for adoption.

The legislation bans ownership of pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and any other dog that possesses characteristics of those singled out on the list.

However, exemptions are granted if someone in Ontario owned one of the targeted dogs at the time the law was enacted. Animal control officials cannot put dogs up for adoption if they do not qualify for an exemption to an ownership ban.

Purdy said she doesn't know whether the legislation's anti-pit bull provisions have made Toronto a safer place.

"I don't know that pit bulls, per se, were the main issue as far as dealing with dog bites and attacks," she said. "I think the issue was mainly having to do with specific dogs and their behaviour as opposed to a breed group."

Animal control is now determining the number of pit bull attacks on humans that have occurred since the legislation came into force.

Purdy said the law does have measures that allow animal control to better deal with menacing dogs in general.

Lee Oliver, of the Toronto Humane Society, which opposes the breed-specific ban, said he believes those enforcing the legislation in Ontario are too quick to put down the dogs.

"If people will slow down and pay attention, we don't have to be euthanizing all these dogs," he added.

Oliver said that when there's doubt, animal control officials are destroying pit bulls instead of asking questions.

Of the 122 dogs up for adoption at the Toronto Humane Society yesterday, 50 of the pit bulls had had owners.

FACTS SINCE THE LEGISLATION TOOK EFFECT

City animal control officials have euthanized 500 pit bulls and other similar dogs since new provincial legislation kicked in August 2005:

- 122 of the euthanized animals were put down at the request of an owner.

- Concerns about temperament or behaviour prompted the euthanization of 107 of the animals.

- The courts ordered eight to be destroyed.

- Another 195 were put down because they were banned -- no evidence someone owned them prior to the implementation of the law.

- 26 for health reasons.

- 42 were euthanized for other reasons.

- The city estimates there are 250,000 dogs in Toronto. Dog owners have purchased licences for 24,267 pets. Of that total, 1,185 of the licences are for pit bulls and dogs of similar breeds.

- Animal control officers have laid 137 charges against owners since the new legislation came into force in connection with 93 pit bull-related complaints.

- Changes to the Dog Owners' Liability Act ban people from owning pit bulls, Straffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers or any other dog that has the characteristics of those.

- Those who continue to own pit bulls must abide by regulations that require they be sterilized and leashed and muzzled in public.

Surgeon induces dog aneurysm in sales demo

2007-01-20T19:21:00.000-05:00

Cleveland Clinic says procedure was unauthorized; animal euthanized

CLEVELAND - A neurosurgeon used a dog with an induced brain aneurysm to demonstrate a medical device to salespeople, a hospital said Thursday.The dog was anesthetized during the demonstration and euthanized afterward, according to the Cleveland Clinic, a renowned academic medical center.

The hospital uses animals for medical research but this demonstration was unauthorized, a hospital statement said. The clinic has reported the incident to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates animal testing.

“As an academic medical center, Cleveland Clinic does not allow procedures with animals for the sole purpose of sales training,” the clinic said in a statement.

The surgeon, who was not immediately identified, was presenting a device used to treat aneurysms Wednesday to a group of people who sell it, the hospital said.

It was not clear Thursday whether the aneurysm was induced in the dog solely for the sales demonstration. An aneurysm is when arteries or blood vessels bulge and eventually burst, which can cause severe damage or death.

Messages left with the USDA late Thursday were not immediately returned.

The clinic said the surgeon did not have permission from the hospital’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee to host the demonstration. The doctor submitted an application to the committee, but its members never reviewed it, the hospital said.

An internal investigation was under way and the clinic plans to provide training for doctors to prevent a similar incident in the future, the hospital’s statement said.

The letter I have written is to the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic, as I was unable to obtain an e-mail address.

Delos Cosgrove,
M.D. Phone: (216) 444-2300
The Cleveland Clinic
Mail code H-189500 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, OH
44195

Please write or call if you can...we HAVE to stop these people.

Boy, 5, dies from dog mauling

2007-01-20T19:20:00.000-05:00

TheStar.com
January 19, 2007
Canadian Press

CUMBERLAND HOUSE, Sask. – A five-year-old boy from northern Saskatchewan has died after being mauled by several dogs near his home.

RCMP say the boy was found lying on a road Thursday by members of the Cumberland House First Nation.

He was taken to the local health centre before being flown to a Saskatoon hospital, where he died of his injuries Thursday night.

Police say the boy was suffering from bite wounds and possible hypothermia.

An autopsy was scheduled for Friday.

Several dogs believed responsible for the attack were destroyed by community members.

Cumberland House is about 330 kilometres northeast of Saskatoon.

A five-year-old boy in northern Alberta died in November after a similar attack by wandering dogs. The mauling on the North Tallcree reserve was so vicious the boy's facial features were destroyed. The child was also found by the side of a road.

The boy and his mother had been visiting from a nearby reserve when the attack happened Nov. 16.

A five-year-old girl was also killed by dogs at Garden River on the Little Red River reserve in Manitoba in November 1999 when she stopped to play with a puppy just 200 metres from her home. That attack was blamed on animals that were starving.

Officials have said in the past that stray dogs are a chronic problem on some reserves.

Another Dog Attack - Are The Media Making Things Worse?

2007-01-20T19:18:00.000-05:00

Nine year old Jordan Gillon is today recovering after being bitten bythree Rottweilers in his home. The incident happened whilst Jordan wasplaying with the son of the dogs' owner. One of the dogs has been put downand the other two are said to be under consideration for the same fate.

Dramatic press reactions swiftly followed the terrible and terrifyingincident. One daily tabloid managed to use the phrase "devil dogs" twice inone short report, alongside emotive descriptions such as "snarling" and"savage".

Whilst much of the broadcast media has been commendably fair andbalanced in the wake of recent dog attacks, the same cannot be said forcertain publications. Clearly, emotive journalism is equally as valuable asbalanced, factual reporting, but at what cost to dogs and their owners?

K9 Magazine spoke to a serving Police Constable who explained firsthand how the media portrayal of dog attacks is having a direct affect on hisday to day work.

"Since the little girl was tragically killed in Leicester, myself andcolleagues have been called to a substantially higher number of dog biteincidents than ever before. We take all calls of this nature very seriously,but what surprises and disturbs is the way parents and onlookers demand thatthe dog in question is destroyed. Of course a bite can be upsetting and ofyes, sometimes fatal, but many times we are called to attend a case where ayoung dog has nipped a child on the arm, sometimes we arrive and the childis off playing whilst the mother protests that the dog is dangerous.

I have even attended scenes where neighbours and witnesses have takenme aside and informed me that the bite victim, usually a child, had beenteasing or scaring the dog in question. One incident involving a Rottweiler pup resulted in me having to caution the parent of a child for wasting police time. She admitted that her son had been "roughing up" the dog andthe bite was so mild that the child was happily playing on his bike.

I put it down to the media hysteria which paints certain breeds askilling machines. It puts panic into communities and they react to it bybeing over cautious."

Perhaps one of the reasons more dog attacks are "happening" is simplythat more dog attacks are being reported in the press, causing more peopleto report minor incidents to the press.

Help the Animals

2006-12-19T20:38:00.000-05:00

Please visit this site and click on the fund food for animals button. Helps animals in need get food.

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites.woa

The history of the American pit bull

2006-12-19T20:33:00.000-05:00

This story is sort of strange........

LAURI KUBUITSILE
Correpondent
11/28/2006

On November 20, 2006, three American pit bulls belonging to Tesmi Holdings in Mmamashia killed their second human victim and the veterinary officers had no option but to destroy them. The question now is what to do about this breed of dog in Botswana. Knowing more about the history of the breed might help to understand why this particular dog is so deadly.

The American pit bull breed can be traced back to the bulldogge used in a bloody sport called bull baiting, which was common in the 1700s and early 1800's in England. The bulldogge was put in an enclosure with a bull and it was allowed to tear the bull apart until it was killed. At the time, this appears to have been some sort of morbid entertainment.

In 1835, the authorities in England put an end to the inhuman activity but its fans would not be thwarted. They moved on to dog fighting in which two dogs were thrown into a pit and they fought it out until one was horribly maimed or killed. Spectators gambled money, betting on which dog would win the fight. It was a cruel and inhuman practice which, unfortunately, is still taking place, albeit illegally, in many parts of the world, especially in the United States

Breeders at the time crossed the bull-baiting bulldogge, with their killer instinct, massive skull and powerful jaw muscles, with various breeds of terriers of the time. The terriers were chosen for their tenacity and bravery. The result was what is today the American Pit Bull Terrier. This history helps us to understand some of the unique characteristics of the breed.

The American Pit Bull was bred to fight other dogs. Unlike other breeds, it will fight with little or no provocation. Dogs are normally controlled by the "dog pack" mentality. There is a strict hierarchy that is tested during fights. The victor is now the boss and the loser there after will show submissive behaviour, such as rolling onto its back and showing its stomach, to the winner if they meet again. They needn't fight again because the hierarchy in the "dog pack" had been decided. This is not so for the American Pit Bull. If it fights a dog and loses, if they meet again, it will fight again. Also, there are stories of submissive dogs showing their bellies to an American Pit Bull only for the pit bull to maul them. It was bred to fight and that is exactly what it does.

Besides fighting with hardly any cause, unlike other dogs, it will give no warning of attack. Other aggressive breeds, such as Rotweilers or German Shepherds, would growl and bare their teeth before attack to warn the other animal or human that an attack is imminent. A pit bull will suddenly attack without any warning at all.
The American Pit Bull has been shown to have insensitivity to pain and some scientists believe they may even be addicted to the endomorphins released when the body is subjected to pain and may go in search of pain because of it. They can withstand high levels of pain. American Pit Bulls also are much quicker to anger because they appear to have higher levels of the neurotransmitter L-Tyrosine.

The tenacity of the American Pit Bull can be seen in the length of a typical attack. Attacks last fifteen minutes or longer and nothing will stop the dog from continuing to attack. Most dogs that are fighting can be stopped if water is thrown on them or they are beaten, not an American Pit Bull. There are stories from people who have been attacked by American Pit Bulls who talk of beating the dog with various objects but it still held on and continued to attack.

Most dogs will either bite or hold the victim in some way. When American Pit Bulls attack they are intent on causing maximum damage, that is what they've been bred to do. This is the reason why most attacks by pit bulls will end in severe injury or death as compared to other dog breeds.

The original American Pit Bull was bred only to attack other dogs. In fact, a dog that attacked humans was killed. People running the dog fights had to ensure that the dogs could be handled safely inside and outside of the pit.

But then something went wrong. In the 1980's the American Pit Bull became the pet of choice for tough guys and thugs. How macho you were could be determined by how mean and vicous your pit bull was. People owning such dogs choose them for the very reason the rest of us fear them. In New York City, for example, police have found that drug bosses have taken to using pit bulls to protect their drug stashes- the meaner the better. In 1997 alone, 83 American Pit Bulls were captured and destroyed during drug busts.

Supply and demand economics came into play and irresponsible backyard breeders sprouted up, crossing pit bulls with guard dog breeds such as Rotweilers, German Shepherds and Doberman Pinschers, long bred to attack humans. And to make matters worse, they bred them in the typically American fashion of bigger is better so the American Pit Bull breed of today is much bigger than the one of 15 years ago.
Voila! Now you have a big, tenacious dog, addicted to pain, with a short fuse and which will attack without notice; and it has human beings in its sight. You now have a problem- a deadly one.

And indeed the world over the American Pit Bull is quite successful in what it has been bred to do. From 1979-1996, 279 people were killed by dog attacks in the United States, and, of that, the highest number of killers was the American Pit Bull breed, with 60 deaths credited to them. In Australia, from 1991-2000 there were seven people killed by dogs, four of them met their deaths in the jaws of an American Pit Bull. The recent deaths in Botswana just add to the American Pit Bull's curriculum vitae as a killer.

What Can Be Done?

In the United States, they have found it difficult to pass laws against American Pit Bulls with dog enthusiast challenging them in court when laws are passed. However, in April 2005 in the city of Denver, Colorado, the American Pit Bull was banned by law. Two hundred and sixty pit bulls were confiscated and destroyed. Many municipalities have passed laws that require pit bulls to be muzzled and on a leash in public places. New York City is in the process of requiring owners of American Pit Bulls to have US$100,000 (P618,000) in liability insurance to get a dog license that is needed to keep a dog legally in the city.

Most states in Australia have passed laws requiring American Pit Bull owners to keep their dogs on a leash and, in most cases, muzzled outside of their property.

On August 29, 2005, after a particularly horrific attack of a 2-year-old boy and his parents by an adult American Pit Bull and its two puppies, the province of Ontario (Canada) passed a law that banned all American Pit Bulls. They could no longer be sold, bred or imported. The ones that lived in the province were not destroyed, but their owners were now required to muzzle and leash them in public.

The most comprehensive law was passed in the United Kingdom. The Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 banned American Pit Bulls. All pit bulls were confiscated and destroyed. Anyone found in possession of an American Pit Bull in the UK can now face up to six months in prison and an unlimited fine.

Dog lovers like to say that the problem is not with the American Pit Bull breed but with irresponsible owners who do not train the dogs properly. They claim dogs are dogs; it is the owners with the problem. But Katherine Houpt, the director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Cornell University in New York, was quoted in an article written by Brian C. Anderson on City Journal website as saying, "Different breeds have genetic predispositions to certain kinds of behaviour, though they can be influenced by how they are raised.
The pit bull is an innately aggressive breed, often owned by someone who wants an aggressive dog, so they're going to encourage it".

The question now is whether the individual's right to own the dog of their choice, even an American Pit Bull, is outweighed by the protection of the public? Time will tell us the answer to that question in Botswana.

Boy receives stitches after bite from RCMP dog

2006-12-19T20:32:00.000-05:00

Abbotsford -- An off-duty RCMP dog escaped from its kennel and bit an eight-year-old boy while he was sleighing.Residents and a passing motorist heard the child's screams and began hitting the dog to release him.

The boy was taken to hospital where he received stitches on his right forearm.

Dog handlers nip at remark about pit bulls

2006-12-19T20:26:00.000-05:00

By MIKE McKIBBIN and LE ROY STANDISH The Daily Sentinel

Friday, December 08, 2006

RIFLE — A Garfield County court judge caused a backlash Thursday from dog handlers and owners after he said Wednesday he would like to see all pit bulls killed.

Associate County Court Judge Jason Jovanovich said during Wednesday’s sentencing of the owner of a pit bull that attacked and seriously injured an elderly Silt woman in September that he would push a big red button that would kill all pit bulls, if he could.

Two dog handlers, Chris McKelvey and Laura Van Dyne, both of Carbondale, said Jovanovich’s statement would lead to more prejudice against pit bulls and was “very sad.”

“Anytime you have a breed with a fighting origin, you have to train them maybe 10 times more just for the public perception,” said McKelvey, who has trained dogs for 26 years. “These are dogs that were born to be aggressive, but it’s their environment and how they’re treated and trained that causes them to act out.”

Every one of the pit bulls she has helped train “were cupcakes,” she said.

Van Dyke said it was sad that Jovanovich said he wanted to eradicate an entire breed of dog.

“Any kind of dog can bite,” she said. “If we kill all the pit bulls, where do the people who used to have pit bulls go? ... How far do we go?”

Van Dyke has taught people how to train their dogs for 10 years and said studies have shown that more people die of injuries caused while wearing bedroom slippers than from dog bites.

“I’ve had problem pit bulls as clients, as well as other dogs,” she said. “And some of the best dogs I’ve known were pit bulls.”

Tim Larson of Battlement Mesa said he has owned a pit bull for four years and “took umbrage” when he read Jovanovich’s statement in Thursday’s Daily Sentinel.

“I get upset when I read statements like that because it causes a nationwide hysteria against pit bulls,” he said. “People get even more leery of the dogs, and the dogs get the short end of the stick.”

Larson said the term “pit bulls” refers to three different breeds: American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier and Staffordshire bull terrier.

Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario said he had heard from others that Jovanovich had made similar statements against pit bulls in other court cases.

Jovanovich could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Mesa County Animal Control Director Penny McCarty provided figures that showed 230 dog bites in the first 10 months of 2005, the most current numbers she had available. Of those, small breeds, such as terriers, Pekingese and schnauzers, bit 53 people in the county.

Working dogs, such as border collies, bit 38 people, while pit bulls bit 28.

Vallario said his department does not keep similar statistics in Garfield County because state statutes prevent breed-ban legislation in counties.

“We treat all dogs the same,” he said.

“If Fluffy the little terrier bites someone, we’ll cite her owner just like any other dog.”

McCarty said some dog breeds are “hijacked by a certain segment of the population that is irresponsible in many ways.”

Thirty years ago, it was German shepherds; 20 years ago, it was Rottweilers; today it’s pit bulls, she said.

They’re seen as status symbols, McCarty said, and are used as protection by those involved with methamphetamine.

“Some of the dogs we have seen recently have had contact with methamphetamine,” she said.

“It can certainly make them unpredictable.”

Local law enforcement officials, however, said they have not seen an increase in such dangerous dogs, such as when serving warrants.

“I don’t know that pit bulls are unique to any individual or type of individual,” said Tom Gorman, resident agent in charge for the Drug Enforcement Agency.

“We have had two dog-related shootings this year as far as the task force is concerned. If you are threatened, you want to take care of the threat. Some dopers have them; some don’t.”

Sgt. Matt Lewis, a five-year veteran of the Mesa County Sheriff’s Department’s SWAT team, said he has encountered vicious dogs in raids.

“Absolutely there are drug dealers out there with pit bulls, and there are fine upstanding people with pit bulls, and that has nothing to do with the dog,” he said.

“I truly believe it is the way you treat the animal, the way you train the animal.”

“A lot of it is that pit bulls have kind of become the epitome of a dog that someone in the counterculture would want to own,” said Cindy Haerle, a rescue coordinator for Mesa County Animal Services.

“It is tough-looking, and all sorts of the wrong people want to own pit bulls.”

But there are many responsible owners who love the dogs because of their loyalty, intelligence and strength, she said, adding they often are used as search-and-rescue and police dogs.

Troubled owners, troubled dogs?

2006-11-16T15:46:00.000-05:00

Crime, choice of pet linked

Dalson Chen and Sonja Puzic, with files from Shannon
Proudfoot, CanWest News Service
Windsor Star; with files from CanWest News Service
Wednesday, November 15, 2006

People who own "high-risk" dogs such as pit bulls are more likely to have past criminal convictions than other dog owners, says a new study.

But Natalie Kemeny, a local pit bull owner and advocate, was shocked by the suggestion.

"Where we live, and the people that I know, that information is truly false.

"I'm not a criminal," said the 36-year-old. "I've never even gone through a red light. And I own a pit bull-type dog."
In a study published in the current issue of the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, researchers from the University of Cincinnati examined a sample of 355 dogs and their owners.

The authors categorized as "high-risk" all pit-bull-type dogs, as well as dogs of breeds that had killed or seriously injured a person without provocation, or killed another dog.

Of the sample group, 164 dogs including pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas and chows fell into the "high-risk" category. Every one of their owners was found to have at least one criminal conviction or traffic citation on record.

Only 27 per cent of those with "low-risk" dogs such as beagles, spaniels and collies were found to have past legal troubles.

The study also suggests that owners of "high-risk" canines are almost seven times more likely than other dog owners to have been convicted of aggressive crimes, eight times more likely to have drug convictions, and five times more likely to have alcohol-related convictions.

"For some persons, owning a dog that has a reputation for aggression is considered a highly desirable feature," the study notes.

But Kemeny said she'd like to know how the researchers collected their sample group.
"Where did they go to do this survey, the local prison?"

Co-founder of the Windsor-based pit bull rescue coalition Advocates for the Underdog, Kemeny said she doesn't know any owners of pit bull-type dogs that have ever been convicted of a crime.

"I, myself, am a professional. My rescue partner works for RE/MAX realty," she said. "We have over 850 people on our mailing list, and we know them all.... They all have full-time professional jobs."

Although pit bull ownership is restricted by Ontario legislation, Windsor city council preceded the province by introducing a city-wide ban on pit bulls in September 2004.

The city's licensing commissioner, Diane Sibley, said the new study was the first she had heard of a correlation between "high-risk" dog breeds and their owners' criminal records.

"There was nothing like this when we (introduced the pit bull ban)," she said. "In fact, that was one of the criticisms we received -- that there wasn't enough information to impose the ban."

Sibley said she was "definitely interested" in learning more about the study and said she would look into it.

Windsor-Essex County Humane Society president Doug Jeffery also said the study sounds interesting, but warned that people should be careful about how they interpret it. "There are pit bulls that are legal in Windsor that are not owned by criminals. I know those people," he said.

Jeffery said the bite of any large dog can be severe, and the matter comes down to the irresponsibility of owners -- "whether it be someone with a criminal background or someone who is just stupid, to put it very bluntly."

STUDY QUESTIONED

Owners of dogs like pit bulls and Rottweilers are being as badly stereotyped as their pets, says a local dog trainer.

"I know people that own pit bull terriers that are police officers," said Mike Beckett, owner of 21st Century K9 and a professional dog trainer for 10 years.

A past Rottweiler owner and current pit bull owner, Beckett said he feels the University of Cincinnati study is "one more thing for people to hate these dogs, and to hate the people that own these dogs."

In classes, he's never seen pit bull or Rottweiler owners to be criminal types.

Beckett said he was once walking a muzzled pit bull when they were confronted by an aggressive dachshund and its irate owner. "Just because I choose a dog like this, doesn't mean I can't walk down the street too."

-- Dalson Chen
Ran with fact box "Study Questioned" which has been appendedto the story.
© The Windsor Star 2006

Transcripts by Nancy Grace

2006-11-14T15:20:00.000-05:00

I am posting this to show just how ignorant some people are. This woman definately doesn't know what she's talking about and has something against dogs.

NANCY GRACE
Dad`s Pitbulls Kill 1-Year-Old
Aired November 7, 2006 - 20:00:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, a South Carolina community in shock after four pitbulls maul a 1-year-old baby to death, his own father facing murder one charges.

And tonight, a firefighter mom disappears, seemingly vanishing into thin air, leaving behind three little children, including a 6-month old left home alone. Could she still be alive? Tonight, we follow the trial.

First to South Carolina, pitbulls once again a deadly weapon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) told us the child was in the bed, sleeping. And he went outside for a very short period of time (INAUDIBLE) And when he returned in the house, the dogs dragged the child to the kitchen floor, and the child (INAUDIBLE) kitchen floor bleeding very badly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us tonight. Pitbulls a deadly weapon? Once again, we hear about a little child mauled to death by a dangerous dog. Out to Court TV`s Jean Casarez. What happened?

JEAN CASAREZ, COURT TV: Well, Nancy, 25-year-old Michael Young (ph) was living with his mother, raising by himself his 22-month-old little boy. They just moved into their brand-new home, and he also brought long his four pitbulls that were living with his mother but always stayed outside. But they stayed inside Saturday night. He went out for about five minutes to talk with his landlord, who was also his boss. He came back in, his little boy was on the kitchen floor, mauled to death.

GRACE: Jane Velez-Mitchell, did you just see those particular -- those pitbulls right there fighting?

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Yes. Pitbulls fight, but...

GRACE: That was a yes/no. Can you imagine leaving a child, a 1-year- old child, with that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Nancy, you are absolutely right. That was a mistake, but it was a mistake made by a human being. We can`t demonize pitbulls because this father, as much as I sympathize with his grief right now, made some crucial mistakes. He had moved into a new trailer, and yet he let those animals in with his son and left them alone for five minutes. Now, these were animals that were used to being tethered outside, chained outside, which is something that...

GRACE: Do you see that baby? Do you see the baby? The baby is dead. And you`re telling me it`s not the dogs` fault!

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I am telling you...

GRACE: OK!

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... it`s not the dogs' fault.

GRACE: Jean Casarez, have they gotten the doggie death penalty?

CASAREZ: Well, yes, they have, all four dogs. By the way, when investigators walked into the house, the dogs were wagging their tails. They were not attacking. They were very docile. But yes, all four dogs were euthanized, and they`ve been sent for rabies examinations.

GRACE: What do you mean, they`ve been sent? You mean their brains have been sent to be studied, to determine whether they have rabies.

CASAREZ: Yes. I didn`t want to get as graphic, but yes, their heads were cut off and their heads have been taken to be studied for rabies.

GRACE: Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He told us that his child was in the bed, sleeping. He went outside for a very short period of time, five to ten minutes, to speak with his new landlord and bossman (ph), and when he returned in the house, the dogs had dragged the child to the kitchen floor, and the child was laying on the kitchen floor, bleeding very badly.I went there prepared to do battle with four vicious pitbulls, using bite sleeves and correction collars. We opened the door and called the dogs to us, and they came with wagging tails and jumping all over us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: There have been a series of cases involving not only pitbulls, presa canarios, various dogs trained to fight, with the reputation of being deadly, one case after the next after the next. What about it, Jane Velez- Mitchell? There have been many, many -- a string of cases likes this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Sure. There`s one in San Francisco, where a mother is accused of child endangerment because her 12-year-old son was mauled by two pitbulls and he had approximately 140 injuries. The common denominator here is that you don`t put children in close proximity to pitbulls. You don`t put a horse in an apartment, a one-bedroom apartment, and then blame it if it knocks something over. You don`t put a bull in a china shop, and you don`t put pitbulls and leave them alone with a child.In this last case, the one that happened Saturday night in South Carolina, this little boy is 25 to 30 pounds. That is the weight of the smallest of the four pitbulls.

GRACE: Well, you know what, Jane Velez-Mitchell? Long story short, there are multiple cases -- and I`m referring specifically to a San Francisco case. The victim was literally an all-American girl. Her name, Diane Whipple. She was a very slight young lady. She was on the American -- all-American lacrosse team. She was minding her own business, coming in from bringing the groceries, leaving her apartment, trying to get in or out the door regarding the groceries. These two dogs, huge presa canario dogs, attack, tear the woman apart, tear the pants off her body, chew her up. They were not being restrained.So what you`re telling me is that you can`t think of a single scenario, after I`ve told you about the Whipple case, where dogs attack?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, I think that we have to be very careful about making sure that these animals are kept in appropriate living situations. All I`m concerned about -- and a lot of animal advocates tonight are concerned about demonizing the entire breed because these animals are either trained to fight or not kept properly, not spayed and neutered. You know, when they`re not neutered, they`re much more aggressive. And in a lot of these cases, they have not. They`ve been mated and they`ve been bred to fight. They have not been cared for properly.

(CROSSTALK)

CASAREZ: ... that case could be differentiated, the Whipple case, from this case, from everything we know, because in the Whipple case, that dog was bred to fight. And many times, pitbulls are bred to fight. From everything we know about the South Carolina case, these dogs were docile. They were quiet. They were house pets. They were not bred to fight.

GRACE: Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These dogs were more dangerous than a loaded gun. And I call them like a time bomb because at least with a gun, you have to pull the trigger. But these dogs would go off on their own, over and over and over again, without warning, and that`s what made them so dangerous. And Diane Whipple didn`t get enough warning to get away.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s screaming. She`s yelling. She`s hitting at the dog. She`s trying to get -- keep her whole body around Ms. Whipple to protect Ms. Whipple from the jaws of this berserk beast. The dog is pulling at her clothing, even underneath Marjorie, even though she`s under -- even though Ms. Whipple is underneath Marjorie, Ms. Whipple is being bitten on her sides, on her back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: These dogs have just killed a 1-year-old baby boy. Let`s go out to the lawyers, unchaining now Mickey Sherman and Anne Bremner, Mickey Sherman out of the New York jurisdiction, Anne Bremner from the Seattle jurisdiction. So Mickey Sherman, there`s no doubt in my mind that these dogs should have rightly been put down. And I don`t see a problem with the father facing a murder charge.

MICKEY SHERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know, you can`t believe - - you`ll get such an argument from so many people about even killing the dogs. I mean...

GRACE: What about the baby?

(CROSSTALK)

SHERMAN: Did you...

GRACE: Forget the dog, what about the baby?

SHERMAN: Did you hear what Jane said? It`s not the dog`s fault. And let me tell you, her opinion is really echoed...

GRACE: Oh, right! Guns don`t...

SHERMAN: ... by so many people...

GRACE: ... kill, people do!

SHERMAN: Well, no, I`m telling you...

GRACE: Save your breath!

SHERMAN: People would rather see their children be marched off to reform school before their dog gets a criminal record. I`m telling you, people get crazy over dogs and animal rights. And what was Jane`s phrase, which is appropriate, demonization of the breed. People are really concerned about ill treatment of animals, even when they do horrible things.

GRACE: Ill treatment of animals?

SHERMAN: Yes. I`m telling you...

GRACE: Mickey, you know, this is -- I`ve got to say, outrageous -- a 1-year-old baby boy lying in the floor! Did you hear -- you know what? Let`s go out to Dr. Daniel Spitz, forensic pathologist. Dr. Spitz, can you please describe what happened to this little baby, what he lived through before he died. The last thing he saw was a mouthful of fang!

DR. DANIEL SPITZ, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, MEDICAL EXAMINER: Well, there`s no question that four dogs attacking this child would not be a pretty sight. There would be a tremendous amount of injury. The fangs of these dogs would rapidly penetrate the skin of this child. The major blood vessels are only a short distance underneath the skin, so those blood vessels are going to be penetrated and bleeding is going to be rapid. Certainly, it`s a painful and a traumatizing death.

GRACE: Let`s go back out to the lawyers, Mickey Sherman, Anne Bremner. Let`s talk about statutes. Are you guys familiar with statutes? They`re sprinkled across the country regarding breeds like pitbulls, Anne Bremner.

ANNE BREMNER, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, yes. But Nancy, the thing in a case like this -- in the Whipple case, it was thrown out. That verdict of guilty was thrown out by the judge after the fact. And in this case, you know, you`ve got a dog...

GRACE: I asked you about statutes.

BREMNER: Well, I mean, the bottom line, Nancy, is you`ve got to have some viciousness, some propensity shown, something in advance. It`s foreseeability, Trial 101, Nancy, that you`re not going to get negligent homicide or abuse of a child in a case like this unless there was some knowledge on the part of this particular parent.And you know, with dogs, I defended the Seattle police dogs in a case where they said use of police dogs is deadly force. Ten-week trial, the jurors said, You`re barking up the wrong tree.

GRACE: Mickey, I want to go back to what I asked Anne Bremner regarding statutes. The both of are you dancing all around it!

BREMNER: No, actually...

SHERMAN: No, it`s...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: There are statutes enacted because of dogs just like this!

SHERMAN: There`s broadly stated statutes, basically reckless endangerment. You do anything, any series of events that you set in motion...

GRACE: Right.

SHERMAN: ... that will cause the death or impairment of the morals (ph) or the health of a child. And that`s probably what they would go under here. But the better question, the bigger question, Nancy, is, Do you really need to prosecute this guy? He`s raising his child. His mother -- the mother has deserted the child. He`s raising a 22 -- year-old (SIC). Did he intentionally expect this to happen? Did he have any past...

BREMNER: Right.

SHERMAN: ... knowledge that his dogs were dangerous? He made a mistake, a stupid mistake. But do you think he`s going to learn any bigger lesson if we put him in jail, other than having lost his child in such a horrible way?

GRACE: Well, do you think any criminal will learn a lesson? It`s not all about rehabilitation, Mickey Sherman.

SHERMAN: It`s about deterrence. It`s about deterrence.

GRACE: And it`s about punishment!

SHERMAN: Anybody who is going to have to learn a lesson, have learned a lesson enough instead of having to be prosecuted when their child is dead -- there`s no useful purpose in that, none whatsoever.

GRACE: Out to Mike Brooks, former D.C. cop and former fed. Mike, there have been a number of cases very similar to this one.

MIKE BROOKS, FORMER D.C. POLICE, SERVED ON FBI TERRORISM TASK FORCE: Nancy, I`ve seen the pitbulls both docile and I`ve seen them also in attack mode. And you know, again, it`s the environment they`re put into. One morning, we served a search warrant. We came around. We had animal control with us. There were two pitbulls in the back. We came around with the loops. We went ahead and looped a dog. As I was coming around the back and I was sweeping the backyard with the flashlight on my sub-gun (ph), there was a golden retriever lying dead in the backyard because it had been put in there to use as bait with these dogs.Now, these dogs were raised to fight. It was the owners that raised them this way. And you also see them walking around neighborhoods with big, thick chains around their necks to strengthen their necks for dog fighting.But again, these dogs were not raised to fight. But you know, did he need to have four pitbulls? Why have four pitbulls and one little boy? And he should not have left those children alone. Again -- but I have to agree on certain things. There are no bad dogs, there`s bad owners.

GRACE: OK, Mike, I wouldn`t have a problem leaving a 1-year-old baby boy possibly with four little kittens or with four little turtles or maybe with four little wiener dogs. But four pitbulls?

BROOKS: Nancy...

GRACE: Why would anybody even have four pitbulls in the house?

BROOKS: That`s -- that was exactly what my question I just posed a second ago. But I`ve also...

GRACE: I mean -- no, no!

BROOKS: But I`ve also...

GRACE: It`s about the dog...

BROOKS: ... seen poodles...

GRACE: ... Brooks! It`s about the dog, too!

BROOKS: It is.

GRACE: Kittens don`t attack you and rip your throat out!

BROOKS: But I have seen poodles attack kids in the face and the neck and do serious damage to them, too.

GRACE: OK, wa-wa-wa-wa-wa-wa-wa-wait! Do you have a big, long list of poodle murders? That is total BS! No, laugh all you want to~!

BROOKS: I`m not laughing.

GRACE: But you know, when it happens to somebody that you know or somebody in your neighborhood, when a dog like this breaks through a chainlink fence and attacks someone, when a dog like those two presa canarios leap away from their owner and literally bite a young girl to death, I don`t know -- you need to drink the coffee and wake up, Mike!

BROOKS: No, well, he does need to be charged. It needs to be looked at. There is a death investigation. He could be charged with neglect, with homicide by neglect. There should not -- he should not have left that little boy alone. You know, was he -- was the little boy playing with these dogs and it got a little rough? Because Nancy, the one thing about these dogs...

GRACE: Got a little rough?

BROOKS: Well, that -- we don`t...

GRACE: Whoa, whoa! Wa-wait! I want to see his face, Elizabeth!

BROOKS: Let me finish. Let me finish.

GRACE: I want to see Brooks`s face! They got a little rough.

BROOKS: No...

GRACE: They ate the baby! The baby is dead! They`ve had their heads chopped off, Mike.

BROOKS: What I`m saying is, Nancy, he was probably playing. They were -- the police said there`s one scenario, that possibly he was playing with the dogs. It got a little rough. You know, maybe he poked one of them in the eye. And these kind of dogs, these aren`t the kind of dogs you play like that with. And once it tastes blood...

GRACE: Oh, so you admit that...

BROOKS: Once they...

GRACE: ... apparently, genetically, these type of dogs can be easily angered and attack.

BROOKS: Absolutely. And once they taste blood, that`s it.

GRACE: Well, there`s a fine how-do-you-do. Once they taste blood, that`s it.Joining us from Bamberg, South Carolina, Deputy Sheriff Norris Williams. He is with the Bamberg County sheriff`s office. Sir, thank you for being with us. Tell us about what you have observed in this case.

DEP. SHERIFF NORRIS WILLIAMS, BAMBERG COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA: Well, Nancy, this has been a very hard case for all of us here to deal with, especially dealing with the loss of a 1-year-old child. But it was not a typical pitbull case. We`ve dealt with several pitbull cases here very recently, where the typical pitbull owner is training their dogs to be vicious. This was not the case. We did not know that originally. Once we were told what happened, we just assumed that these dogs were your usual vicious pitbulls. When we approached these dogs, they were far from that. They were every bit of what I would consider a docile house dog.

GRACE: You know, I understand what you`re saying. And believe me, advertisers have clued into that for the last 25 years. If you see a wagging tail on a dog, then suddenly, your heart melts. I just can`t get the picture of this child there on the floor being mauled to death at 1 year old out of my mind.

Let`s go out to the lines. Anna in North Carolina. Hi, Anna.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. My question is -- I have a pitbull. I also have a 3-year-old and a 3 -- month-old. Never would I enter another dog into my home because I know what my pitbull would do. And never would I put my children in the same room alone with my pitbull. Why would he have four pitbulls, if they were just house dogs?

GRACE: Can I ask you a question? Because we always grew up having dogs, having more than one dog, cats, everything, but never a dog that was known to attack. I mean, how can a dog have a bad reputation? But guess what? Pitbulls and Rottweilers do have bad reputations. And Anna, were you ever -- I mean, it sounds like you`ve got your condition under control, but are you ever worried about having a pitbull and a baby?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, my 3 -- month-old, he doesn`t go outside. My 3-year-old only goes out with supervision. My pitbull is not on no chain. She`s never been trained to fight. She`s never been around any other dog like that. I do have a neighbor who has two Rottweilers. When she is loose and roams the neighborhood, the Rottweilers do aggress her, and they would fight. They would cause blood. But my dog has never showed any signs of aggression. And I would never take that chance as a parent because my child does come before my dog.

GRACE: Back out to Deputy Sheriff Norris Williams. Sheriff Williams, again, thank you for being with us. I know you`re in a tough spot. Have you ever actually seen a case like this in your jurisdiction?

WILLIAMS: No, ma`am. This was a...

GRACE: So this is a first for you.

WILLIAMS: Yes, ma`am, this was a first for me, and by far one of the worst situations I`ve ever dealt with in seven years of law enforcement.

GRACE: Don`t you have a pitbull?

WILLIAMS: I do. I have a pitbull of my own, and I also have three small children 7, 6 and 4.

GRACE: Why do you have a pitbull?

WILLIAMS: I have a pitbull because we confiscated several pitbulls from a fighting arena, and I brought them home to my kennel because I`m a canine handler and I have several kennels at my home. And my daughter fell in love with this one in particular, so I kept it as a pet. However, it stays outside in an outside kennel.

GRACE: Cities banning pitbulls -- Denver, Toronto. The list goes on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The baby and dogs may have started out playing, then things got rough. Michael Young rushed his son to the emergency room, but the boy died. The baby`s father told investigators he wanted to leave the pitbulls outside but didn`t have enough time to build a post or fence before dark, so he brought the dogs in for the night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I went there prepared to do battle with four vicious pitbulls, using bite sleeves and correction collars. We opened the door and called the dogs to us, and they came with wagging tails and jumping all over us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: A South Carolina community in shock tonight, a father possibly being charged with murder one after his four pitbulls mauled this little child, a 1-year-old baby, to death inside the house.Back out to Deputy Sheriff Norris Williams. Why were the dogs chained up anyway if they had never exhibited behavioral problems?

WILLIAMS: Well, the father told us that he was not a big fan of dogs in the house. He liked the breed of pitbulls, and where he lived previously, he just kept them outside. I don`t know the living conditions. I don`t know if they were tied down or if they were in a kennel, but they were outside dogs.

GRACE: Out to you Marcy Setter. She is here with Dakota Blue. She is the director of education and PR with the Pitbull Rescue Central. With her, Dakota. It`s a 4-year-old American pitbull terrier. Explain to me why pitbulls are often falsely identified, according to you, as attack dogs.

MARCY SETTER, PIT BULL RESCUE CENTRAL: Well, they`re often misidentified because pitbull is not a breed of dog. Pitbull is a term...

GRACE: Whoa, whoa! how big is that head he`s got?

SETTER: Yes, she`s got -- she`s a little -- she`s large. She`s about 67 pounds.

GRACE: Tell me about that jaw. Has she ever gotten anything in her mouth that she wouldn`t let go of?

SETTER: No, not at all.

GRACE: Like an arm?

SETTER: No, not at all. Don`t -- you can`t judge based on incidents like that.

GRACE: So what`s your take on what happened in this case?

SETTER: What`s my take? I read the articles, and I see they were outside dogs. There was mentioning of the dogs being chained. Four of them in a trailer with a child left alone is just not a safe thing.

GRACE: But if it were four kittens or four beagle dogs, we wouldn`t have that problem.

SETTER: Sure, you would. There are reported cases of Dachshunds and Pomeranians fatally killing people, as a matter of fact.

GRACE: Really? Because I couldn`t find...

SETTER: Absolutely.

GRACE: ... a single one on the Internet.

SETTER: Pomeranian, 2002 out of California. A Dachshund out of Kentucky. Absolutely.

GRACE: Let me tell you we`re armed with a computer here on the set.

SETTER: Go ahead. Absolutely look them up. Actually, you can go to my Web site...

GRACE: You`re on, Marcy!

SETTER: ... and see a lot of them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: A 1-year-old baby mauled to death by two killing -- four killing machines, pitbulls left alone with a 1-year-old baby boy. Tonight, a South Carolina community reeling.Let`s go straight back out to Dr. Daniel Spitz, forensic pathologist. The cause of death in this case, what is it?

SPITZ: Well, it would be pretty simple. Basically, these puncture wounds that these dogs are going to inflict are going to result in a tremendous amount of blood loss, mainly from blood vessels of the neck, the carotid arteries, the jugular veins. So blood loss is going to be cause of this child`s death.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two, three, strike.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When a pit bull bites, they don`t let go. They`ll rip. The bites can be more serious. They`re very strong dogs. The dog will be more committed to remaining with the bite so that the bite continues instead of latching on or letting go. Sometimes (INAUDIBLE) possibly broken.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: The U.K. banned pit bulls in 1991. We now know 21 percent of all attacks on humans are by pit bulls. Take a look at this. Now, I`ve got to tell Marcy, she`s absolutely correct. There was one attack in 2001 by a Pomeranian, one attack in 2002 by a dachshund. She`s absolutely right, both on 6-week-old infants. Back out to Jane Velez-Mitchell. Your opinion is that -- let me get this straight. Forget about the dead baby, it`s the four dogs that were mistreated?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Absolutely not. I want to save lives. And the way to save lives is not by banning pit bulls; it`s by banning the breeding of pit bulls. The people who are breeding the pit bulls to fighting machines, those are the ones who are the real culprits here, because they`re sending out all these thousands and thousands of animals. If we ban the breeding of pit bulls and then made sure that the remaining pit bulls were placed in appropriate homes where they were not in close proximity to children, that would be the solution. And that would be fair to the animal, and it would save a lot of lives. And I have to say one thing about this particular case. Those animals were chained up outside the trailer, according to the reports. Chaining an animal is a form of torture. There is a national movement to stop chaining of animals across the country, legislation that`s being pushed. The reason is it`s a form of torture. And then when you let the animal off the chain, there`s all this pent up energy that become aggressiveness. Now, these animals, these four pit bulls, were put into the trailer after being used to being trained. They`re put into a new trailer where they just moved in. They`re disoriented, and they`re let off their chains, and then they`re left alone with a 22-month-old child. That is sheer insanity.

GRACE: Well, to me it`s like leaving a child alone with a machine gun or an Uzi or near an open fire. Take a listen to this statistic. There have been 279 dog attack fatalities -- not just dog attacks, but dog attack fatalities -- in the U.S. in less than 20 years, in only 17 years, 279 dog attack fatalities. Dogs identified as pit bulls responsible for 60 of those attacks, over 20 percent, followed by Rottweilers, responsible for 29 attacks. To Dr. Leslie Austin, psychotherapist, explain.

LESLIE AUSTIN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Nancy, when you mix humans and dogs, the psychology is different. Too many people treat their dogs like their kids, and they`re not. You have to understand the behavior. I would never have a pit bull with a young child. In the appropriate circumstances, pit bulls can be great dogs, but you have to know the behavior and the psychology of your animal and treat them appropriately. If a dog commits a bad act, it is 100 percent human trainer error, 100 percent humans have messed up that dog and not understood the nature of the animal.

GRACE: Back to Jean Casarez, Court TV correspondent, Jean, again, the facts as they relate to this particular human attack.

JEAN CASAREZ, COURT TV: Well, I think that`s an important point, because the focus tonight has been brought on pit bulls, but investigators now are looking very narrowly in South Carolina at this particular case. What about these dogs? Did they ever exhibit this behavior before? Why were they chained up previously outside at the other home? What did the owner know about pit bulls? Because, to own a pit bull, you need to have some knowledge about what they are capable of. And if they do smell or sniff blood, that they are very aggressive at point. And what investigators are trying to determine, was this an accident or is this a crime?

GRACE: Let`s go out to the lawyers. Joining us tonight, Mickey Sherman and Anne Bremner. Let`s talk about this possible charge that the father is facing. A South Carolina community totally torn apart. Should this father face murder one charges? Out to you, Mickey Sherman. What are the possible charges?

MICKEY SHERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Some kind of reckless endangerment kind of charge. But, you know, the best, most effective witness is the sheriff who`s just been on, Sheriff Williams, who is on the scene and explained what his opinion of the dogs, that they were docile.

GRACE: That`s after the attack.

SHERMAN: Well, that`s the law enforcement person there.

GRACE: That`s after the attack.

SHERMAN: He`s also an expert on dogs. He`s got dogs himself.

GRACE: Oh, is your defense some other dude did it?

SHERMAN: No, he`s...

GRACE: Just because they were wagging their tails -- I mean, Ted Bundy smiled in the courtroom. What difference does that make?

SHERMAN: He has dogs himself. He knows the breed. And he saw these dogs after the attack. You know, dogs aren`t exactly going to put on some airs after they do something wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Well, are you saying the dog did not do the attack? I mean, how they acted afterwards has absolutely nothing to do with this.

SHERMAN: I think it has to do with their vicious temper.

GRACE: And even the law is in a lot of jurisdictions, behavior after the fact is inadmissible.

SHERMAN: Bottom line is, it`s a civil case. It`s a lawsuit.

GRACE: Oh, you don`t like that, do you? You don`t like it when I quote the law. You hate that. Ixnay on the aw-lay.

SHERMAN: That`s a cheap trick. That`s a cheap trick.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Right. What about it, Anne Bremner, possible charges?

ANNE BREMNER, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, Nancy, it`s possible like a negligent homicide, but the fact is, look at the behavior before the fact. You know, there are no bad dogs. I mean, people make bad dogs.

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

BREMNER: But, Nancy...

GRACE: The dogs ate a baby.

BREMNER: Here`s the thing, Nancy. It`s like, you know...

GRACE: There are no bad dogs. OK, thanks, Anne.

BREMNER: No, I`m not done yet, though...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: ... possible charges.

BREMNER: ... possible charges are probably negligent homicide, but it`s not here because...

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, slow it down, high-profile lawyer.

BREMNER: OK, Nancy, I`ll slow it down.

GRACE: OK, you know what? I`ll tell you two the possible charges. All right, you`ve got a possible felony murder.

BREMNER: True.

GRACE: About whether a pit bulls are allowed under these circumstances and a death occurred. You`ve got a possible involuntary manslaughter, illegal act, keeping pit blues in an illegal manner, also it`s around a child. In my mind, those are the two charges. So let me make it easy for you: Agree or disagree, Mickey Sherman?

SHERMAN: Disagree. What jury is going to find this guy guilty of murder? There`s so no intent in this case.

GRACE: I would go with an involuntary manslaughter.

SHERMAN: And that ain`t going to happen. The man made a mistake, and it was a mistake that was not so foreseeable, according to the expert on the scene.

GRACE: Not foreseeable?

SHERMAN: No.

GRACE: The number-one attack dog in this country is the pit bull. He`s got four locked in the kitchen, people.

SHERMAN: Twenty-seven deaths in the country?

GRACE: No, no, no, no, no, 279. Multiply that by 10, Mick.

SHERMAN: By 10?

GRACE: Yes, you said 27. It`s nearly 280.

SHERMAN: The percentage is infinitely small. More people die from choking on pudding.

GRACE: Really?

SHERMAN: I checked the -- no, but it sounds like a pretty good statistic though.

GRACE: OK, I didn`t think so. Let`s go back out to Mike Brooks, former D.C. cop and former fed. Mike, the reality is that this dog was banned in 1991 in the U.K. There are multiple cities that have rules governing pit bulls. And I know all the dog lovers are angry right now. I`m a dog lover. But not dogs that attack children, Mike.

MIKE BROOKS, FORMER D.C. POLICE: I agree, Nancy. I mean, I`m a dog lover. I have dogs. You know, but there`s some dogs that -- you know, at my gym, I go to a gym in Decatur. And there`s this large poodle that runs around in there. And you never know.

GRACE: He`s back on poodles again?

BROOKS: Absolutely. Look, I have -- as a volunteer firemen, I`ve seen what poodles can do. You don`t know how many dog bite reports I`ve taken over the years.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: OK, you know what? I`m going to come back when you`re ready to get -- leave the poodles alone, and get back on point.

BROOKS: OK, you`re going to talk about Daschunds, Pomeranians, German shepherds?

GRACE: Listen...

BROOKS: Look, I`ve been bitten by police dogs before, Nancy. Let me guess...

GRACE: What do you mean by police dogs, German shepherd dogs?

BROOKS: Yes, German shepherds.

GRACE: You were bitten because?

BROOKS: Well, I happened to reach down and grab a tennis ball while we were doing a bomb sweep of the Davis Cup match, and the dog bit me.

GRACE: And the dog was trained? Was it a trained dog?

BROOKS: Yes, it was. And the owner had to come over and actually grab him by his collar and pull him off my arm.

GRACE: Trained to attack? Trained to attack?

BROOKS: It was actually dual. It was a bomb detection dog and an attack dog, which a lot of dog experts don`t believe that they should be cross-trained like that, either.

GRACE: Let`s go to the lines. Roy in Missouri. Hi, Roy.

CALLER: Hi, Nancy.

GRACE: What`s your question, dear?

CALLER: Well, I have two questions. Where exactly -- I mean, how long did this gentleman own these dogs before this happened? And where was he during the 10 minutes the attack occurred?

GRACE: I know that he was outside for the 10 moments that the attack occurred. He was outside. I believe his boss had driven up and he left the baby inside. Jean Casarez, I know that he had had these dogs at a prior home with his mom and the mom told him, "When you go, the dogs go." Do you have any idea how long had he had them?

CASAREZ: Well, I think he had them for a while. Now, the dogs weren`t that old. There were four of them, two males, two females, 2 years old was the oldest one, 10 months was the youngest one, 65 pounds was the largest one, 35 to 40 were the other three.

GRACE: All I can say -- dog lovers get mad at me -- but the death penalty for these four pit bulls.

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Although this intersection is only a couple of hundred feet from Margaret`s house, this road is miles from anywhere. There`s no bus service, and there`s no cab service in this area. Now, we know Margaret left her car and her cell phone, so the question tonight is, where is Margaret?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The main suspicion would be that she is just not in this area at this point. We don`t have much pushing us in any other direction at this point, just that she has vanished.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Tonight, to Warren Township. A firefighter mom seemingly vanishes into thin air leaving behind three children, including a 6-month- old child home alone. This does not sound like Margaret. To Court TV correspondent Jean Casarez, Jean, what happened?

CASAREZ: Well, now, Nancy, it`s day 28. She disappeared Tuesday, October 10th. That was the last time that her husband saw her mid- afternoon. He waited 48 hours to call police, but then he did on that Thursday, just about the same time, and he says that he didn`t call because she had exhibited this behavior before and he thought she was just coming home.

GRACE: To Eric Martin, Central New Jersey Search and Rescue. He led the search for Margaret Haddican-McEnroe. Eric, thank you for being with us. I`m not quite sure I understand why the husband waited 48 hours to report his wife missing.

ERIC MARTIN, LEADS SEARCH FOR MISSING MOTHER: Well, Nancy, he had waited in the past because she had walked away or left in the past before. She usually has come home on her own within 24 hours. The question we had is, why did he wait an additional 24 hours after that? And there`s just a lot of pieces that aren`t coming together on that case.

GRACE: Eric, has that been documented that she actually did leave the home for 24 hours in the past?

MARTIN: Well, as per the Warren P.D. and the Somerset County prosecutor, which have been doing a phenomenal job on this case, yes, she`s had a number of situations...

GRACE: Well, if he didn`t report it, then how would they know?

MARTIN: If he didn`t report it? Because that`s her family. It seems like there had been a number of situations that have happened in the past between the two where she`s left the home.

GRACE: Question: Is this information all coming from the husband or from other family members that she had vanished in the past for 24 hours?

MARTIN: Well, primarily, from what we were told, this is coming from the husband. But the police department has done investigation and interview with the family members now to get a better vibe on what`s going on.

GRACE: What can you tell me about the search, Eric?

MARTIN: Well, right now, we were brought in on day number nine. It`s kind of difficult for a land search and rescue team to really have anything to go on, that late into the situation. Clues usually disappears, scents, tracks, prints, a lot of evidence. Right now, what we did was we originally put her in a despondent category and followed reflex tasking, which means basically...

GRACE: Despondent?

MARTIN: Yes, we had been told that she was a postpartum depression.

GRACE: Who told you that?

MARTIN: The husband, through the police department.

GRACE: So the husband again is your source?

MARTIN: Yes, ma`am.

GRACE: OK.

MARTIN: And what we end up doing is, at that moment, because of the fact it`s so long into the search, we basically go with statistical data and theoretical data. If she is despondent, usually they want to seek solitude. With postpartum depression, it doesn`t really seem -- we don`t have any hard evidence that would lead us to believe that she would have had any intent to do any type of injury or harm to herself.

GRACE: Did she take her cellphone?

MARTIN: No, she had -- the police department stated that she had destroyed the cellphone in the home.

GRACE: Oh, really? Says who?

MARTIN: Says the husband, and also the police department. And the police department did have her destroyed phone.

GRACE: Well, how does the police department know she destroyed her cellphone?

MARTIN: Well, that`s a great, great point.

GRACE: Well, what do you mean "destroyed"?

MARTIN: Well, it seems that what happened was it was broken in pieces. I`m not really sure.

GRACE: She broke her own cellphone into pieces?

MARTIN: I can`t say she broke her cellphone. I can say that her cell phone was broken.

GRACE: OK, because I thought I heard you say -- now, I`m not trying to antagonize you. I`m on your side. I want to help find her, OK? But I thought I heard you say she destroyed her own cell phone?

MARTIN: As per a quote from the police department, that was what the husband had stated. And you`re not antagonizing me. At this point, you`re being very helpful in us finding this young lady.

GRACE: OK. Officer -- with me, a special guest, Eric Martin from Central New Jersey Search and Rescue -- were any tests done within the home, such as forensic tests?

MARTIN: No, ma`am. No, ma`am whatsoever. At this point, we were basically taking this as a missing person, which to my understanding, with the Warren Police Department and the Somerset County prosecutor`s office, she`s still being listed as a missing person. It hasn`t gone into a criminal investigation as of yet.

GRACE: Take a listen to what the husband had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIMOTHY MCENROE, HUSBAND OF MISSING WOMAN: She could be almost anywhere. She`s got friends and family throughout the country. We have our share of problems, but everything seemed to be working out with my stepdaughter and stuff, so it seemed very good. I actually think that she wants to come back now, but she might be afraid to. And she has no reason to be afraid.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because she`s been gone so long?

MCENROE: And a lot of people are looking for her, and she might be a little freaked out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Freaked out over what? Back to you, Eric Martin. He said "our share of problems." Those were his words. Has there ever been a domestic call to this home that you know of?

MARTIN: There was a domestic call the day prior to her leaving the house. The Warren Police Department did respond to the household on a domestic. It was basically resolved prior to their arrival, and there was no follow-up, from what we were informed, by the Warren Police Department.

GRACE: When we say "domestic," Dr. Leslie Austin -- Leslie joining us, psychotherapist -- why do we call it "domestic"? Domestic sounds so nice. It sounds like you`re about to come home, and you`re going to sit on a nice, cushy sofa, and turn on the TV, and smell some chicken soup in the kitchen. That`s not what a domestic is.

AUSTIN: No, we`re using it in the narrow sense of the word, as in the home or in the home-family environment. And most crimes are committed by people who are known to the victim. So it`s the first place you look when somebody`s gone missing or you suspect foul play. You look in the domestic situation in the home, with the relatives, with friends, with partners, to see, is there any possibility of foul play there?

GRACE: Out to the lines, Lee in California. Hi, Lee.

CALLER: Hi, how you doing?

GRACE: Good, dear. What`s your question?

CALLER: Where`s the baby at this point? I mean, it seemed...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Oh, good question. What about it, Jean? Where`s the baby?

CASAREZ: I think the baby is still with the father. And there are two young children, three children, actually, at home still with the father.

GRACE: And I`ve got another question. To you, Jane Velez-Mitchell. I heard Eric Martin say that -- I believe it was Eric say -- the Somerset County district attorney`s office is involved. Why would they be involved if it`s not a criminal investigation?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, a very good question. There are some very interesting aspects to this case, most notably that the husband has reportedly refused to take a polygraph. And, of course, all of the information we`re getting from him, as you pointed out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re all concerned, very concerned. And if she`s out there, we really hope very much that she`ll get in contact with someone, she`ll get in contact with the police, she`ll call us. We all love her. We want her home; we want her back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: A firefighter mom has seemingly vanished into thin air, leaving behind three children, including a 6-month-old baby left unattended at home. Let`s go out to the lawyers, Mickey Sherman, Anne Bremner. Anne Bremner, it`s not to be harsh, but statistically we always start with a look at the husband...

BREMNER: Sure.

GRACE: ... or boyfriend or within the home. Why?

BREMNER: Well, because oftentimes the husbands are involved. And those are the stats. But, you know, listen, in defense of the husband -- so I`m going to be in defense of the dogs, too, Nancy, it`s all -- I say...

GRACE: I don`t know if he wants to be lumped in with some killer dogs, devil dogs.

BREMNER: No, but the thing is, but if you`re going to say that all the dachshunds and the shepherds and the pit bulls and the poodles are killers...

(CROSSTALK)

BREMNER: ... I`m getting to the story, then you`re going to say all the husbands are killers based upon the fact that there`s some stats that say husbands are killers. I`m not getting married, if that`s the case, but it`s a fallacy to use that as a proposition to say he did it. There`s no evidence here to say that he did.

GRACE: Correct. Mickey Sherman, why do we always start with the husband, the boyfriend, the loved one? And, also, what`s the deal with not taking a polygraph?

SHERMAN: Well, statistically, you`re always more likely to be killed by someone you love. It`s just the American way, I guess. But the bottom line is...

GRACE: No, it`s not because it`s the American way. It`s because statistically it is the boyfriend or husband or ex-lover that does the deed.

SHERMAN: Because that`s the person who most enrages the other person. Usually you don`t enrage other strangers. I`m not it`s justifiable homicide, but that`s the statistics. And your (INAUDIBLE) cross- examination, saying that all the information came from the husband, I mean, you`re really giving this guy a hard time. I`ve got two words for that: Jennifer Wilbanks, OK?

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: You know what? You got me so good on that one, but I never thought it was the fiancee. I thought some meth-head had dumped her in the trunk and taken off with her. And you know what? She got me good. I hope she`s happy tonight. Maybe she`s still cutting grass as community service. Very quickly, everyone, as we go to break, let`s remember Army National Guard Sergeant Lawrence Parrish, Lebanon, Missouri. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. Sergeant Lawrence Parrish, American hero. Thank you to our guests. If you haven`t voted yet, there may still be time. See you tomorrow night. Goodnight, friend.

END

Dog Beaten, Dragged and left for Dead

2006-10-27T20:10:00.000-04:00

On October 11th, in the town of Didsbury Alberta, a couple out for a walk found a female collie-lab cross lying in the street. The dog's injuries were so severe, the veterinarian called to the scene had to euthanize the animal on the spot. The dog's legs were bound together with duct tape, and its head was wrapped in a bag. There was a tow rope around the dog's neck. The dog's neck, pelvis, back and skull were fractured. Investigators believe that the six or seven year old dog had been beaten prior to being tied up and hitched to a vehicle, then dragged for blocks. There was no apparent motive to the crime.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, of Didsbury Alberta has been charged under the Criminal Code with injuring/endangerin g an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. His 17 old accomplice, whose identity is protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, is charged with the same offences.

Please sign the petition: http://www.thepetit ionsite.com/ takeaction/ 231802504? ltl=1161983790# body

Pit puppy ears cut off with scissors! Puppy's screams drew attention!"

2006-10-27T20:09:00.000-04:00

Hi Friends,

I have just read and signed the petition: "Pit puppy ears cut off with scissors! Puppy's screams drew attention!"
Please do the same.

http://www.thepetit ionsite.com/ takeaction/ 764344398? ltl=1161983269

This is just SICK!!!

Dog shot in drive-by

2006-10-27T13:05:00.000-04:00

Bullet still lodged in pit bull
By JONATHAN JENKINS, TORONTO SUN

A pit bull-mix is in critical condition after being shot by a drive-by gunman in Jane-Finch and surgeons will today try to save the dog's life by cutting out the bullet.

"He's in a lot of pain and the bullet is still lodged within him,"said Courtney Barnfield of the Toronto Humane Society.

Prince the pit bull remained at the Toronto Humane Society after being transferred there from an emergency veterinarian clinic.

The dog's owner was out walking her muzzled and leashed pup Monday evening, Barnfield said, when "a car drove up and someone inside shot the dog."

Nothing was said to the woman and it's not known if she or the dog was being targeted, "however, the dog was shot right in the middle of the chest."

And while the owner rushed her dog to the vet, she was less keen to call police to report the shooting.

"She's quite leery apparently of doing so,"Barnfield said.

The Humane Society will file a police report and will also turn the bullet over for ballistic testing.
"It can happen, we get people who get shot up here that don't call us," Staff-Sgt. Gerry Cashman said. "It's too bad."

But regardless of the victim's species, it's distressing to hear people aren't willing to call cops for help.

"If someone was shooting at the dog or hit the dog, I would think the round was intended for me," Cashman said.

"I'd want the police to be aware of it," he said.

Police-community relations have often been uneasy in Jane-Finch but Cashman said residents have been coming forward more often lately and have helped solve a number of shootings.

"I think we're doing a lot better than we used to do in getting information from individuals," he said.

Woman In Shock after Pitbull Wounded In Drive-by Shooting

2006-10-27T13:01:00.000-04:00

Tuesday October 24, 2006

A dog owner whose pet was hit by a bullet in what appears to be a drive-by shooting explained Tuesday why she's not planning on taking the case to police.

"They can't even find who's shooting people never mind who's shooting dogs," the woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, reasoned. "It's just more stress on me."

The incident took place at around midnight Monday near Keele and Sheppard.

"I was just walking him and I heard a loud noise," the dog lover adds. "He yelps a little bit and I see little drops of blood."

Luckily the dog survived after the bullet narrowly missed all its vital organs.

"It basically missed his chest and his heart, and it entered here and it is sitting before his chest cavity," explains veterinarian Allison Turcotte.

The Humane Society is now investigating the case, although they admit finding the person responsible is unlikely. They'll remove the bullet during surgery on Wednesday.

Streets Not Safe for “Man nor Beast!”

2006-10-27T12:58:00.000-04:00

On Monday evening, October 23 2006, in the Jane and Finch area, a lady was walking her dog, Prince, when someone drove by and fired a gun. She heard a loud “pop” and Prince started crying and blood appeared from a wound in his chest.

Thankfully, we were there to help. The bullet is still lodged in Prince’s chest and The Toronto Humane Society veterinarians report that until they are able to stabilize him, they can’t operate—Prince is not a young dog and the operation will be hard on him.

Please keep Prince in your thoughts, wish him luck and visit this page again for further updates on his condition.

If you have any information on this vicious attack, please call our Investigations Department at 416-392-2273 ext. 2172 or 2159.

Updates:
Wednesday, October 25 2006
The Toronto Humane Society vets performed surgery on Prince and he is expected to make a full recovery after coming out of surgery “successfully and without incident”. The surgery lasted approximately two hours. The veterinarians at the shelter said removing the bullet was necessary because of its proximity to the dog's heart, which put him at risk of infection.

Dog Shot To Death By Off-Duty Chicago Officer

2006-10-26T11:02:00.000-04:00

Officer Was Jogging When He Says Dog Followed, Tried To Attack Him

Mike Parker Reporting
(CBS) CHICAGO

The owner of a dog that was shot and killed by an off-duty Chicago police officer is distraught Tuesday.

He told CBS 2's Mike Parker the dog was harmless, and didn't deserve to be gunned down.

There's a candle burning in David Pino's dining room, a little memorial to his dog Capone, a 2-year-old boxer who was shot to death by an off-duty Chicago police officer last Friday.

"I don't know what to do. I do miss my dog," said David Pino, the dog's owner.

Pino says Capone had been his constant companion since the retired police detention officer lost his leg to diabetes. Then, Friday morning, the dog escaped from the back yard. A block and a half away, the off-duty officer who was jogging encountered the dog and shot him a number of times.

The officer told investigators Capone began chasing him and attempted to attack him. The initial police report quoted the officer as saying he fired 12 rounds at the dog.

Photos taken by the Pino family at the scene show at least nine evidence flags marking spent shells on the street.

Diagrams by the veterinarian who examined Capone suggest eight slugs hit the dog.

Tuesday a spokesman for the Chicago Police Department told CBS 2 only five shots were fired, and that "if the dog is attacking, that would be an appropriate use of force."

One of Pino's daughters described Capone as a dog too timid to attack anybody.

"He would actually run in the house when he would see a rabbit in the backyard," said Kristina Pino.

"He wasn't just a dog. He was like my son, a part of my family and I miss him very much," said David Pino.

David Pino doesn't know exactly what happened on that Northwest Side street corner Friday. He just can't help thinking something wasn't right. He's hoping a security camera at a candy factory across the street might provide some answers. Pino says he is going to get a lawyer.

(© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Pit bull wounded in drive by shooting

2006-10-24T23:47:00.000-04:00

A dog owner whose pet was hit by a bullet in what appears to be a drive-by shooting explained Tuesday why she's not planning on taking the case to police.

"They can't even find who's shooting people never mind who's shooting dogs," the woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, reasoned. "It's just more stress on me."

The incident took place at around midnight Monday near Keele and Sheppard.

"I was just walking him and I heard a loud noise," the dog lover adds. "He yelps a little bit and I see little drops of blood."

Luckily the dog survived after the bullet narrowly missed all its vital organs.

"It basically missed his chest and his heart, and it entered here and it is sitting before his chest cavity," explains veterinarian Allison Turcotte.

The Humane Society is now investigating the case, although they admit finding the person responsible is unlikely. They'll remove the bullet during surgery on Wednesday.

Coolest Dog on Dogster

2006-10-20T14:33:00.000-04:00

We're all in the coolest dog photo contest.

Please vote for us. :)

Here's Zeus sleeping http://www.dogster.com/show06/vote_photo.php?i=20808&d=s

Here's Brutus sleeping http://www.dogster.com/show06/vote_photo.php?i=20810&d=s

Here's Brutus in my jacket http://www.dogster.com/show06/vote_photo.php?i=20813&d=s

Here's Sadie and Brutus looking cute http://www.dogster.com/show06/vote_photo.php?i=20815&d=s

Pit bull owners bare their souls to fight Ontario's ban on the dogs

2006-10-06T11:38:00.000-04:00

Fundraising calendar features dog lovers in assorted states of undress

Iris Winston
The Ottawa Citizen

An 82-year-old Ottawa woman is posing nude for a fundraising calendar. Her inspiration: the love of a pit bull.

Octogenarian Squibs Mer-cier appears unencumbered by clothes with her Staffordshire bull terrier, one of the breeds that falls under Ontario's ban of pit bull-type dogs. The calendar is to raise money for a legal challenge to the law.

Ms. Mercier is the only founding member of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada still living, let alone posing for pin-up pictures. In the calendar, she and 11 other members of the club appear wearing only broad smiles with their dogs and the occasional discreetly placed best-in-show rosette or flag.

From a new bride flanked by her two Staffordshire bull terriers, to a model in a bubble bath with her dogs on the edge of the tub, the photographs -- most of them by professional photographers -- speak of the warm relationship between the dogs and their owners.

The brainchild of club president Clive Wilkinson, the calendar attempts to heighten awareness of the plight of Staffordshire bull terriers and related breeds that fall under the umbrella of Ontario's Bill 132.

The McGuinty government's bill, which amended the Dog Owners' Liability Act, received royal assent in March 2005. It "prohibits individuals from owning, breeding, transferring, importing or abandoning pit bulls." The bill grandfathers current dogs and owners, but insists that the dogs be muzzled in public places.

"I'm certainly not prepared to muzzle my dogs," says Mrs. Mercier, as she pets her gentle, 13-year-old champion Staffordshire, Duchess. "I've had Staffies all my life. They're wonderful companions. This stupid and unfair law will make the breed extinct. We have to fight it. If we don't oppose the bill, they'll just move on to the next breed. It's not dogs they should be banning. It's bad owners."

The battle against the legislation, with high-profile lawyer Clayton Ruby for the defence, is before the courts. This, says Mrs. Mercier, is why raising funds in various ways, such as auctions, raffles and now calendars, is a priority.

"This money could have gone into doing good for animals in other ways, if we didn't have this fight on our hands," she says. "But we're not going away. You only lose when you give up."

The first 450 copies of the 2007 Beautiful Staffies and Their Ladies calendar quickly sold out. A new batch of the "baring it all against banning" calendar is available through the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada at www.staffordcanada. com.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

Always Love

2006-10-03T10:30:00.000-04:00

http://video. yahoo.com/ video/play? vid=a8c39ad9e69c b71b1f9f294f2c50 022f.496137&fr=yvmtf

Dog Attacks: Dog Owner Suitability Tests are the Obvious Answer

2006-10-02T09:25:00.000-04:00

We're off again. The News of the World ( Britain 's top selling Sunday newspaper) has joined its sister title, The Sun in calling for a change to dog legislation.

They are calling for owners of dogs who attack people, whether on their own property or not to be liable for criminal prosecution.

Whilts this is not exactly the same stance as The Sun, who are calling specifically for the muzzling of Rottweilers at home and in public, at least it appears that this is what they were calling for (you can read it here.), both newspapers are keen to see 'devil dogs' and their owners legislated against.

Both newspapers are calling for something to happen in the style of we want change, we want it now and we want children protected. We agree, change is needed. But change for change's sake won't prevent a single death or future dog attack. There is a solution, both newspapers have missed it.

The thing is, this whole debate is rapidly turning into a 'them and us' situation when in reality the dog owning community want the same thing. Nobody wants to see people injured as a result of a dog attack but surely prevention has got to be better than cure.

The News of The World's campaign is supported by the views of Clare Carey and Mark Lawrence, the parents of little Harvey Lawrence the boy who received horrendous injuries when he was attacked by a Rottweiler last week.

Clare stormed:

"Dangerous animals in zoos are kept behind bars. Dogs like Rottweilers have the same kind of characteristics so even putting them on a lead is not enough. They're stronger than a person. "We've seen the damage this dog's teeth did to Harvey 's skull and his face and I wouldn't want any other parent to have to go through this. "Children shouldn't have to live in fear of animals. We must do something to protect them. "The law needs to be changed. People who own dogs need to take responsibility."

Comparing "dogs like Rottweilers" as having similar characteristics to dangerous zoo animals is understandable in part. In many ways, they do. They are capable of delivering fatal attacks, physically they can indeed be stronger than many people and yes, they are animals. They are not wild animals though and belong to a group of animals who are collectively known as our best friend, the Rottweiler is not an exemption from that description. There are many reasons for this.

The main difference between animals in zoos and dogs is that canines were domesticated and are absolutely predisposed to accept training and psychological conditioning delivered by humans. Punishing the people who chose to ignore their responsibility to train their dogs is fine (see how much we're still agreeing here). But at what point does the punishment actually prevent the attack in the first place? Surely this has to be the aim because unlike 99.9% of crimes, it's rare that the owner of an attacking dog actually wanted the crime to happen, they didn't chose for it to happen and they certainly don't profit from it when it occurs. Negligence is the issue and the way to combat negligence is by demanding that owners are aware of their responsibilities.

A dog ownership suitability test would ensure that dog owners knew of their legal and social responsibilities. A dog ownership suitability test would make certain that would-be dog owners were required to understand dog law, learn how the dangerous dogs act relates to them, understand how dog body language works, realise how powerful certain breeds are and what makes them tick. A dog ownership suitability test WOULD prevent dog attacks, WOULD go a long way toward stopping the wrong people owning dogs that were unsuitable for their level of experience or lifestyle and WOULD guarantee that all dog owners were equipped with at the very least, a basic level of understanding of what their responsibilities were to their dog and to society.

The dangerous dogs act is quite unique in that it is a piece of legislation, a much criticised piece of legislation at that, where the group of people it's aimed at (dog owners) widely don't know what's in it and the specific group it legislates against (dogs) can't actually read it. The truth is, the dangerous dogs act could be the finest piece of law making in British legal history but would still be rendered next to useless if the people it's meant for don't know what's in it and the section of society it was brought in for can't read the thing.

Given that we have taken dogs to new levels of achievement over the past 100 years - think guide dogs, cancer detection dogs, Police dogs, drug detection dogs, bomb detection dogs (Rottweilers playing a role in many of these disciplines) , it still remains unlikely that we'll ever be able to teach man's best friend to read and understand the complexities of the British legal system. With that in mind the only sensible way to ensure that the dangerous dogs act offers a benefit to society is to try and think of a system that obligates dog owners to understand it. How can we do that? A dog ownership suitability test or, 'Doggie Driving Licence' would do exactly that.

A dog ownership suitability test would take care of this and then some. If dog owners still don't understand their responsibilities after that and their dogs are attacking people, fouling the streets or causing a nuisance to innocent members of society then yes, let's see them prosecuted as criminals.

If we didn't have driving tests, theory exams and laws of the road legislating for speeding, dangerous driving, understanding traffic signals etc, laws which are understood by the vast majority of the people they were designed to apply to, drivers, and are there not just to protect the people behind the wheel but other members of society who inevitably come into contact with them, would we honestly be surprised if accidents occur as a result of sheer ignorance/negligenc e? Seems illogical that we don't seek to apply the same theory to dog owners.

Breed specific legislation will not stop people dying and being injured as a result of dog attacks. Muzzling orders will not stop people dying and being injured as a result of dog attacks. Prosecuting negligent dog owners whose dogs injure or kill is fine in theory but it's still retrospective, somebody has still been killed or attacked. Let's try and prevent dog attacks, prevent abuse of dogs as a result of owner negligence and let's make something positive come out of a tragic week. Dog ownership suitability tests are the prevention, criminalisation is only the cure.

MCGUINTY: NO MORE MR. NICE GUY

2006-09-27T13:46:00.000-04:00

The Toronto Sun
Tue 26 Sep 2006 - Editorial/Opinion

We're shocked and appalled. How could Premier Dalton McGuinty possibly name Health Minister George Smitherman his new deputy premier?

Doesn't McGuinty remember that Smitherman admitted last spring to having had a five-year addiction to illegal "party drugs"?

So how could he decide to give Smitherman a promotion with the resumption of the Ontario Legislature yesterday? Didn't McGuinty and Co. make it abundantly clear in the recent Parkdale-High Park byelection that they believe a past admission of drug use should disqualify someone from public office? Except, apparently, for Liberal cabinet ministers.

During the byelection, the McGuinty Liberals hysterically warned, among other things, that NDP candidate Cheri DiNovo, a United Church minister, had previously admitted in her sermons (and on VISION TV) to being a troubled street kid, who had used drugs and smuggled some LSD from California.

McGuinty never disavowed such Liberal tactics prior to election night. Voters, however, shrugged and DiNovo, who took her seat in the Legislature yesterday, easily defeated the Grit candidate in a riding previously held by the Liberals.

McGuinty's elevation of Smitherman to deputy premier is especially hypocritical given that DiNovo's admissions of past drug use were much less serious than Smitherman's.

While both DiNovo and Smitherman stopped using drugs before they first ran for elected office, Smitherman's years of drug abuse occurred while he was an adult, not a street kid, as was the case with DiNovo. Further, DiNovo, never hid her past, while Smitherman hid his from McGuinty when the premier appointed him health minister in 2003.

Smitherman didn't come clean until last spring, when McGuinty praised him for publicly confessing his addiction, even though he hid it when McGuinty named him to cabinet.

Oddly, we keep hearing that the Liberals' strategy in next October's general election will be to run McGuinty as a "nice guy."

Uh, nice to whom? Cheri DeNovo? Parents with autistic children? The people of Caledonia? The residents of London and vicinity who are about to be stuck with taking Toronto's trash, aided and abetted by McGuinty's government? This is a "nice guy"? Gee, we'd hate to see him when he's angry.

Legal Challenge at Risk - Banned Aid Needs Help

2006-09-26T09:56:00.000-04:00

Ontario.

Twice the size of Texas.

Three times the size of Germany.

Five times the size of the United Kingdom.

Home to a breed-specific legislative ban covering the largest geo-political area in the world.

A ban that discriminates not by action or deed, but by physical appearance.

A ban that targets not only "pit bulls", American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers", but haunts *ANY* pure-or-crossbred canine bearing a substantial physical resemblance to one of the aforementioned. The 2004 brainchild of the province's Attorney General, Michael Bryant, the now-infamous Bill 132 was conceived as a vote-grabbing safety measure; a poorly designed and ill-appointed law geared to target the public's visceral fear of dog attacks. Implemented in August of 2005, retribution against innocent canines and their owners was swift.

Walking your pet without a muzzle now means risking seizure without warrant. Visitors and residents alike travelling without certified documentation face the spectre of breed (mis)-identificatio n looming around every corner.

Pets showing natural protective tendencies within the boundaries of their home turf may now be turned in on the suspicion of being 'menacing'. This last is particularly frightening; simple barking at passers-by can be interpreted as 'threatening behaviour' by control officers with no training in either animal behaviour or breed identification. Failure to pass muster on any of the above can and will result in a one-way trip to the official's choice of humane society, pound or research facility.

There are few second chances.

This ban has raised both the conscience and ire of dog lovers from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island . It's not just a 'pit-bull' issue. It's a Rottweiler issue, a Doberman issue. It's about Boxers and Bullmastiffs, Bull Terriers, Neapolitan Mastiffs and Boston Terriers, Great Danes and Vizslas... are you surprised? These are but a handful of breeds that have come under scrutiny and endured public censure following the implementation and subsequent over-broad interpretation of A.G. Bryant's Bill.

From the beginning, concerned groups and individuals questioned the feasibility of a legal challenge - a challenge directed at the violation of constitutional rights, yet still allowing for the punishment of those who wilfully put animals and people in harm's way. Prominent trial and constitutional lawyer Clayton Ruby was immediately retained.

With the help of the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Canada, the Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull Terrier Club, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada and Advocates for the Underdog, a coalition was formed including the Dog Legislation Council of Canada and aptly named "Banned-Aid" . This group was to play a prominent role in the ensuing months, bringing the plight of Ontario's dogs to those who otherwise might never have considered the gravity of the situation. Their determination paid off; the spring of 2006 saw a trial date set, and on May 15th, 16th and 18th, Justice T. Herman heard final arguments from both sides in Ontario's Superior Court.

The battle, however, is not quite over. Government-initiate d delays have resulted in the near-doubling of our legal fees, which have long passed initial "guesstimates" and are closing in on the 1/2 million mark. In this we are running out of time. Generous time allowances by Clayton Ruby's offices have merely slowed the inevitable, that being we *MUST* come up with $100,000 in two weeks' time for this case to continue.

The importance of being present to rebut this new motion cannot be overestimated. Lacking an opposing legal presence gives government lawyers carte blanche while countering from our side greatly increases the chances of any further introductions being struck down as frivolous. Ruby strongly believes this attempt to be a last-gasp 'smoke screen' effort by our opposition, carefully orchestrated to bring us to our financial knees. We cannot let this happen. If we have come this far, it is in large part due to the faith of our members, friends and allies - individuals who possess the same gritty determination hallmarking the breeds this Bill seeks to eliminate forever.

We are so very, very close. For the latest updates and news briefs, we urge you to visit the Dog Legislation Council of Canada website at:

www.doglegislationc ouncilcanada. org

If you believe - as we do - that victory is a mere leash-length away, then please help by donating to the Ontario Legal Challenge of Bill 132 through the following agents:

Banned Aid Coalition - www.bannedaid. com

Send a cheque or money order payable to Banned Aid to:

Cathy Prothro
National Secretary/Treasurer - Banned Aid Coalition
351 Pleasant Street
Dartmouth NS B2Y 3S4

OR

Mark a cheque "Banned Aid - In Trust' on the memo line; make payable to "Ruby and Edwardh" and send to:

Ruby and Edwardh
11 Prince Arthur Avenue
Toronto, ON M5R 1B2

No donation is too small, no suggestion unimportant. Each and every contribution is humbly appreciated - indeed, more than can be possibly expressed. We know the dogs this saves would thank you if they could.

Respectfully,

Banned Aid Coalition
351 Pleasant Street
Dartmouth NS B2S 3Y4
Canada

Pit Bull Ban Punishes Dogs for Bad Owners

2006-09-26T09:42:00.000-04:00

Monday , September 25, 2006
By Radley Balko

This is Rufus. Last February, Rufus was named best in show at the Westminster Kennel Club.
With his football-shaped head, muscular haunches, and powerful jaws, Rufus might, under the right circumstances, look pretty intimidating. He's harmless, of course, as are the vast majority of bull terriers with responsible owners.

Unfortunately, there are a growing number of cities in North American that want nothing to do with Rufus. In addition to several smaller towns, Kansas City , Mo. , recently followed the lead of Denver , Colo. , and Ontario , Canada , in instituting a ban on "pit bulls."

Any animal meeting the "pit bull" description found in the city will either be turned over to shelters outside the city or, more likely, euthanized.

These types of breed-specific prohibitions are a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but the most glaring is that the most common target of these laws — the "pit bull" — isn't really a breed at all but rather a generic name given to dogs with with features we've come to associate with a certain type of dog with certain aggressive characteristics. The "pit bull" very generally refers to the American Staffordshire Terrier breed, but can include a number of breeds with similar features, including bull terriers like Rufus, and just about any mutt with traces of bulldog, mastiff, or bloodhound crossed with any breed of terrier.

Test yourself — see if you can find the pit bull on this page.

When she was a puppy, I was repeatedly warned that one of my own dogs might be mistaken for a pit bull should I move to an area where they're banned. She's the sweetest, most harmless dog I've ever known, unless you happen to be a rug or a pair of shoes. I once came home to finder her curled up in the cable guys' lap.

The New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell has written about research showing that pit bull-ish dogs don't deserve their reputation. Gladwell found a study from a research group in Georgia that has so far tested more than 25,000, measuring stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness in interaction with people. Gladwell writes, "Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund."

The president of the group said pit bulls even test unusually well with children.

Dogs commonly called pit-bulls do have unusually strong jaws, a characteristic commonly cited by advocates of eradicating the dogs. The American Staffordshire Terrier is also unusually smart, driven, and determined — all of which make it a challenging dog to own, particularly for new dog owners. But there are many breeds of dog that can deliver a nasty bite when provoked. And herding dogs are even more difficult to own and train than so-called pit-bulls, particularly for people with children (they sometimes nip at the heels of children in an effort to corral them).

The attention directed at pit bulls seems to be more due to their trendiness and their popularity with disreputable owners, not to any unique aggressiveness in the dogs' genetics. Just a few years ago, the tough-guy dog du jour was the equally powerful Rottweiler. Dobermans and German Shepherds have also done their time in the spotlight as the pariah breed.

The problem then is with the owners, not with the dogs. Ban pit bulls, and the riffraff that breeds and trains them for nefarious purposes will simply move on to another breed.

The law in Kansas City , however, is particularly dumb — though it does aptly show just how misguided the thinking among public officials on this issue can be. Apparently, the city has instituted an "amnesty period," during which well-intentioned owners can turn their pups over for euthanization without facing a fine.

To see the folly in that proposal, consider two hypothetical pit bull owners.

Owner A is a family who had the misfortune of picking a pit bull from the pet store, breeder, or pound. They've raised the dog as a pet, and it lives in a happy, loving home. It's harmless. Owner B is a drug dealer who bought a pit bull to protect his contraband. He has trained the dog to attack. The dog, obviously, is vicious and dangerous.

Which dog owner is more likely to have respect for the law, and take advantage of the amnesty period? Whose dog is more likely to be turned over and euthanized? Kansas City has created a scenario where most of the harmless pit bulls in the city will be destroyed, rather foolishly leaving mostly the dangerous ones. Of course, that result will only reinforce the wrongheaded notion that all dogs that look like pit bulls are inherently violent and aggressive.

Ingrid Newkirk, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, actually supports breed-specific bans, including bans on pit bulls. Her reasoning, however, is revealing. In an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle last year, she likened pit bull legislation to gun control, which she also supports. That's rather appropriate. Both policies are misguided, and penalize responsible owners for the sins of criminal owners.

To borrow a phrase from the gun rights movement, when pit bulls are criminalized, only criminals will own pit bulls.

Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute specializing in "nanny state" and consumer choice issues, including alcohol and tobacco control, drug prohibition, obesity and civil liberties. Separately, he maintains the The Agitator weblog. The opinions expressed in his column for FOXNews.com are his own and are not to be associated with Cato unless otherwise indicated.

Joey Porter's dogs get loose, kill miniature horse

2006-09-22T12:57:00.000-04:00

Thursday, September 21, 2006
By Mike Bucsko, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Charges could be filed by the end of the week over an incident Tuesday in which two dogs belonging to Steelers linebacker Joey Porter -- a pit bull and a mastiff -- got loose from Mr. Porter's Pine home and killed a miniature horse at a nearby farm.

The dogs, named Tina and Nemo, were still in the corral with the dead horse when police arrived about 4:45 p.m., said Chief Bob Amann, of the Northern Regional Police Department. The department includes Pine, Marshall, Richland and Bradford Woods.

The owners of the horse, Richard and Eleanor Bowers, were not home at the time and their home was occupied by a daughter, Chief Amann said. The Bowers yesterday declined to comment on the attack.

The 6-year-old American miniature horse was 29 1/2 inches tall, probably smaller than the two dogs. Mastiffs can weigh more than 200 pounds and stand nearly 6 feet on their hind legs.

Police knew immediately to whom the dogs belonged because the dogs had gotten free last year, but caused no problems, Chief Amann said. As a result, Mr. Porter was notified Tuesday and got the dogs under control after he arrived at the scene of the incident on Hill Haven Lane.

The dogs were later transported back to Mr. Porter's Tanglewood Drive home about a mile away by Triangle Pet Control Co. Inc. of McKees Rocks, with which Pine contracts for animal control problems.

Mr. Porter's back yard is completely fenced in, so police are not sure how the dogs got loose, Chief Amann said.Police also notified the regional dog warden with the state Department of Agriculture, which has jurisdiction when a dog is involved in the death of livestock. The agency is acting in an advisory capacity and will coordinate charges and any subsequent issues with local police, said Chris Ryder, a Department of Agriculture spokesman in Harrisburg.

The state has a fund that pays up to $10,000 for damage or the death of an animal in a dog attack. Miniature horses average $4,000 in price.

Charges would be based on the state Dog Law and could include violations of the dangerous dogs and confinement of dogs sections. Other possible violations could result from checks on whether Mr. Porter's dogs were properly licensed and had received the proper rabies shots, Chief Amann said.The charges are summary offenses with a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine. There are other penalties for the dogs should a judge, in this case District Judge Regis Welsh Jr. in Hampton, determine that they are dangerous.

Mr. Porter issued this statement yesterday:

"I am saddened to learn that my dogs escaped from my yard and attacked and killed a horse. It was an accident and I am not sure how the dogs escaped. We have a very secure yard with a six-foot fence around it and this has never happened before. I have reached out to the owners of the horse and will do whatever I can to help them get through this very unfortunate situation."

Sue me, St. John's mayor tells owners of attack dogs

2006-09-20T10:36:00.000-04:00

Last Updated: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:02 PM NT
CBC News

St. John's Mayor Andy Wells says he's prepared to face lawsuits over a city crackdown on aggressive dogs, urging staff to "put the damn dog down" if it seems dangerous.

"We're going to go after them and try to get those dogs," said Wells on Monday night as he responded to a weekend incident in which two pit bulls attacked another dog in the city.

"I've told our staff that whenever we get an animal that they think is dangerous, then — as far as I'm concerned — put the damn dog down," Wells, who owns several dogs himself, told CBC News.

"The owner can take us to court. Let the courts decide what our liability is. We've served the public interest."

The owner of the pit bulls left the scene of the attack — near Quidi Vidi Lake, in the east end of St. John's — without taking responsibility for what had happened.

Sue Martin said she panicked when she saw the two pit bulls attack her pet Misty, an Australian shepherd.

"We spent the next three or four minutes just trying to get his dogs to let go of her, and believe you me, they were not going to let go," she said.

Give higher fines to owners, trainer urges

Dog trainer Glenn Redmond, who spoke for the SPCA as the agency sponsored a forum on aggressive dogs on Monday night, said there are no bad breeds — just bad owners.

Redmond said irresponsible dog owners must face harsher penalties, such as high fines.

"We can't save every dog that has been led down a wrong path, but we can stop a second dog from being led down the same path by the same owner," Redmond said.

More than 200 people attended the SPCA's meeting, which was scheduled before the latest attack took place.

Wells said the people who need to hear the message of taking responsibility of one's pets were not there.

'I have to question the mentality, the mindset, of a human being who'd want to have those types of dogs, that are a threat to other animals and other people.'-St. John's Mayor Andy Wells

"I have to question the mentality, the mindset, of a human being who'd want to have those types of dogs, that are a threat to other animals and other people," said Wells.

"This was a great seminar. The problem is, the wrong people are here," he said.

"[It's] the idiots, the fools and the non-competents that cause all the problems."

City searching for pit bulls' owner

Redmond said the SPCA would like to see several reforms, including a ban on chaining dogs up, which he says can make an animal more aggressive in the long run.

"First thing, we would like to see a ban on tethering," he said.

"Statistically, they say a tethered dog is more dangerous than a roaming pack of dogs.… There' s so many dogs here of unknown temperament."

Meanwhile, Wells said city officials are working hard to identify the owner of the pit bulls that attacked on Sunday.

He said they have narrowed down their search to a small number of owners.

2006-09-15T01:22:00.000-04:00

A 14-hour standoff — and no one home

2006-09-14T20:11:00.000-04:00

Last Updated: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:08 PM ET
CBC News

After a 14-hour standoff, police broke down the door of a townhouse in the Ottawa neighbourhood of Bells Corners and searched it — only to find there was no one inside.

Police surrounded the house on Richmond Road near Moodie Drive at about midnight on Wednesday, intending to arrest a 35-year-old man for an earlier domestic assault and uttering threats.

Ottawa Police surrounded the townhouse at about midnight on Wednesday, intending to arrest a man for an earlier domestic assault.

Early Thursday morning, armed police officers cleared people out of townhouses on both sides of the residence, although many people stayed in the area to watch.

Police waited for 14 hours, shouted repeatedly for the suspect and lobbed tear gas before finally entering the building.

Eventually, police officers obtained a new warrant that allowed them to search the house.

They smashed the clasp of the front door with a sledgehammer.

Then they threw a volley of tear gas into the house and continued to shout for the man to come out — but drew no response.

Finally, at about noon, the officers broke down the door.

CBC reporters outside heard the sound of gunshots from inside the house.

It turned out that officers found two pit bulls and shot them dead.

What they did not find was the man they were looking for, despite searching the house from top to bottom, said Const. Steven Desjourdy.

"Police searched the whole building, including the attic. There are no holes in the walls to suppose that he did go into another apartment. So we can only suppose that he might have left last night."

The man presumably escaped despite the fact that police had the house surrounded since Wednesday night.
Fifteen to 20 police officers left the scene after the thorough, but futile search.

Police continue searching for the Ottawa man.

So, why did the police shoot the dogs??? Doesn't make sense to me......

Rest in Peace Zoey

2006-09-12T17:53:00.000-04:00

It is with great regret that I say that Zoey has passed away due to kidney failure.

Zoey was a great ambassador for all dogs, especially the 'pit bull type' dogs. She fought against BSL and helped out many others dealing with this. She passed no judgment on any of her fur friends and now is resting peacefully in Rainbow Bridge.

Zoey, I hope you are running through the hills with Zeus and now neither of you have any more pain.

Pit Bull Barriers

2006-09-12T17:38:00.000-04:00

By Dawn Aulet

What breed of dog did Helen Keller choose as her companion? What breed is the only dog to grace the cover of Life magazine? What kind of dog was used to recover the remains of the astronauts killed in the Challenger disaster? What kind of breed was Petey, the dog on "The Little Rascals"?

The answer to all these questions is the same: American pit bull terriers.

Today, the image that comes to mind when you hear "pit bull" is one of ferocious dogs attacking, full teeth bared and locking onto a victim, never letting go.

Even though some pit bulls are vicious, have bitten, mauled and killed, the problem is not in the breed, some animal lovers say.

"You can't just label a breed," said Andy Ivanicky, director of Joliet Township Animal Control. Ivanicky practices what he preaches. His dog is a Doberman.

'Judged individually'
When a dog comes to Animal Control, including a pit bull, it has to be evaluated. Although the township does not have time for intense temperament testing, it can evaluate a dog and see if the dog is friendly.
"Each dog is judged individually," Ivanicky said.

Once temperament is established, Ivanicky does have a clear rule: His first priority is to keep the public safe. So if a dog is aggressive, Ivanicky will euthanize it, especially if it has been in a fighting situation.

"You can never untrain a dog from that type of behavior," Ivanicky said.

For pit bull puppies, Ivanicky usually works with rescue organizations, including A&S Rescue. The group, founded in 2000 by Silvia Simmons, evaluates a pit bull's temperament before placing the dog in a foster home or making it available for adoption. Once a dog passes temperament tests, though, it goes from being a stray to being a beloved family pet.

Take Ty and Sox, for example. Garrett Peck of Plainfield has been a foster parent for A&S. Once Ty came to his house, he found his forever home.

"We took him as a foster with the intention of adopting if it all worked out," he said.

Today, Ty is 1-year-old, and Peck said the male pit bull is just a pushover.

"Ty's a wimp, he's a big baby," Peck said.

Both his dogs, Ty and Sox, 9 months, have been through intense obedience training. Peck took his dogs to Alex Brooks School of Dog Training in Des Plaines. The dogs stayed there for one week, while undergoing thorough training. When Peck and his wife, Christine, picked up the dogs, the trainers taught them how to reinforce the training. Ty and Sox will sit, stay, lie down and maybe most importantly, they will "leave it."

Pit bulls are terriers. And though their aggression is sometimes overstated, their tendency to be hyper is not.

"They are terriers, and these dogs can be extremely high driven," Ivanicky said.

As far as Peck is concerned, Ty passed the ultimate obedience test. A few weeks ago, on a walk through the neighborhood, another dog got loose and attacked Ty. When Ty turned to defend himself, Peck said, "Leave it," and the dog did.

One family's experience
Joliet resident Brian Johnstone is not surprised by that at all.

"Basically, dogs do what they're trained to do," he said.

Brian and his wife, Kari, already had a bulldog named Scully. They were contemplating getting a second dog, but had not really acted on it.

Then, they were at PetSmart and saw Ghia, a red pit bull.

"We fell in love with her," Brian said. "We had our two kids with us, and she was being very docile with them, she was licking them."

Brian was concerned about how Ghia would get along with Sally, but not because Ghia was a pit bull.

"I would have the same concerns if it were a poodle," he said.

Please Help Zoey

2006-09-08T14:03:00.000-04:00

Hi everyone!

It's Brutus writing. I've got a serious problem. My friend Zoey has become very sick. Her mommy and daddy are trying everthing that they can, but you know how much vet bills can cost.

Please, I'm asking you to donate some amount of money to her vet bills. She's only two years old and has so much life left in her. She has great parents that are trying to help her but are having a very hard time affording this.

Donations (via Visa or Mastercard) to:
Penetang Veterinary Hospital
(705) 549-8296

Please read the note written by Zoey's daddy and seriously consider donating anything that you can to the vet.

Thanks everyone!
Brutus

P.S. Here's a a link to my friend Zoey's page on dogster (since picture uploading isn't working on this site again for some strange reason).

http://www.dogster.com/pet_page.php?i=254076&j=t

Zoey has become very sick over the past few weeks that is why my wife has not been on we've been to the vet the last time was today and it cost me another 288 on top of medical fees totalling 200 last week i love my dog it is a part of our family but i only have so much money living on disability as it is was hard enough to come up with the funds already paid.The vet says another 109 tomorrow for some more blood work and then maybe 800 to 1200 if her intestine is blocked.which wants another 177 for x rays i just don't know what to do with my wifes anxiety and this is all to much at once normally we would never ask strangers for anything but if there is any way anyone of you can find it in your hearts to donate whatever you could for zoey not for me or family ,well for our happiness to keep our dog alive .you could donate to Penetang Veterinary Hospital # (705) 549-8296 Under Tammy and Zoey Cole for account or more info Pmail me , if you would only like to make loan instead of donation please state that and we will make every effort to get your money back to you asap but would really prefer donations as this has already took food of our table and new kids school clothes back cuz vet wont go on payment plan they are pretty heartless with them its all about the money i had to wait 4 days till i got paid just to bring her to vet cuz they wouldn't see her without cash and she lost 10 pounds in 7 days I'm sorry i don't mean to whine but just love zoey very very much couldn't really live without her normally my wife Tammy would be writing but she is by zoey's side and has asked me to write
RESPECTFULLYTIM AND TAM AND KIDS AND ZOEY

T-Shirts for your Dogs!!!

2006-09-05T15:32:00.000-04:00

*PLEASE CROSSPOST WIDELY*

Louise from http://www.allforpaws.ca/ has kindly created a doggy t-shirt for the DLCC and $5.00 from each shirt will be going to the legal challenge fund!

The t-shirts come in navy blue and pink and are available in 3 different sizes, 2X, 3X, and 4X.

T-shirts are readily available at All Creatures Great & Small, (Cobourg and Peterborough), Critter Jungle (Ottawa). T shirts are also available on line at http://www.allforpaws.ca/. Phone orders are also accepted at 1-800-747-7135.

The price for each t-shirt is $25.00. Pictures are attached!!! This is perfect timing as the weather is getting cooler and we all know that bullies need a bit of extra warmth in the fall and winter!!

These shirts were specifically fitted for larger dogs so they fit the bully breeds really well.

Check them out and remember to tell your doggy friends about them too!!

Big bucks to spring puppy

2006-08-31T11:09:00.000-04:00

Owner says bite call was a spite call
By ROSS ROMANIUK, CITY HALL REPORTERA

North End woman is livid after seeing her dog seized and quarantined -- saddling her with a nearly $200 pound bill -- only because someone cried wolf.

At least that's what Shannon Ogal insists happened when a teen girl complained to animal services officials last week that she had been bitten by the eight-month-old Labrador-cross on Manitoba Avenue.

Ogal lost her male pup, Ruffus -- at least temporarily -- last Wednesday when pound employees nabbed it as a result of a confrontation between her and a couple of teens in front of her house the previous evening.

The girls were "drunk or on something," Ogal said, when one of them taunted the animal.

"The next thing you know she screams, 'Your dog bit me!' " Ogal, a 27-year-old hotel desk clerk, told the Sun.

"She made it up. Then she just said she's calling the cops. She didn't show me the bite at all."

Dogcatchers showed up the next day to apprehend Ruffus, despite the owner's insistence there was no such attack or visible injury.

"There was nothing at all," Ogal said. "The worst he would do is maybe lick someone to death."

PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE

Animal services chief operator Tim Dack said the Labrador was seized for a 10-day quarantine -- a precautionary measure following any such apparent attack -- after his employees found that "a bite has occurred."

The pound's action, however, is not an indication that the girl was left with a clear wound.

"There doesn't have to be a mark. There doesn't have to be a scratch," Dack explained.

"The biting doesn't have to break the skin or leave a mark. It's the action of biting. People could be just lucky to not get bitten -- they could move their arm just in time, or it could just get their coat instead of them."

The 10-day confiscation, Dack said, protects the public in case the quarantined animal is rabid and costs the pet's owner $18 per day.

Even if Ogal retrieves Ruffus this weekend as she hopes, it will come with a bill of about $180 plus tax.

She wants the pound and police to listen to her argument that the teen complainant is a troublemaker allegedly responsible for a spray-painted slur, "Dead dog & dead bitch," scrawled on her rear shed since the incident.

"She's been harassing me. She drives by, swearing," said Ogal, who also owns Ruffus' mother Attila. "She said, 'It would be sad if your other dog is taken away, too.'"

Coun. Gord Steeves, head of city hall's protection committee, said he has confidence in the pound's ability to do the right thing.

"But hopefully they'll look at the injury. You don't want a dog picked up unless the dog has actually bitten someone," Steeves (St. Vital) said.

"It's just like a human. They are still dogs, but they are also innocent, I think, until proven guilty."

The pound requires bite victims to sign sworn statements in case judicial action follows.

"If we don't, anybody could just phone us and say, 'Joe Blow's dog down the street bit me,' because they don't like Joe Blow. That's not right," he said.

"I'm not saying people don't lie on statements, but we've never, to my knowledge or my memory, had a case when somebody has lied on a statement for a quarantine of an animal."

Pit Bull Owners Protest Ban With Vigil

2006-08-29T09:34:00.000-04:00

Monday August 28, 2006

Ontario's Bill 132 - "the pit bull ban" - is a relatively simple piece of legislation. Pit bulls born after a certain date must be euthanized in the interest of public safety, and those born before the date can live out their natural lives so long as they wear muzzles in public.

But many pit bull owners and dog lovers still vehemently oppose the ban, and on Sunday some gathered to voice that continued displeasure. Dozens were on hand at a candle light vigil on the lawn at Queen's Park protesting the ban, and not all of them even own a pit bull.

"Police may now enter a private residence, based on the suspicion that there is a dangerous dog inside that residence," said dog lover Selma Mulvin of her concerns regarding the law.

And she's nowhere near alone in worrying about that. Other's on hand insisted their dogs were harmless and being treated unfairly.

"He's a very fun-loving active dog," said a pit bull owner named Fabian.

Fabian's dog, Dolce, has worn a muzzle its entire life. And the dog, like the owner, isn't the least bit crazy about it.

"He just tries to take his muzzle off as we walk," Fabian added.

The ban came into effect almost a year ago after a series of pit bill attacks. Supporters of the new law said it was a victory and that it would prevent more attacks from happening.

But protests aside, Ontario's Attorney General Michael Bryant has made the rules law crystal clear.

"Pit bulls: banned. Banned. We are banning pit bulls," Bryant said at the time of the law's inception.

And yet the file may may not be sealed just yet.

Currently, a group of owners are in the process of launching a constitutional challenge to the law. The case was heard in the courts in May, but a decision is still pending.

What breeds are included in the pit bull ban?

American Staffordshire terriers, pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, and American pit bull terriers - also any other breeds sharing 'substantially similar' characteristics

When did it take effect?

Monday, August 29, 2005, and a 60-day grace period ended Friday, October 28.

What are the regulations?

The amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act (DOLA) bar people from owning, breeding, transferring, importing, or abandoning pit bulls.

Pit bulls kept legally after the ban will be known as 'grandfathered' or restricted pit bulls.

In order for a pit bull to qualify as a 'grandfathered' or restricted pit bull, it must be owned by an Ontario resident on August 29 or born in Ontario within 90 days of August 29.

As of October 28, 2005, pit bull owners have to have their dogs leashed and muzzled in public and sterilized. Additionally, owners aren't allowed to train them to fight, and can't let them stray.

The only time a muzzle isn't required is when the dog is on the owner's property, or on another person's property if they consent to the muzzle's removal.

Muzzles should be humane, but strong enough to prevent the animal from biting without interfering with its ability to breathe, pant, see, or drink.

The leash must not exceed 1.8 metres.

What are the potential penalties if laws are broken?

$10,000 fine ($60,000 for corporations) and/or

Six months imprisonment and/or

The court could order the person convicted to compensate the victim and/or

The animal could be taken away or destroyed

Candlelight Vigil

2006-08-25T10:09:00.000-04:00

I am broadcasting this to people who may have received it before, and others who haven't. There is a Candlelight Vigil on the south lawn of Queen's Park on Sunday, August 27th starting at 7 p.m. The vigil is to protest the Ontario Liberal government's breed specific legislation and mourn unoffending dogs that have been killed by this law, solely because of their shape.

For me, this law is not about the dogs. The Liberal politicians have not been forthright with the citizens of this province, they have not fully disclosed the implications of this law. This law makes responsible, law abiding people into second class citizens based on the property they own - their dogs. It is a travesty in a supposedly democratic society. If you sit by quietly while Canadian Charter rights are taken away from people based on the property they own, you cannot expect to keep your own Charter rights in the long run.

I'm including an excellent article written by a friend that summarizes the law and why it is so very wrong. Please come to Queen's Park, South Lawn on Sunday, August 27th, 2006 at 7 p.m. to let the government know that we will not go quietly into the good night, nor allow our rights to be whittled away for the sake of political ambition and sound bytes.

Yours, Dianne

============================================================
WE HOPE YOU WILL JOIN US AT QUEEN'S PARK ON SUNDAY, AUGUST 27, 2006 FROM 7 TO 10 P.M.

On August 29, 2005, the Ontario Liberals' amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act became law in spite of overwhelming opposition by experts from across North America and the United Kingdom who testified voluntarily at their own expense. The Liberals preferred to listen to the handful of individually invited and funded pro-ban presenters at Committee hearings, not one of which is a credible expert on the subject.

Banned Aid challenged the law in Ontario Superior Court on May 15, 16 and 18 and awaits a ruling by Justice T Herman. We do not know when the ruling will be handed down.

Since last August 29, tens of thousands of Ontario dog owners have been living with the fear that their pets may be seized and put to death or sent to a research laboratory because of the draconian provisions in the legislation. There have been numerous cases of dogs being seized and held at pounds only because of their appearance. Court backlogs are growing. Dogs are not receiving adequate care. Dog owners are in a state of high anxiety. Law abiding citizens are now subject to:

1. Warrantless search and seizure within a residence based on a 'belief' by a police or animal control officer that a dog menaced, is menacing or may menace a person or domestic animal. This applies to a dog of ANY breed. A complaint by a neighbour is enough to initiate proceedings, including the warrantless search of a dwelling and the seizure of a dog using whatever force is deemed necessary. This can happen whether the dog owner is present or not, which is why many dog owners do not leave their dogs at home when they go to work - their neighbours have been whipped into a frenzy by the media and the government.

2. Warrantless search and seizure in public of a dog 'believed' to be a 'pit bull' (a nonexistent breed) whose owner is 'believed' to have violated the provisions of the act in the past. Provisions include muzzling, leashing and spaying or neutering of a dog who fits the 'substantially similar' category but due to a lack of publicity most people are unaware of what is actually contained in the legislation.

3. Reverse onus in a court hearing. The prosecution may accuse a dog owner of having a 'pit bull''. This has nothing to do with the behaviour of the dog, only its appearance. The onus is then on the owner to prove that the dog is not a 'pit bull', a nonexistent breed. In the case of unregistered or mixed breed dogs, the owner must prove the impossible in order to save their dog's life. There is no chance to receive a warning or pay a fine. The only penalty for a dog whose owner is convicted of ignoring the law is death.

4. Restrictions on mobility for dog owners of a vague type, ie, dogs with short coats, boxy heads and whip tails which may be (and have been) erroneously identified as 'pit bulls' by unqualified officials. Such dogs are prohibited from being imported into Ontario. Travellers (tourists, truckers and others) are prohibited from driving through Ontario with such a dog in their motor vehicle. Ontarians who own such dogs and are transferred to another province to work are prohibited from bringing their dogs back into Ontario with them after a three month period (think military).

5. Vagueness which makes it difficult for owners to know whether they are subject to the law or not. As this law is not being applied equally to all dog owners, many are confused as to whether their dog is a 'pit bull' (a nonexistent breed) under the legislation. This is partly because the two purebreds recognized in Canada, the Staffordshire Bull terrier and the American Staffordshire terrier, are very different in size and appearance. The American Pit Bull terrier is not recognized in Canada but is registered by the UKC and the ADBA - using two different standards.

There are an estimated three million dogs in Ontario. There are fewer than 30 AmStaffs, 800 Staffie Bulls and 200 American Pit Bull terriers in the province, ie, registered, purebred dogs. These are not the dogs that are running at large, being mistreated or biting people randomly. In fact, according to statistics (and as predicted by Banned Aid), dog bites have increased in many municipalities in Ontario. In Peterborough, for example, they are up 73% since the 'breed' ban went into effect.

This law is nothing more than scapegoating and playing to the gallery - it has nothing to do with controlling the incompetent or criminal dog owners who create dangerous dogs.

I posted a short excerpt from a ruling on my blog (http://caveat.blogware.com) which eloquently explains why I find this law so repugnant and why I'm in this fight. Here is a link to the excerpt from Railway Express vs the State of New York:

EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON "DOG WHISPERER" LAWSUIT

2006-08-24T10:29:00.000-04:00

Experts from around the country have come forward to comment on the lawsuit filed May 4th by television producer Flody Suarez (8 Simple Rules) against Cesar Millan ("The Dog Whisperer") and his facility for severe injuries to his dog, Gator. Gator continues to require medical treatment and still cannot eat normally.

World-renowned dog trainers, behaviorists and veterinarians had all warned National Geographic that Millan's methods had the potential for disaster. Below are quotes from noted experts:

"Cesar Millan's methods are based on flooding and punishment. The results, though immediate, will be only transitory. His methods are misguided, outmoded, in some cases dangerous, and often inhumane. You would not want to be a dog under his sphere of influence. The sad thing is that the public does not recognize the error of his ways." Dr. Nicholas Dodman - Professor and Head, Section of Anima Behavior, Director of Behavior Clinic, Tufts University -Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine.

"Practices such as physically confronting aggressive dogs and using of choke collars for fearful dogs are outrageous by even the most diluted dog training standards. A profession that has been making steady gains in its professionalism, technical sophistication and humane standards has been greatly set back. I have long been deeply troubled by the popularity of Mr. Millan as so many will emulate him. To co-opt a word like `whispering' for arcane, violent and technically unsound practice is unconscionable." Jean Donaldson, The San Francisco SPCA-Director of The Academy for Dog Trainers.

"A number of qualified professionals have voiced concern for the welfare of pet dogs that experience the strong corrections administered by Mr. Millan. My concerns are based on his inappropriateness, inaccurate statements, and complete fabrications of explanations for dog behavior. His ideas, especially those about `dominance', are completely disconnected from the sciences of ethology and animal learning, which are our best hope for understanding and training our dogs and meeting their behavioral needs. Many of the techniques he encourages the public to try are dangerous, and not good for dogs or our relationships with them." Dr. Suzanne Hetts, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist Co-owner of Animal Behavior Associates, Inc., Littleton, CO.

"Cesar Millan employs outdated methods that are dangerous and inhumane. Using a choke chain and treadmill to treat fear of strangers and dogs is completely inappropriate. Hopefully the National Geographic Channel will listen to the scientific community and discontinue production of The Dog Whisperer." Vyolet Michaels, CTC (Certified Dog Trainer and Behavior Counselor)

Excerpt below of letter from Lisa Laney, Dip. DTBC, CPDT, CBC to National Geographic before airing "The Dog Whisperer":

"The intended program depicts aversive and abusive training methods - treatment for some serious anxiety and fear based issues - being administered by an individual with no formal education whatsoever in canine behavioral sciences. The `results' that are shown are more than likely not long lasting changes, but the result of learned helplessness, or fatigue, neither of which impact behavior to any significant long term degree - at least not in a good way. For those of us who are pioneering the effort to end the ignorance that drives the cruel treatment administered upon our canine companions, it is disappointing to see that this programming will reach the masses - especially on the NG Channel. The ignorance that this program perpetuates will give equally ignorant people the green light to subject their dogs to abuse. In turn these dogs will react even more defensively, will bite more people - and end up dead."

KORMOS CALLS ON McGUINTY TO TAKE THE “CAMPAIGN CHALLENGE”

2006-08-23T13:19:00.000-04:00

Thu, 17 Aug 2006

QUEEN'S PARK - NDP MPP Peter Kormos is calling on Dalton McGuinty to take a “Campaign Challenge” in the September 14th by-election in Parkdale-High Park.

“In the last five by-elections Dalton McGuinty has kept a low profile - some call it subterranean,” said Kormos. “I’m challenging McGuinty to stop hiding and campaign with his candidate in Parkdale-High Park.”

A by-election has been called for the Toronto riding of Parkdale-High Park for September 14th. Since 2003, there have been five by-elections in Ontario and in every one the Liberal Leader has kept deliberate distance from his candidates - going as far as slipping into the Liberal campaign in Scarborough-Rouge River under what the Toronto Star described as “the cover of darkness” (“McGuinty low-profile in Liberal stronghold”, Toronto Star, November 14, 2005).

“I understand that Dalton McGuinty might not want to discuss his nuclear power scheme or his broken promises on private hospitals with ordinary voters. But that’s what makes it a challenge,” said Kormos.

“There are many ways the Premier can win the Campaign Challenge. He can knock on doors. He can go to coffee shops. He can simply stand on a street corner,” said Kormos. “There’s only one condition: he has to actually go to the riding of Parkdale-High Park when people can see him. Driving through after dark will not qualify.”

Dog groups seek to sway legislation

2006-08-23T13:15:00.000-04:00

Target bad owners, not breeds, they say
By Charles Sheehan
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 20, 2006

Pushing back against what they called unfair media coverage, dog advocates said Saturday that the public would be better served by laws that target bad owners--not pit bulls or Rottweilers.

The 2006 Canine Legislation Conference, held in downtown Chicago, may be the first of its kind to devote its entire agenda to "breed-specific legislation," or laws that target dogs like pit bulls, according to national animal advocacy groups in attendance.

Organizers said they hope it is the beginning of a more focused and sophisticated response to a slew of municipal laws that ban specific breeds of dog.

The conference runs through Sunday.

Presentations included "developing effective political relationships" and "dog-bite statistics and dog-ownership trends from a social science perspective."

A consistent criticism from those in attendance was how the media portray pit bull or Rottweiler attacks, media that include the Chicago Tribune, said Ledy VanKavage, senior director of legal training and legislation for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

"It's not just the Tribune, it's rampant. What we see as a result are laws that target pit bull-type dogs, which means any dog," VanKavage said. "This is America and these dogs are property. An officer who knows nothing about dogs could say it looks like a pit bull and kill it and that's un-American."

In the week before the conference, the Tribune ran a three-part series on a McHenry County boy's struggle to heal after a pit bull attack that left him badly mauled.

A Tribune editorial that followed the series called pit bulls "unpredictable."Conference organizers showed slide after slide of data to dispute that assertion.

But organizers want to do more than preach to the converted, even though not all of the people in attendance were owners of pit bulls or Rottweilers.

Pit bulls and Rottweilers may be the target today, but any other breed could be next, was the message.

For example, presenters said Los Angeles County recently passed a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance that applies to all dogs.

Though the intended targets of the neutering law were Rottweilers and pit bulls, the ordinance was broadened to apply to all dogs so it would pass legal muster, according to Jan Cooper, who chairs the legislative committee of the American Rottweiler Club.

Purebred dogs registered with certain breed clubs are exempt, but Cooper said very few dogs belong to recognized clubs.

"They are singling out in a reverse manner multitudes of breeds that could never comply, therefore ending the existence of those breeds."

In a presentation, Cooper highlighted dozens of breeds that have been banned in communities across the United States and in other countries.

There are a dozen or so large groups pushing back against breed-specific legislation, said Aron Woolman, who helped organize the event. He and others aren't sure if that loose coalition would eventually merge into a regional or national group focusing only on specific breed legislation.

The wave of new laws has become significant enough, however, to spawn a conference this weekend that drew people from 12 states and Canada, Woolman said.

One of the presenters was Jeff Armstrong, who lobbied hard for the passage of Illinois legislation often called Ryan's Law, after Armstrong's son. The child, 7 at the time, was injured by a Rottweiler in 2001.

The measure authorizes counties to increase penalties against owners of dogs that attack people and to establish liability for dog owners.

Armstrong is not a dog owner, but like many at the conference, he said he would like to see more states adopt legislation that targets owners. Initially, he, too, wanted to ban Rottweilers and other breeds, he said.

But after researching dog attacks, he said he changed his mind.

"It's like banning red SUVs if a loved one is run over by a red SUV," Armstrong said. "I know it's like the [National Rifle Association], but it's true. You don't punish the dog or all dog owners because of one bad owner."

Organizers filled the conference with plenty of images showing the softer side of dogs.

There were posters with iconic, black-and-white images of children holding pit bull terriers.

There was talk of finding a new poster boy for the movement, perhaps, some suggested, the winner of the "Best in Show" category during the Westminster Kennel Club dog show.

The winner was Ch. Rocky Top's Sundance Kid, a colored bull terrier.

Deadly dog day in Waterloo

2006-08-22T09:10:00.000-04:00

Police kill canines after biting attack
By Melinda Dalton Record staff
Waterloo

Police shot and killed a pitbull and fatally wounded another dog near a Waterloo townhouse complex today after the animals bit two people and lunged at officers.

The victims, a 12-year old girl and a 56 -year-old man, were taken to Grand River hospital and treated for minor injuries.

Police were called to the townhouse complex on Sunnydale Place shortly before 8 a.m. after a man reported he had been surrounded by three loose dogs and bitten on the leg by one.

When police arrived, the dogs -- a one-year-old Staffordshire, a seven-month old german sheppard mix and a Jack Russell- Daschund mix -- approached the officers in an aggressive manner, said Waterloo regional police spokesperson Olaf Heinzel.

They then circled a 12-year-old girl who was standing in the courtyard and the pit bull bit her in the leg.

Police chased the animals away from the victims into a nearby felid where two of the dogs lunged at the officers, Heinzel said.

Officers fired at the animals, killing one instantly and wounding another, which was later put down due the severity of its injuries.

Heinzel said a number of officers responded, but declined to say how many shots were fired or how many officers drew their weapons citing an ongoing investigation.

"The important thing to remember is there was a threat to public safety and the officers needed to respond," he said.

"They had to take some some action and that's the action that they took."

The third dog, the Jack Russell mix, ran away after hearing the gun fire and hid in a neighbour's backyard.

Charges have not been laid against the animals' owner, but the investigation is continuing.

American Dog Owner’s Association Wins Judgment Against City of Englewood, New Jersey To Overturn Breed Specific Law

2006-08-21T14:59:00.000-04:00

ADOA granted an interlocutory judgment against the City of Englewood to stay illegal breed ban, a direct violation of New Jersey State law, Docket No. BER-L-5285-06, on behalf of resident dog owners.

Englewood, NJ (PRWEB) August 13, 2006 -- The American Dog Owners Association (ADOA) and two of its members, Natalie Wells and Mia Rodriguez, who reside in Englewood, New Jersey, were granted an interlocutory judgment against the City Of Englewood in New Jersey Superior Court this week in the challenge to overturn the city’s illegal breed specific ordinance, Docket No. BER-L-5285-06. Judge Jonathan Harris found that the city’s aggressive dog ordinance, which defined specific breeds of dogs as dangerous, was a clear and direct violation of state law, which explicitly prohibits breed discrimination. The American Dog Owners Association, the country’s largest independent dog owner’s organization, had asserted that the City of Englewood, New Jersey failed to provide its residents equal protection under the law by denying the residents’ applications to license their dogs and has subjected them to harassment.

“Breed discrimination is illegal in New Jersey, and now all good dog owners with good dogs in Englewood can breath a sigh of relief”, said Maureen Hill-Hauch, ADOA’s Executive Director. She noted that New Jersey’s Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act is one of the strongest dangerous dog laws in the country. “The City of Englewood has a duty to protect the public health and safety of all of its citizens, as well as protect the rights of responsible dog owners, regardless of breed. We’re so pleased that the court will require the City of Englewood to comply with state law”.

Breed bans and other breed-specific measures are strongly opposed by all major animal welfare and veterinary medical organizations, as well as the Center For Disease Control, as being ineffective against the prevention of dog bites or attacks. The list of New Jersey-based organizations opposed to breed specific laws and measures includes the New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs and the New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association.

The New Jersey Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act, N.J. S.A. S.S.4:19-36, explicitly prohibits breed discrimination, stating, “any law, ordinance, or regulation concerning vicious or potentially dangerous dogs, any specific breed of dog or any other type of dog inconsistent with this act enacted by any municipality, county or county board of health”.

The City of Englewood argued that it’s Ordinance N.99-66 did not violate N.J.S.A.S.S 4:19-26 by defining the following breeds as aggressive: Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, or “any dogs of mixed breed which has the appearance or characteristics of being predominately of the breeds”, and bans them from being kept within the City of Englewood.

Flora Edwards, counsel for the Plaintiffs, previously told the court that under the city’s illegal breed-specific ordinance, even Rufus, this year’s winner of Best In Show at the prestigious Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show at Madison Square Garden, would be unwelcome in the City of Englewood, and his owners would run the risk of having the world’s top dog seized and impounded. Rufus, a Colored Bull Terrier, resides with his owners in Holmdel, New Jersey.

An interlocutory judgment was granted the Plaintiffs, the American Dog Owner’s Association, Natalie Wells and Mia Rodriguez, on Monday, August 7, by the Honorable Jonathan Harris in Bergen Country Superior Court against the City of Englewood. The order prevents the city from enforcing or implementing any section of the city’s dangerous dog ordinance. In his ruling, Judge Harris called Englewood’s Ordinance 66-99, “outright contradictory”.

Judge Harris cited numerous issues with the Englewood dog ordinance, stating that Ordinance N.66-99 shifts the burden of proof to the pet owner, changes the process by which a dog can be declared dangerous, and provides a different array of sanctions in conflict with state law. Furthermore, he stated that t not granting the judgment would subject the dogs to immediate seizure and cause the Plaintiff’s irreparable harm.

The Plaintiffs, Ms. Wells, a stock analyst, and the owner of Sentry, a twelve-year old American Pit Bull Terrier, and Ms. Rodriguez, a respected artist and owner of Cyrus, also a rescued American Pit Bull Terrier, say they both lived in fear that their dogs will be seized by the City of Englewood, and have been subjected to a pattern of harassment by the city’s Department of Health since trying to obtain licenses for their dogs. Both dogs are well cared for and well socialized, and pose no threat to the public.

“Now I can walk Cyrus in public and not worry the police will stop me”, said Ms. Rodriguez. Ms Rodriguez rescued her dog, Cyrus, as a puppy and helped nurse him back to health from a near-fatal bout with parvovirus with the help of donated services from a local veterinarian.

Ms. Wells, who suffers from lupus, is looking forward to visiting Englewood’s City Hall to obtain a license for Sentry. Ms. Wells bought a home in Englewood late last year and was unaware of the town’s breed specific ordinance. “Now I don’t have to worry the city will take my dog away”.

Barbara Haywood, ADOA’s volunteer communications coordinator, said that the American Dog Owner’s Association lawsuit has received tremendous support from dog organizations throughout the country as well as letters of official endorsement from dog clubs, notably the Bull Terrier Club of America, the parent club for the world’s top dog, Rufus, the colored Bull Terrier. The ADOA filed suit on behalf of its members, and actively sought other resident dog owners in Englewood with the breeds or mixes of breeds of dogs banned by the city to join the lawsuit free of charge.

The American Dog Owners Association, ADOA, founded in 1970, is the country’s largest independent dog owner organization representing individual dog owners, breeders, handlers, and dog clubs of all breeds, mixes and backgrounds. The American Dog Owners Association recognizes the special relationship between dogs and humans, and advocates for the protection and preservation of responsible dog ownership and education of the public about responsible dog ownership and strong dangerous dog legislation.

On the web at www.adoa.org

Media Contacts:
Maureen Hill-Hauch 800-266-6233
Barbara Haywood 201-396-0974

Dog Bite Statistics

2006-08-21T14:50:00.000-04:00

1.) Since 1998, the breed most involved in fatal attacks has been the Rottweiler, not the various Pit Bull breeds.

2.) Although there are no accurate or even near accurate census records for dogs in the U.S., in some populations pit bulls are estimated to comprise some 30-40% of the dog population, making it by FAR the most popular breed. Considering that there are an estimated 53,000,000 dogs in the U.S., and assuming that pit bulls make up 20% of that population, there would be approximately 10,600,000 pit bulls in our society. In 1998, five pit bulls were involved in 2 fatal attacks. That is roughly ONE dog out of 2,120,000 - or .00004716 percent of the pit bull Population.

3.) Over the 32-year period from 1965-2001, Pit Bulls have been blamed for/accused of an average of 2.48 human fatalities per year.

4.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull.

5.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls.

6.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.

7.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull.

8) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull.

9) It is estimated that 5,000,000 dogs per year are killed in shelters. Since in many places pit bulls make up 30-50% of the shelter population, and are less likely to be considered for placement than any other breed, guessing that 25% of those dogs killed are pit bulls is a very conservative estimate. Therefore, it can be assumed that roughly 1,250,000 pit bulls are killed per year. Therefore - it is at least a HALF MILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY that a Pit Bull will be killed by a HUMAN than the other way around.

10) The average Number of people killed by a Pit Bull each year is 3.

11) It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T. This country wants to ban/destroy 10.5 million innocent dogs for the actions of 0.94% of its category?

Dog ban 'unconstitutional'

2006-08-21T14:46:00.000-04:00

By:Gregg M. Miliote,
Herald News Staff Reporter
08/16/2006

FALL RIVER - A proposed breed-specific dog ordinance was sent back to committee Tuesday night after the City Council heard impassioned pleas from several residents opposed to the legislation and received a letter from the city's attorney stating the City Council's proposed breed-specific dog ordinance was "unconstitutionally vague."

About 150 concerned residents, some wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the phrase "Blame the deed not the breed," attended Tuesday night's meeting to voice their displeasure with the council's proposed ordinance.

The ordinance would have required all owners of pit bulls and Rottweilers to keep the dogs confined behind 6-foot high fences. The dogs would not be allowed off their properties except to go to the veterinarian. Also, those two breeds would not be allowed to be sold within the city limits.

In his letter to the council, Corporation Counsel Thomas McGuire said, as currently drafted, the dog ordinance is unconstitutional.

He said the state's Supreme Judicial Court in 1989 ruled that a similar breed-specific ordinance penned by the Lynn City Council was unconstitutionally vague.

"As I stated to the Committee on Ordinances at its meeting on July 11, the ordinance, as presently drafted, appears to be unconstitutional," McGuire wrote. "I am therefore unable to approve the legal character of the ordinance in its present form."

McGuire's legal argument against the ordinance was bolstered by a more emotional argument from countless members of the public who addressed the council Tuesday night.

Several dog owners said it was unfair to judge all dogs the same way, and asserted the council lacked an education on dogs in general.

"There's no such thing as a bad dog. There are bad owners who don't know how to train their dogs," said city resident Joe Silvia. "We really need to educate owners. Dogs need exercise. If you pen them in, they become more violent."

Worcester-based attorney Rebecca Carner, who said she has already been retained by angry Fall River dog owners, said she is prepared to challenge the ordinance in court if need be, but said she and her clients would much rather work with the council on a more sensible dog ordinance.

She also questioned the relevancy of a breed-specific dog ordinance, asserting that criminals the ordinance is intended to root out would adjust to the change in law, leaving law-abiding dog owners with the heartache.

"Drug dealers are already ignoring your laws," Carner asserted. "They will just switch breeds."

The most emotional plea came from city resident Anthony Babine, who told a story about his sister's Rottweiler, Coco, that silenced the 150 or so audience members.

Babine said one day Coco began relentlessly pounding his head up against his sister's bedroom door to get the family's attention. When Babine finally came to the door, he found it was locked. But Coco would not stop slamming into it.

Babine said he eventually broke the door down and found his sister choking to death on her bed.

"Coco saved my sister's life," Babine said.

Although opponents of the proposed ordinance won a victory Tuesday night, the matter is still open. Instead, it was referred back to committee where it can be reworked and resubmitted to the full council for another vote.

City Council President William F. Whitty said the Committee on Ordinances will now reassess the issue.

"This ordinance was not just pulled out of the air," Whitty told the audience members. "We tried to be fair with it."

A date when the Committee on Ordinances next meets has yet to be scheduled.

LIKE A .357 MAGNUM ON A LEASH

2006-08-21T14:44:00.000-04:00

What possibly could motivate someone to own an attack dog as a pet?

There are several such breeds, notably pit bulls and rottweilers. They are infamous for their ability to tear fles, animal and human, and to clamp down unflinchingly with the vicious tenaciousness of, well, a pit bull.

Recently, a man and his golden retriever in London were ferociously attacked when the two neighbour pit bulls somehow escaped their fenced yard into his. In an attempt to safe his own pet, he tried to seperate the animals and was immediately attacked himself. One of the pit bulls began to tear him apart. His screams of terror caused a neighbour to call the police who must have arrived promptly.

They shot both dogs, one not releasing the retriever from its jaws until it died. The other wounded dog was later put to death.

Luckily the retriever and its owner lived, torn and bloody and with thousands of dollars in veterinary bills.

This recalls an attack earlier this year where some similar breed ripped out the throat of a poor soul in a hamlet northeast of here. That fellow was not nearly so lucky, dying almost instantly.
There is any number of alternative breeds available, remarkable for their grace, intelligence and docility, naturally attractive characteristics for a pet.

Junk yard dog should not be synonymous with back yard dog.

We recall touring a Canadian Forces military base in Bosnia about 10 years ago. Off in a chain-link pen inside the compuond were some attack dogs which, on approach, charged the fence with frightening agression. A wry wit had labelled their pen "Jurassic Park", a move then current and known for its flesh tearing dinosaurs.

That is the only legitimate use of such animals we can imagine - guarding equipment in a vulnerable area.

Back home, if you need protection, call the police.

Dog walkers strutting with their furry time bombs know that they are attention getters - through threat and intimidation.

The owners should be shunned.

Rogue animal activists stole Mike Costello's dog

2006-08-21T14:29:00.000-04:00

Now Annex residents are trying to help the homeless man get Trouble back
By MARK BONOKOSKI

Mike Costello shows a picture of Trouble, his dog, stolen from his last month. (Craig Robertson, Sun)

Detectives in 14 Division have launched a police investigation into a rogue animal rights group that stole a homeless man's dog and then wrote an anonymous and caustically worded letter bragging about its exploits.

The return address on that letter was bogus, of course. And arrogant, with its laughing-out-loud shorthand. "Stop Animal Neglect, 101 Dalmation (sic) Road, Rescue City," it read, followed by the fictitious thumb-your-nose postal code of "LOLBYE."

According to Staff-Sgt. Dave Woodley of 14 Division, the theft of the dog is being taken seriously.
There is, in fact, a seven-page occurrence report that has been assigned to Det.-Const. Graham Atkinson of 14 Division's criminal investigations bureau.

COPS 'ARE ON IT'

"We are on it," says Woodley.

Mike Costello, 56, is the homeless man. He came from the Galway region of Ireland in 1971, worked construction, fell on hard times and landed on the streets six years ago.

Trouble is -- or was -- the name of his dog, a shepherd-bull terrier cross that many dog-loving residents of the Annex have known for all the years that this man and his dog have staked out the corner of Dupont and Spadina -- and that includes Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford, who not only allows Costello to use her mailing address as if it were his but has given him access to her own veterinarian.

"I've always found Mike to be completely reliable, and a lot more reliable than a lot of people I know with homes," says Blatchford. "And he loves that dog. It is more important to him than anything else in his life.

"What these people did to him is wrong."

Trouble, who is eight, and who has been with Mike Costello for seven years, was snatched outside a storefront at Dupont and Spadina on Friday, July 21, while Costello was inside buying his morning coffee.

There are hundreds of homeless people in this city, and many with dogs. But it is rare for neighbours in the area where such homeless people live to rally around an individual who lives on the streets and actually put up posters to help him retrieve a dog that initially was thought to be the victim of an adolescent prank.

But that's what has happened here.

Charlene Eales, a communications consultant with a major insurance company, was one of those neighbours. Not only did she put up posters offering a reward for Trouble's return, using her home number as a contact, she got in touch with Michelle Nadon of the Toronto chapter of an animal welfare group called A Cause for Paws, asking for assistance.

And this is where it got strange.

Before Eales had contacted her, Nadon was informed of an anonymous call to the Toronto Humane Society and to an animal sanctuary in Ottawa, inquiring whether either organization would give refuge to a dog that was about to be seized off the streets of Toronto.

Both groups refused to be involved in such a plot.

Nadon immediately e-mailed all her contacts in the animal rescue game, advising them that Trouble had been illegally snatched and that his owner, while homeless, made sure that Trouble was "exceptionally loved and well cared for."

"His owner is heartbroken," Nadon wrote in her e-mail, asking any rescuer who came into contact with Trouble to immediately contact her or Charlene Eales.

The aforementioned letter from the thieves -- caustic, arrogant, and written with a sense of entitlement -- arrived in Charlene Eales' mailbox a few days later and is now in the hands of police.

It was also addressed to "Mitch."

MOCKING LANGUAGE

It was addressed to Mitch because the letter also included a copy of the e-mail that Michelle Nadon had sent to all her animal rescue contacts, meaning someone inside one of those normally law-abiding groups was one of those involved in stealing Trouble.

Mitch, after all, is Michelle Nadon's nickname -- something only insiders or friends would know.
The letter called both Eales and Nadon "laughingstocks" for trying to secure Trouble's return.
The language was denigrating and mocking.

"We cannot say enough how disgusted we are with both of you for trying so hard to reunite Mike and Trouble," the letter says.

Then the letter goes on to libel Mike Costello, citing alleged mental health issues and public drunkenness, as well as their perception that he is guilty of animal neglect.

Rochelle Cantor is a lawyer, and it is along her front stoop at Dupont and Spadina that Mike Costello and Trouble could often be found sitting in the shade.

And she, too, is on Mike Costello's side.

"That dog is in better shape, and better cared for, than most of us," she says, indicating that Costello often used the hose at the side of her office to get water for Trouble.

"Everyone around here watches out for them. Whoever took Trouble is terribly misguided.

"If they are such humanitarians," she says, "why don't they 'rescue' Mike and take him into their care?"

No one, by the by, has ever seen Mike Costello drunk in public -- not Cantor, not Eales, not any retailer or pedestrian approached on his corner for comment -- although he can occasionally be found sipping from a can of beer.

"I don't drink very much," Costello says. "I used to, years ago, but not any more.

"Right now I just want Trouble back. What people think of me doesn't matter. But I'm a good person, I really am.

"And I love that dog. He's all that matters."

Vote for Brokhttp://www.housepetmagazine.com/contest2.htm

2006-08-18T12:46:00.000-04:00

My Name: Brok

BFF: Samantha

"Hello, my name is Brok and I am a 15 year old boy -pit bull mix. I love sitting in the sun beam all day long no matter how hot it gets! I like toys that are small and stuffed. My best friends are Bella and Jimi, two pups that just ...adore me! Even when I am a grumpy ole boy!"

Brok says: Punish the deed, not the breed

Vote for Brok

http://www.housepetmagazine.com/contest2.htm

One Year Anniversary Candlelight Vigil

2006-08-17T09:23:00.001-04:00

One Year Anniversary Candlelight Vigil to be held at Queen's Park on August 27th, 2006 at 7 pm.

Dog owners and responsible citizens will hold a candlelight vigil at Queens Park in memory of the thousands of 'pit bulls' that have been wrongfully persecuted since the enactment of Bill 132 which took effect on August 29, 2005.

We are still here and still fighting for our rights and our dogs lives!!

What: Candlelight Vigil Protesting Bill 132 – One Year Anniversary
Where: Queen's Park, Toronto, ON - South Lawn
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Come out and show your support!!

One Year Anniversary Candlelight Vigil

2006-08-17T09:23:00.000-04:00

Finally, some positive news about pit bulls

2006-08-17T09:17:00.000-04:00

LettersLetters to the Editor - Monday, August 14, 2006

We have heard, on countless occasions, how vicious the pitbull is. Recently, Ontario has taken steps to ban the breed of dogs known as pitbulls on the basis that they tend to be aggressive. I have been strongly against this ban for two reasons:

There is no clear evidence that states pitbulls are a real problem in Ontario;

The breed itself is no more dangerous than any other breed of medium- to large-sized dog.

I believe that banning a breed of dog because of its potential to cause harm is not justified. We do not ban knives because of what they can do, nor do we ban certain makes of automobile because they may be weapons in the hands of reckless drivers.

We impose a ban where there is evidence of a real, not potential, problem.

I would like to point out a piece of real evidence that supports removing the ban on this breed of dog. The pitbull (slang for American Staffordshire terrier) has been subjected to overwhelming amounts of negative media.

However, there is finally some evidence about this breed that tells a different story. During the past few weeks, there were two articles in The Sault Star about the heroic behaviour of a pitbull named Sam.

The case is now receiving national attention and involved a man who was ultimately saved by his best friend, a pitbull, who alerted his owner of a bear.

Were it not for the courage of the pitbull, the man may not have survived.

The pitbull, Sam, acted on instinct to protect its owner and acted in a heroic manner, yet this is a case you would never see on the front page of any newspaper, although it should be there.

Who knew that the dogs our government calls "vicious" could also be courageous? We hear plenty of bad things about pitbulls, but rarely do we hear about how loving and courageous they are. In other words, it seems we only hear the negative in the news, not the positive.

Too often we hear of plane crashes, but rarely do we hear of planes that land without incident. I guess there would be no news about the planes that land, would there?

We need to recognize the potential that this breed has to be loving, courageous, loyal and obedient, in addition to the fact that most of these dogs would walk through fire for their masters.

I am the proud owner of a pitbull named Kody, and I am confident that given the same situation, he would have acted similar to Sam. As a community of dog owners, we need to rally against the distorted perceptions that many hold regarding pitbulls. We need to publicize their good behaviour.

This may bring us one step closer to removing the ban on this breed. Don't punish the breed, punish the deed. We need to convince our government that pitbulls have the potential to be heroes.

Anthony Fabiano
Prentice Avenue

Animal Rightists: Coming to a Town Near You

2006-08-14T17:16:00.000-04:00

Are Your Council Members Being Used as Pawns?
By Nick Van Duren
Aug 11, 2006, 21:03

A disturbing trend is sweeping America: Costly and destructive animal ordinances. The reason stems from an all-out effort by Animal Rightist organizations to lobby every single city in the U.S. They are searching out lawmakers to exploit and further their twisted agenda.

A Full-Court Press

It’s hard to comprehend, but the leadership of the largest and most profitable "non-profit" lobbying Animal Rights organizations has an ambitious goal in mind: destroying all usage and ownership of domestic animals. That includes, but is not limited to, abolishing pet ownership.

(See Animal Rightist Quotes Below)

Animal Rightists know full-well that they are not main-stream. However, they’ve been successful in influencing the American lexicon with politically correct words such as "over-population". With financial support from Hollywood and an ill-informed public, they spread propaganda, and inaccuracies about dog behavior. Their legislative packets are filled with phony studies, quack testimony, faulty statistics, and other materials are sent to city councils all over the country under the guise of being a reputable source. The News Press has been all too happy to oblige, publishing sensationalized stories which trump up the credibility of such a nonsensical agenda.

What is missing from these News stories is that these groups do not care one whit about animals, the welfare of animals, or the health and longevity of animals. This is proved by the fact that animal rights groups such as PeTA, claim to be helping elephants in Africa, but are simultaneously lobbying an all-out assault to destroy cats, dogs, and the family pet at home. Do you know the difference between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights?

Animal Welfare is concerned with health, safety, quality of life, and the future of animals.

Animal Rights views domestic animal ownership as "slavery" and seeks to destroy the domestic animal by whatever means necessary. The fastest and most effective way to accomplish this agenda is by using lawmakers to pass prohibitive animal laws, such as mandatory spay/neuter, or breed specific ordinances (BSL).

The relationship between man and dog goes back literally tens of thousands of years. Animal Rights seeks to destroy that relationship...one-law-at-a-time. Just as wild animals are important to this world, domestic animals and our pets are an integral part of our short time on this Earth. There is nothing good about the Animal Rightist’s agenda to eradicate the future of our beloved pets.

Once the ownership and the relationship we have to the domestic animal is destroyed, it is quite obvious that they’ll move on to the next power-seeking agenda. Just like a plague of locusts, they infect the culture, exploit lawmakers to do their bidding, corrupt shelters and law enforcement, manipulate the News Press, and profit off it at everyone’s expense.

What makes these activists tick? First, they are collectivist in nature. They obviously harbor a deep-seeded hatred for humanity. Yet, they should not be underestimated in any way, shape, or form. They are well-organized, well-connected and extremely well-funded.

Sphere of Influence

The pathology of this evil has many faces, which both the public and lawmakers should be aware of. This is crucial to avoiding its sphere of influence. No good can come of associating with these groups and individuals. I can not stress enough how important it is to know who they are and what they stand for...or what they’re capable of.

Some of these activists are hysterical, showing up to council meetings wearing blood-soaked t-shirts, screaming and crying hysterically. They give emotional testimonials and always seem to have a convenient supply of shocking and horrible photos to share. They are militant, obsessed, brain-washed activists, but are very motivated. They participate in protest rallies and don’t mind getting arrested to prove a point. However, they should be avoided as they are sometimes prone to violence.

Then there are the ones to really watch out for and be cautious of. These are the cool and calculated activists. Some portray themselves as individual civic leaders, and professionals such as Kory Nelson, Assistant DA of Denver, known all over the country and Internet as Denver’s "Dr. Death of Dogs". Then there is Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the U.S. He is polished, charismatic, and good-looking. He trained for his position at the Humane Society of the U.S. as a member of PeTA.

They are educated and well-connected and have money to burn. They carry with them titles of accomplishment and credibility, seducing their listeners by being well-spoken and charismatic. They approach lawmakers from both parties; the goal of infiltrating and corrupting the legal process from every angle. While ALF and ELF blow up buildings, their PeTA counterparts are busy screaming for attention. HSUS then comes in to consult under the guise of legitimacy. Their websites and promotional materials are phenomenally well-crafted. Their resources are unlimited. In fact, it is likely that your municipality is already using their materials to guide policy and craft new ordinances.

Once Animal Rightists are "outed", concerns are dismissed as "conspiracy theories" and the like. They do this to shut down the debate. After all, who could believe it?

However, one thing is for sure: Animal Rights is very conspiratorial in nature. The agenda has been built into multi-million dollar enterprise harboring well-paid Capital Hill lobbyists and lawyers in conjunction with violent militants on the front line.

However, the shelf-life of these organizations is limited. They are not main-stream by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, they have only a small window of opportunity. This partially explains why much of the propaganda materials being delivered to municipal governments and lawmakers have been authored under pseudonyms and other aliases. Phony studies, pamphlets, and letters are often Animal Rightists parading propaganda incognito.
A Powerful Lesson for Lawmakers

Few lawmakers would be willing to accept advice from People for the "Ethical" Treatment of Animals, or from the Animal and Environmental Liberation Fronts respectively for good reason. These groups happen to be tracked on the FBI’s Domestic Terrorist Watch List for their violence and damage to private and public property.

They promote a completely dishonest agenda under faulty premises. For example, the origin of lobbying for mandatory spay/neuter laws comes from PeTA’s "No Birth Nation" program; which, by the way, is not intended to end with animals. No breeding or stricter laws regarding whelping of puppies ends up aiding this systematic destruction of healthy pure bred pets. As absurd as it sounds, consider how many municipalities are flirting with the idea or have actually gone so far as to pass it. Others want registration and intact animal fees. Every one of these ideas assists PeTA’s No Birth Nation program and gives it legitimacy.

However...
No lawmaker would dare be associated with such groups and their agendas providing their constituents were aware of the names behind the proposed animal ordinances.

And yet, they do.

When all is said and done, lawmakers are being manipulated and used.

Animal Rightists have no problem exploiting lawmakers and municipalities for their own aims, nor do they care if these lawmakers wind up embarrassed, recalled, or ousted from politics.
Kory Nelson, Denver’s "Dr. Death of Dogs"

According to the News Press, you’d think dog attacks are an epidemic. However, as a percentage of population, abuses, attacks, and cruelty are very rare...especially by the poster child of Animal Rightists: the so-called "Pit Bull". The deceitful information spread about this breed reaches epic proportions.

For example, Kory Nelson, Assistant City Attorney of Denver, CO joined the Colorado Douglas County Republican Party, in which the GOP has traditionally left pet ownership rights alone. Under his influence, the Town of Parker, CO introduced Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). Council members were quoted in the press, describing horror stories of Pit Bull behavior. They mistakenly used verbatim descriptions straight from the Kory Nelson "handbook". Never before had the Town witnessed such an outcry by residents.

After the facts were brought out, the Town Council unanimously voted to remove the proposed ordinance. However, the damage was done. Nelson had contributed a valuable service to the Animal Rightist’s ability to affect the language of law and put our property rights on the defensive. It was all done at the expense of honest, law abiding residents.

Did the outrage and embarrassment at the Town’s expense stop Nelson? No. He’s moved on to other cities to pursue his Breed Specific Legislation. Kory Nelson defends his war against the Pit Bull, claiming that anti-BSL forces have some kind of financial interest in dog fighting. It is obvious that Nelson lacks credibility and a personal moral code that is necessary to continue as a prominent Assistant City Attorney of a major city. If he actually believes that certain breeds of dogs are more cunning, more powerful, more intelligent than any human being is capable of owning, how can he possibly serve the best interests of the public good?

As Animal Rightist ideology does not mix with principles of individual responsibility, morality, or responsible government, it came to a shock that a conservative community had become a home base in which to spring his platform. For whatever reason, the City of Denver, however, continues to allow him to use his position as Assistant DA to promote his destructive agenda.
If his campaign isn’t against the Chow Chow, it is the American Staffordshire Terrier. If it isn’t the American Staffordshire Terrier, it is the French Mastiff...and so on and so on. Destroying ownership of one-breed-at-a-time is what Breed Specific Legislation is all about.

No one knows for certain whether Kory Nelson operates with animal rights organizations, or acts as a lone wolf, so to speak. He is ambitious, having successfully used and exploited several local governments around the U.S. to achieve his Breed Specific Legislation trademark. Even if BSL fails, Animal Rightist language often gains a foothold into the language of animal ordinances. The criminalization of dogs and cats has begun. Regardless of success or failure, he exploits one city and then moves on to adversely impact animal owners in another.

If he hasn’t contact lawmakers in your area, it is only a matter of time. Once contacted, you’ll need to decide whether you’ll allow yourself to be used for his personal agenda and those of other Animal Rightists.

The Influence of Shelters on Animal Law

Considering the phenomenally successful statistics of voluntary spay/neuter by the general public, where are all the animal shelters getting their dogs? Regardless of the facts that most shelter dogs are adult dogs, sadly displaced due to people moving to covenant-controlled homeowner associations and cities with extreme pet limits, the numbers in shelters do not add up.

Obviously, shelters should be going out of business left and right since voluntary spay/neuter is successful. Euthanization numbers have been declining for 20 years. And yet, "over-population" is the mantra still used by animal shelters for fund-raising and selling dogs to an ill-informed public.

Where is the over-population when dogs and cats are transported across state lines and from even out of the country to fill up animal shelters?

Even the numbers of irresponsible breeding are nothing like people think it is. Considering the voluntary rate of spay/neuter, it is highly unlikely that accidental and irresponsible breeding are filling up shelters to the extent that shelters claim they are.

However, a product must come from somewhere. If your job is about to disappear, often people do desperate things. Why should animal shelters be any different; especially when one considers what is happing inside these organizations. Some are so passionate that they’d do nearly anything to keep the "moral imperative" of the shelter going. This partially explains why "over-population" is used as a marketing ploy to sell dogs and cats. Tell a family that the dog they’re interested in is about to be destroyed due to "lack of space", the deal is closed. Another dog is then shipped in to take its place as product.

City Councils and the general public should be aware that Animal Rightists lobby with local Animal Shelters as cover. The cruelty and unethical practices in the shelter industry are shocking...and make no mistake, it is an industry. Many shelters have become some of the most profitable pet shops around that kill anything that does not bring top dollar; or is too much work to place in adoption programs. Pure Bred Rescue organizations have an awful time getting pure bred dogs and cats out of the shelter system, simply because shelters exploit these breeds to increase sales. Sadly, the News Press and general public have been willing to look the other way.
Why do some shelters operate in this manner? The answer is that many shelter agencies have become havens for Animal Rightists; shelters are exploited to spread propaganda, "over-population" myths, and faulty statistics for marketing purposes. Shelters naturally become a breeding ground for recruiting new members and activists. It’s a natural, albeit unhealthy, fit.
It is no wonder dubious shelter operations are becoming an ever-increasing problem. Thankfully, not all shelters are this way, but the public should be aware of what is going on. Both Animal Control and many animal shelters have had their ethics compromised, if not downright corrupted. The end-result is that generally, shelter workers and animal control agencies are not a credible source for accurate information about animal behavior and breeding of quality pets, especially when it comes to crafting pet law.

Fancy That!

The Dog and Cat Fancy, and show-breeders alike, has been aware of shelter abuses for many years. Fanciers operate their own rescue organizations and our rules about breeding are very strict. What’s more, it’s a small world. Fly-by-nights never last long. Unethical practices are not tolerated. You would never see a Fancier cross-breeding a "mutt". Ethics are the cornerstone of show-breeding; incredible knowledge and experience is required, as is mentorship. The competition, the friendships, relationships, and even politics and rivalries, all steer show-breeding towards the future of healthy dogs of good conformation and temperament. You’re lucky to break even financially in this sport. You do it for the love of the breed. My love is the English Mastiff. Friends of mine show and breed Yorkshire Terriers, Afghan Hounds, Staffordshire Terriers, Dalmatians, and the Irish Setter.

We spend thousands of dollars and untold hours of time and effort to test our dogs for what is required for the future of our respective breeds. We labor for the love of our dogs and cry when we must send them up to Heaven. We build life-long friendships; spend untold hours of time putting on dog shows, educating puppy-buyers, labor 24 hours a day every time we whelp a litter of puppies, and work hard to learn, learn, learn. It’s an on-going process in an incredible effort to further a tradition which spans generations.

Rarely will you ever see our dogs wind up in an animal shelter. We govern ourselves. The only problem with the Fancy is it is guilty of not reaching out to the public and helping city councils as much as it could be...for good reason:

We’re under attack. Licensing, pet taxes, registration schemes have done incredible damage to healthy pet ownership over the years.

Animal Rightists know full well that destroying the Fancy is a major victory. That is why animal ordinances and restrictive measures such as licensing, registration, mandatory spay/neuter, etc. have forced the most responsible and knowledgeable group of pet owners in the world nearly into hiding. And it is the general public which misses out on the benefits of our knowledge, and experience, and our passion for furthering the love of our dogs.

Fanciers residing in cities are forced to keep a low profile or move to the country. They simply stay active amongst themselves. The result is that the general public does not get to tap into this invaluable resource for educational opportunities. What has replaced it is a variety of quack training methods, political correctness, and just plain ignorance spread by opportunists and even some pet-related businesses.

We are really interested in the health and well-being of pets, and we are just as interested in the future of our breeds. If a dog is healthy, of good temperament, and has sound conformation, it should be bred. Future health and genetics depend on it!

Education...and Lack Thereof

The vast majority of the public generally does not even understand something as simple as how to approach a dog properly. First, it is polite and expedient to ask the owner if you may pet a dog. Then you offer to have the dog sniff your hand. When the dog conveys that, "It’s okay to pet me", you’ve been given permission; but always pet from underneath the head. Never on top of the head! No matter how friendly or unknown the dog is, this is the cardinal rule before petting any dog, cat, etc...

Only do you pet the dog’s head after you’ve gone underneath and worked your way around the neckline, back of the ears (which most dogs love!) and then from behind, you may go over the top. Petting the head first is aggressive! Nearly every single person that greets my dogs in public tries it; approaching without manners...this lack of proper etiquette is simply a result of ignorance. And yet this is something as remotely simple as saying: "Hi!"

Despite the fact that ignorance can be fixed, municipalities are quick to pass ordinances without considering the pet education element in their communities.

If safety is what we’re after, than creating an open and active, pet friendly community is what we should be striving for. Anything which contributes to this should be done. Anything that hinders it should be stricken from the books. Tapping into the Fancy and encouraging them to be active is the fastest way to build allies rather than enemies. Rather, further regulating pets and pet breeding into oblivion will contribute to animosity, an unsafe community, and unhealthy pet population faster than anything.

Municipal Animal Abuses and Cruelty

Animal Rightist propaganda would have us believe that animal abuses and cruelty are at epidemic levels, not to mention that attacks most certainly receive sensational press coverage. The Press is only too happy to oblige any political opportunism by politicians, animal control, shelter agencies, and municipal employees actively pursuing their own agendas. Animal Rightist ordinances have become a means to an end, exploited at the expense of the general public.
However, as a percentage of population, dog attacks, dog fighting, and even cruelty and nuisance behavior is rare. As disturbing as these incidents are, they are not even close to being the rule...they are by far the exception. Therefore, utilizing the exception to the rule as an opportunity to enact intrusive and unethical animal ordinances is distasteful and extremely dishonest.

Witness the results:
Denver has over 1,000 kills to its credit in only the last year. Many of these dogs perfectly healthy before being confiscated, starved into ill health, and then killed.

Kansas City has concocted a process that it terms an "amnesty program". It goal is to make the slaughter of these innocent pets more convenient and less costly for animal control to enforce.

Long Beach forces residents to spay/neuter their pets, placing dogs (especially certain breeds) at physical risk by mandating surgery. We wouldn’t tolerate a municipality strapping down and sterilizing our children? Why should animal control be allowed to do this to our pets? Our private property? One begins to wonder.

Animal Control in Vermont has been going door-to-door conducting sting operations on average people; all to enforce a licensing pet tax.

Under the influence of Animal Rightists, some council members have even gone so far as to introduce legislation that governs everything down to what kind of food, containment, and even toys, are legal and illegal for our pets.

And that is just the beginning of the scandal, opportunism, abuses of search and seizure, etc. The list goes on and on. Overbearing animal ordinances almost always lead to these types of abuses, especially when shelter and animal groups are given government enforcement powers. When will these local governments admit fault and stop these destructive practices? Communities become less active and open, Fanciers become less willing to help the public, ignorance and lack of socialization becomes the norm.

That is exactly what Animal Rightists are banking on.

When Animal Rightists write ordinances that sic Animal Control on breeders via licensing, pet-limits, and registration schemes, the very future of healthy well-tempered pets is compromised. No breeding. No pure-bred animals. No healthy genetic stock. Hence, no more pets. No cats. No dogs. No nothing!

The only way to prevent these horrors from taking root in your community is not to go there in the first place. Again, only an open and active pet-friendly community creates a fun and safe place to live with our pets and neighbors.

The Ends Justify the Means

These abuses are the sure result of the Animal Rightists campaign to wage death and destruction on our beloved pets. Again, the "ends justify the means".

What exactly is the end? Power. The ensuing corruption contained within the intent to influence animal ordinances aids activists in the accumulation of wielding more power. Using and exploiting lawmakers wherever they deem necessary, the Animal Rightist goal of achieving power and wealth at public expense is in full force.

Even where lawmakers pursue their own agendas, where animal ordinances are concerned, the lawmaker is still a pawn of these lobbyists.

Fighting Animal Rightist Ideology and Helping City Councils Reform Municipal Agendas, The Moral of the Story

The lesson to be learned is that by the time Animal Rightists have taken municipalities hostage and animal ordinances pass, no one knows what has hit them. Animal ordinances quickly compromise the ethics of Animal Control agencies. These ruthless and irresponsible policies are most certainly not something that should have been introduced into law; let alone, considered, passed, and enforced.

Unfortunately, reinstating honesty into the debate is not as easy as it sounds. Egos are so entrenched to the point where lawmakers are hesitant to admit fault. They know they’ve been used, but backtracking becomes difficult; if now downright political suicide. While this does not absolve lawmakers of responsibility, it does partially explain the successes of HSUS and others to control City Councils and municipal governments.

As the Dog and Cat Fancy (show-breeders) and animal welfare groups continue to mobilize and gain influence, the general public is indeed becoming aware of what is going on. The public is aghast at how their pets are being held hostage by such political exploitation. And the fury is spreading at a rapid pace. Animal Rightist ideology is incompatible with public safety and private property ownership. Therefore, lawmakers and the ordinances they pass are being tracked. When re-educating lawmakers fails, they are being voted out and replaced.

The fight has only scratched the surface. With so many pet owners and dog fanciers in the U.S. becoming aware of the fact that animal ordinances truly do pose a very real danger to pet ownership, it is likely that elections are going to become very interesting in the near future. Those who vote for intrusive animal ordinances will lose clout, influence, and promptly voted out. Those who keep hands off and ally themselves with the Fancy to promote activities and community education will be rewarded.

As pet owners continue to mobilize, the political landscape will most likely change drastically in many areas in the country. This is actually a positive development because it is a healthy democratic process that aims at preventing constitutional infringements and other assaults on our freedoms.

Ultimately, we love our pets. We love our choices. It is a healthy tradition. Anything that puts pet ownership in jeopardy is incompatible with moral principles.

It all comes down to one thing:

Will your lawmakers and your city government aid and abet this destructive agenda?
Nick Van Duren
Colorado Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Local Liaison for the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs
Contact Nick: checknick@comcast.net

If Anyone Doubts how Serious Things Have Become, Please Read the Following Quotes by the Leaders and Activists within the Animal Rightists Movement:

"Anybody who shoots a pit bull running loose is justified,'' Kory Nelson, Assistant City Attorney of Denver, CO, San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, June 27, 2005 (Known all over as Denver’s "Dr. Death of Dogs")

"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. . . One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993

NOTE: (Wayne Pacelle’s initial training was as a PeTA activist. Today he heads HSUS under the guise of "legitimacy". It is the largest and most profitable of the animal Rightist lobbying organizations.

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves." PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

"Our goal: to convince people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the language and concept of animal ownership." Eliot Katz, President In Defense of Animals, In Defense of Animals website, 2001

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." Elliot Katz, President "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.

"Man is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish, and unethical animal on earth." Michael W. Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President, Humane Society of the United States, as quoted in Robert James Bidinotto"

"We are not terrorists, but we are a threat. We are a threat both economically and philosophically. Our power is not in the right to vote but the power to stop production. We will break the law and destroy property until we win." Dr. Steven Best, speaking at International Animal Rights Gathering 2005. The Telegram (UK) July 17, 2005.

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

"Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's founder and president, US News and World Report, April 8, 2002

"I openly hope that it [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment. Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA founder and president, ABC News interview April 2, 2001

© Copyright 2002-2006 by Magic City Morning Star

Dog ban is the pits

2006-08-11T10:22:00.000-04:00

By STEVE BARKER

I am an intelligent, well-spoken, middle-aged male. I graduated high school and college at the top of my class. I have a good job as a computer professional, a house in a nice neighbourhood, and a decent car.

I live in Toronto with my wife, my daughter, my 4-year-old grandson, and two dogs.
I obey the law and consider myself to be a good citizen of society. I am not a drug dealer, a gangster, or a hoodlum.

Life would be good, except for one thing.

Thanks to a new Ontario law, I am constantly at risk of being branded a criminal and facing six months in jail.

My two non-purebred dogs appear to be American Pit Bull Terriers, one of North America's oldest, most decorated, and most trusted family breeds.

Does that change the way you think of me? Have I suddenly become a bad person or a second-class citizen?

Does it matter to you that my dogs have Canine Good Neighbour titles and obedience titles or that my older one would have become a therapy dog if not for this law?

Does it make a difference that my dogs will ignore belligerent and aggressive dogs or that a perfect stranger can put their hands into my car windows with no fear of anything other than a good lick?

If a "pit bull attack" happens, it won't be one of my dogs. I don't allow my dogs to run loose and bite.

I don't want to be painted with the same brush as someone who can't figure out that his out-of-control, untrained, unsocialized, alone-in-the-backyard mutt might one day get out and hurt someone.

I have met and worked with enough dangerous dogs in my life, of many different breeds, to know that this law will not make you or your family safer. All it's really doing is making mine miserable.

We cannot enjoy our walks through the woods and on the beach like other dog owners, because my "girls" just keep trying to get their muzzles off. I know of other owners who go out at 2 a.m., just so that their dogs can get some exercise.

They're always looking over their shoulders for police officers because the penalty for what they're doing is the mandatory death of their dog: Average citizens forced by a discriminatory government into becoming criminals.

Forget the breed of my dogs for one moment and imagine that you were targeted this way.

How would you react? Would you stand up and fight or would you lie there quietly and let them kill your dog and thousands like her?

Ontario is killing healthy, well-adjusted dogs at a rate unimaginable two years ago. Not aggressive. No behaviour problems. Not sick. Not injured. Perfectly adoptable. Wrong body.

Newborn puppies are required to be destroyed in this province. I don't use the word "euthanized," which is the mercy killing of sick or injured animals. This is destruction, plain and simple.

Want to help? Look up "Bill 132" on the Internet and help the organizations that are fighting this discrimination. Then, in October 2007, vote this Ontario Liberal government out of office and send them a letter now telling them why. While you're at it, send a copy to the Sun.

Put a muzzle on it -- your dog, that is

2006-08-11T10:19:00.000-04:00

By BRIAN FERRIS

It seems to me that the answer to the pit bull situation is simply this: Make all dogs equal and put your money where their mouths are.

I believe that, no matter the breed, the animal should be muzzled when out in public. The dog is muzzled, you, your children and other dogs are safe -- end of problem. No breed has to be banned.

I was a boarding-kennel owner/operator for over six years and catered to every size and breed of dog you can think of. The rules were quite simple: If you were not sure of Rover's temperament, you did not go into the pen with him at home. Especially when Rover was 150 pounds of muscle and teeth.

I have always maintained that a bad-tempered cockapoo will give you a nasty nip as easily as a Rottweiler (though it could remove a limb or two).

There are a few different types -- not breeds -- of dog to be wary of:

- The aggressor: He lets you know up front just what his intentions are. He doesn't bark, and the growl he emits is barely audible -- more of a rumble deep in his chest -- but look at his eyes! (Now, I know that you know that you never "eyeball" a dog, but even a sideways glance will let you know.) They never leave your face and are saying, quite plainly, "Come on. Just a little closer, pal, and you're puppy chow!" Avoid this chap at all costs. Unless he's wearing a muzzle. No doubt that he can still harm you, dependent upon size and determination, but he cannot dismember you -- he's muzzled!

- The fear-biter: He doesn't want to bite you, but he will. This guy barks -- a lot. The more frightened he becomes, the louder and higher pitched the barking becomes. He's giving you fair warning: "Come near me and I'll bite you!" But he can't -- if he's muzzled!

- The psycho: I only ever encountered one of these guys but I'm sure there are more out there. This boy will lull you into a false sense of camaraderie -- then pounce. I really do not know if his brain just misfires or what, but he's the most dangerous of all -- unless ... you've guessed it!

Muzzles do not harm a dog in any way. If worn from puppyhood, the animal will not even be aware of its presence -- much the same as his collar. So why can we not make it illegal for a dog -- any dog -- to be on the street without a muzzle?

It makes perfect sense to me. We are all so learned and certain about our rights nowadays.

What about our responsibilities? As a dog owner, you have some:

1. Your pet should never harm another's pet.

2. Your pet should never harm a human!

Apparently, some of us cannot, or will not, live up to our responsibilities.

Therefore, before one other person is maimed or disfigured or killed by "man's best friend," let's do something about it: A muzzle -- don't leave home without it!

Pickering gets tough on dog owners

2006-08-10T10:44:00.000-04:00

Maximum fine for bites now $5,000
Bylaw aims to protect the public
Aug. 10, 2006. 01:00 AM
STAN JOSEY
STAFF REPORTER

A dog bite could end up costing you $5,000 in Pickering.

That is if your dog bites someone else or even growls at anyone who takes offence and calls the city's new animal services department.

Pickering's new animal-control bylaw stresses "responsible pet ownership" but sets some of the highest penalties in the province for those who shirk their duty.

Owners of "vicious" dogs could also be ordered to take the animal to obedience classes, and keep it muzzled, on a short leash and out of the hands of any dog walker under 16 years of age.

"I think it is one of the tougher animal-control bylaws in the province," said Lindsey Brenner, a former Toronto Humane Society supervisor, who took over Pickering's new department on Jan. 1.

Brenner said there have been about 30 reports of encounters with vicious dogs since the start of the year, many of them resulting in bites or injuries to unsuspecting citizens.

"We were looking for a way to impress on people that they have to be responsible for the actions of their pets," she said. "So we constructed a bylaw that is specifically designed to protect people from irresponsible pet owners.

"It's never the dog that's to blame in these situations but the owner."

In most cases, the penalties for animal offences will reach up to $200, Brenner said. But in cases where legal action has to be taken to force an owner to comply, fines of up to $5,000 can be levied by the courts.

Pickering Animal Services began operating after the breakup of Pickering-Ajax-Whitby Animal Services. Whitby wanted to revisit the 20-year-old agreement and charge an administrative fee. Neither Pickering nor Ajax would agree to that.

Pickering Regional Councillor Bill McLean, who was instrumental in establishing the new department, now sits on a special committee that will hear complaints and appeals from decisions by the city's animal services officers.

Other changes in the municipal bylaw include increasing to three the number of dogs allowed per residence. There are also enhanced definitions for animal noise, excrement removal and specific minimum-care requirements for animals.

"In all, it should make for a better environment for our residents and our local pets," Brenner said.

Dog that took tot from mom to be put down

2006-08-09T08:27:00.000-04:00

By LARISSA BARLOW, SUN MEDIA

CHATHAM -- A dog that ripped a baby from her mother's arms and tossed her to the ground will be destroyed, Chatham-Kent police said yesterday.

Tina DeWael was carrying her six-month-old daughter, Georgia Wellman, on her hip and walking beside her eldest daughter, Shania Wellman, 10, around 9:30 p.m. on Monday.

They were heading home on Taylor Avenue when a leashed pit bull-like Presa Canario and its owner came toward them.

Without warning or provocation, the dog jumped and latched onto the child's arm, grabbing her up to her elbow, and then spit her out on the nearby grass.

"I couldn't think, I was in shock. I couldn't even move," DeWael said yesterday, shaking her head while still in disbelief over the attack.

Despite being stunned and shaken, DeWael fought off the dog, punching it when it started to move toward her daughter again.

"I was screaming my head off. I just couldn't believe it," she said.

"You'd never think he'd (the dog) do that and grab a baby."

Nine stitches were used to close the bite marks on Georgia's left arm.

It wasn't the first run-in DeWael's family had had with the 45-kilogram dog.

Her daughter, Shania, was bitten by the animal two weeks ago.

"It's just crazy," DeWael said.

The dog's owner surrendered the animal to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It will be held in quarantine for 10 days before being destroyed.

The dog's owner, who lives next door to DeWael, could face fines from the OSPCA for allowing the dog to attack or criminal charges.

Police described the animal as looking like a pit bull, but twice the size. Despite the resemblance, the dog isn't under the same restrictions as pit bulls because it's classed as a different breed.

Cradling her battered and bandaged child in her arms, DeWael said she's grateful the damage wasn't more severe.

Weekend dog attack points to growing problem

2006-08-08T13:30:00.000-04:00

Lindsay This Week - Peterborough,Ontario,Canada
Paul Rellinger

A weekend dog attack has left another dog seriously injured and a Peterborough Humane Society official upset over an increase in attacks.

Early Saturday morning, an eight-year-old boy was walking his three-year-old Lab-type dog in East City when two German Shepherd-type dogs came running from their property and attacked the dog, which was seriously injured.

The puppy was rushed to Peterborough Veterinary Services for emergency surgery on its stomach.

According to Brad Algar, general manager of the Peterborough Humane Society, the attacking dogs are known to the society with their owners due in court Aug. 14 for an incident back in March. In that incident, a person was approached by the growling and barking dogs.

"Attacks are up 57 per cent over this time last year," says Mr. Algar."We have had five attacks in the last four days, bringing the total to 75 incidents with 27 before the courts, seven under final preparation, seven under investigation with four attacks in the last 36 hours, and still a backlog of 85 pit bull-related cases."

Mr. Algar says, as a result, society investigators are under intense pressure.

SFU student dogs breed-specific regs

2006-08-06T20:34:00.000-04:00

COURTESY OF SFU
By Sam Cooper The Tri-City News
Aug 04 2006

Picking on pit bulls won’t make society any safer, an SFU study says.

SFU criminology graduate student Niki Huitson studied breed-specific legislation for her master’s thesis and concluded it doesn’t curb attacks.

Breed-specific legislation restricts or bans ownership of certain dogs. In Ontario ownership of pit bulls is banned outright.

About half of Lower Mainland municipalities have breed-specific laws. In Coquitlam, pit bulls are defined vicious, requiring owners to muzzle them in public, while Port Coquitlam and Port Moody have no breed-specific laws.

Huitson says pit bulls have been demonized, leading to breed-specific laws that only give a false sense of security.

“Evidence in cities with tough [breed-specific] licensing laws, like Calgary, shows it is not reducing dog bites,” Huitson said. “Dog bites are consistent regardless.”

Former Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell was external examiner for Huitson’s study and endorsed her conclusions.

Huitson interviewed representatives from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Vancouver SPCA, the RCMP, as well as dog breeders. She says many felt there should be dog attack laws but most agreed designating certain breeds as dangerous would not solve the problem.

Huitson said there is no scientific proof that certain breeds are more vicious but the pit bull’s historic image as a fighter makes it a target of irresponsible owners.

“There is one or two per cent of the population that buys the dog to be aggressive,” Huitson said. “Clearly it is the owner that makes a dog vicious and we need to be tougher on them.

“Enforcement is the problem. There has to be liability for owners or breeders who train vicious dogs.”

Huitson said mandatory obedience training for all dogs, and responsible owner education will reduce attacks.
Port Coquitlam’s manager of bylaws, Dan Scoones, formerly in charge of animal control for Victoria, said Huitson’s conclusions seem sound.

“You get a far greater return on your money by educating people to be responsible dog owners [than using breed-specific laws],” Scoones said. “If there was persuasive evidence that pit bulls were more likely to attack, I think we would have laws on them.”

When a dog is declared vicious in PoCo, muzzling and confinement rules are applied.

PoMo bylaw enforcement officer Tom Krish also said breed-specific laws don’t make sense. “I don’t believe that just because it is a pit bull it will be vicious,” he said.

In PoMo, owners of dogs declared vicious must pay $295 for licensing and follow safety restrictions.

Coquitlam spokesperson Therese Mickelson said the city’s dog control legislation defines vicious dog broadly, including the pit bull family and any dog showing a propensity for viciousness.

Mickelson said she couldn’t comment on Huitson’s conclusions against breed-specific legislation.

Statistics show there is typically one fatal dog bite a year in Canada. The only recorded pit bull fatality in Canada was in 1995, by an American Staffordshire terrier.

Huitson owns three American pit bull terriers and said, “They have all been trained for obedience, and are sociable.”

Woman charged over pit bull attack

2006-08-01T10:36:00.000-04:00

Tue, August 1, 2006
By DANIELA SIMUNAC, FREE PRESS REPORTER

A woman who was supervising two pit bulls that viciously attacked her London neighbour and his dog last week has been charged under a bylaw.

Janet Ball, 55, was charged with two counts of allowing a pit bull dog to run at large.

With the city bylaw charges against her, Ball could face fines up to $5,000, said London police Staff Sgt. Rick Harriss.

Bill Pargeter, whose golden retriever, Tasha, is recovering from surgery at the University of Guelph, said the charges are appropriate.

"These dogs almost destroyed my life."

"They would have killed me and my dog if the police didn't show up."

He said his neighbour -- she was supervising the unmuzzled, unleashed pit bulls when they slipped under the fence and attacked -- should bear responsibility for the damage the dogs caused.

"This was a terrible thing."

The attack ended only after police shot the two pit bulls, killing one and wounding the other, which was put down.

Ball wasn't available for comment yesterday.

Pargeter, a 42-year-old factory worker who's been off work since last Wednesday's attack, said he hasn't decided whether to pursue a lawsuit.

"Right now, my main concern is to make sure my dog gets better and to get better myself," he said.

Ball is expected to appear in court on the bylaw charges at a later date.

"This is a pretty serious thing that happened," said Harriss.

Jay Stanford, the city's manager of environmental services, said he wasn't surprised to hear charges had been laid.

"There have been biting incidents in London before," he said. "(But) this is very unfortunate. The owner did not ensure the pit bulls couldn't get out of the yard."

The message to all pit bull owners is that they need to be familiar with the law, he said.

"They should understand all of the requirements of a responsible pet owner. Hopefully, this particular dog and its owner will recover," said Stanford.

Pit bulls maul dog, owner

2006-07-31T11:04:00.000-04:00

Thu, July 27, 2006
Man tried to intervene in vicious attack, was attacked himself
By APRIL KEMICK, LONDON FREE PRESS REPORTER

Bandaged and bloodied, one day after a terrifying attack by two pit bulls in his own backyard, Bill Pargeter is too traumatized to eat or sleep.

But it isn’t his own injuries — a torn ear, multiple puncture wounds and serious gashes to his arm, hand and chest — that torment him.

The 42-year-old’s only worries are for his 10-year-old golden retriever, Tasha, who suffered the brunt of the attack and may never walk again.

“She is everything to me,” a distraught Pargeter said Thursday, tears streaming down his face.
“I would have fought those dogs off her until they put me in the ground. I would have done anything to save my dog.”

The horrifying assault — which happened in his own fenced-in backyard on Elizabeth Street — happened when Pargeter took his dog out for a bathroom break Wednesday night around 6 p.m.
Immediately, he said, his neighbour’s two large pit bulls — unchained and unmuzzled, but supervised by the neighbour — began barking through the chain-link fence separating the two backyards.

Within seconds, the muscular dogs — both of whom are registered in accordance with the city’s pit bull bylaw — had slipped under the fence and charged toward Tasha, he said.

“They pinned her down and they were tearing away at her,” Pargeter said. “I tried and tried to get them off. I wouldn’t let them kill my dog.”

Falling to his knees, Pargeter fought to pull the dogs away from Tasha, but in the process, one of the pit bulls turned on him.

“He lunged at my ear — I think he was going for my throat — and I just tried to punch him in the head,” he said, shaking with emotion.

“I was bleeding like crazy and I was just screaming for somebody to help me. Thank God somebody heard.”

A neighbour called police, who responded within minutes and jumped the fence into his backyard, he said.

They ordered Pargeter, who had managed to free himself from the pit bull’s grip, to back away.
They then fired shots at the pit bulls, killing one and injuring the other. The injured dog was euthanized Wednesday night at the owner’s request.

“He didn’t let go until he was dead,” Pargeter said of the bigger pit bull.

“Thank God Tasha was able to get up. She was bleeding from everywhere but at least she got up.”

While Pargeter was taken by ambulance to hospital for treatment of his injuries, his dog was rushed into surgery at an emergency veterinary clinic.

Doctors repaired skin that was torn away from inner tissue in several places, and gave her a blood transfusion to replenish the “enormous amount” of blood lost in the attack, said Dr. Peter Luczak, who is caring for Tasha now at the East London Animal Hospital.

The services will cost Pargeter up to $3,000, plus whatever further treatment Tasha requires under Dr. Luczak’s care.

“Will she walk again? We will have to wait and see,” Luczak said Thursday.

It’s too early to tell if Tasha — who is covered in stitches, bandages and cuts and is on three different pain medications — will pull through, he said.

But Pargeter, a factory worker at Cuddy’s, is determined to do whatever it takes to raise the money for Tasha’s care.

“I just want to save my dog,” he said.

On Thursday, Pargeter’s next-door neighbour, who was caring for the pit bulls while her son — their owner — is away, expressed sympathy for her neighbour.

“I feel bad,” she said. “Their dog is a lovely dog and I hope she recovers.”

But the unidentified woman said her and her son are “responsible pet owners” who always took precautions to ensure their pit bulls didn’t endanger anyone.

They usually didn’t let their dogs out in the yard if Pargeter’s dog was out, she said, and usually let him know in advance if they were going to be out back.

“We haven’t done anything wrong,” she said.

The woman said the dogs are usually very obedient and she doesn’t know why they didn’t listen to her when she screamed at them as they slipped under the fence.

She said one of the dogs was recently neutered in accordance with the city’s pit bull bylaw, a procedure which she said drastically “changed him,” making him more aggressive and less obedient.

Both dogs have their 2006 license.

As of Thursday, police had not laid charges against the dog owner.

But several options exist for them to do so, including:

- They could lay charges under a municipal bylaw that prohibits any dog from running at large. The charge comes with at least a $150 fine.

- Charges could also be laid under Ontario’s recently-enhanced Dog Owner Liability Act, which states that owners must use reasonable precautions to prevent dogs from biting or attacking domestic pets or people. Charges could result in hefty fines or jail time.

Residents in the neighbourhood Thursday day said they weren’t surprised to hear the pit bulls had attacked.

“They’re not nice dogs,” said Lou Wheeler. “One morning one cornered me up against my van.”
Wheeler said the resident who lived in Pargeter’s house before him had a German shepherd who was killed by the dogs.

But a city official said there’s no record of such an attack.

“We do have record of a couple of visits (from animal control officers) in July and August (2001),” said Jay Stanford, the city’s manager of environmental services, adding police attended the pit bull owner’s home in August of that year.

“But we have no record that would suggest an attack or a death.”

Since that time, he said, there’s been no calls or complaints regarding the pit bulls, he said.

PAM ANDERSON’S RESTAURANT SELLS (GASP!) MEAT

2006-07-31T11:02:00.000-04:00

UNITED STATES: Longtime PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) spokesperson Pamela Anderson offers ham-hock ravioli, lamb chops, lobster tails, and Foie Gras at a restaurant she has business interest in.

The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom has asked Pamela Anderson to donate all profits from her partnership in Hollywood’s Blacksteel restaurant to the American Liver Foundation. The Center for Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

Anderson’s being a very visible PETA spokesperson has not kept her from earning a second income with menu items that include meat--and she continues to treat her Hepatitis C despite PETA’s opposition to the animal-based research that might lead to a cure, a news release points out. Anderson has also appeared on behalf of the American Liver Foundation, which does its research testing on animals.

“It’s outrageous for Pam Anderson to serve lobster and lamb chops at her restaurant while publicly campaigning against the so-called evils of chicken sandwiches,” said David Martosko, Center for Consumer Freedom director of research, in a press release. “And it’s hypocritical for her to strip naked for PETA while making the most of her animal-tested hair dye, animal-tested breast implants, and animal-tested collagen injections. It’s one or the other, Pam. Even you can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

Ouch!!!

Update on Shire

2006-07-26T09:36:00.000-04:00

SHIRE IN HIDING

UPDATE:

The deWeerd family has been infirmed that their lawyer has not filed and cannot file until the end of this year, for an injunction to save her life. Shire has since been moved out of this horrid community, Florenceville New Brunswick Canada, with the kind help of a concerned dog owner in NB. If she is found within the town limits, she will be killed.

Email
villflor@nbnet.nb.ca

The deWeerd family moved from Ontario into Florenceville New Brunswick. Hired by McCain foods, this family prior to making the final decision to move contacted the Florenceville town hall to ensure they had no BSL. Their real estate agent was also informed NO BSL.

John deWeerd registered Shire as a Rottweiler and was issued a licence for the year 2006. Two days after moving into their home, an ACO officer notified them that Shire was to moved or killed. It did not matter to this town, that Shire was a co worker with her mom and had been working as a pet therapy companion with special needs children for many years. It did not matter that Shire has never stepped one foot out of line in her entire life. She is a rottie and therefore she must die.

Despite direct contact by various organizations to include the DLCC and the CKC, the town of Florenceville has refused to allow Shire to permanently live in their community. The Mayor has refused to step in and be compassionate to this family, to Shire.

The town's major employer, McCain Foods John deWeerd's employer has refused to assist this family.

107 Main St
Florenceville NB, E7L 1B2
Phone: 506-392-5541
Fax: 506-392-8156
Toll Free: 877-462-5676
Website: www.mccain.com

The love of their dog has cost untold stress emotionally and financially. Three lawyers later, the death sentence remains, the house is not sold, the real estate agency is not accepting any responsibility neither is the town of Florenceville.

Shire has borne the brunt of the stress. She has been fostered in kennels and in friends homes since all of this started. She does not understand the depth of the hatred this community holds for her and her owners simply because she was born with politically incorrect genes. All Shire knows is that she is not with her family where she belongs.

They have set up a PayPal account to help them financially. This battle has cost thousands of dollars with no end in sight.

sheepyjane@hotmail.com

If you cannot help financially,then please sign the below petition addressed to the town of Florenceville NB. It is important for this town to know we as responsible dog owners will never support in any way, municipalities that kill our dogs for no reason other than breed biased hatred.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/891894426?ltl=1146964801

Finally,the deWeerd family needs letters from dog owners across this continent sent to them in support of saving Shire. These letters will be used in her defence. Please forward these letters of support for the deWeerd family at

sheepyjane@gmail.com

LeeAnn O'Reilly RN,PBMH
Pres.Dog Legislation Council of Canada
president@doglegislationcouncilcanada.org
www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org

Pammie's dog fight

2006-07-25T23:39:00.000-04:00

25/07/2006 1:30:00 PM

'Barb Wire' actress Pamela Anderson - an ardent animal rights campaigner - has slammed the greyhound industry over their "cruel" treatment of dogs.

Pamela Anderson
(BANG) - Pamela Anderson wants to save greyhounds from the "cruel" world of racing.

The former 'Baywatch' star, an ardent animal rights campaigner, has hit out at the industry over their barbaric treatment of the dogs.

In a furious rant on her official website, Pammie attacks both breeders and trainers for making greyhounds' lives a misery.

She angrily writes: "I can't believe I still read about such ignorant blatant cruelty. Thousands of greyhounds are killed each year as the declining dog-racing industry struggles to stay alive. Some puppies are killed in the name of 'selective breeding' before they ever touch a racetrack. Dogs who do qualify to become racers typically live in cages, are kept muzzled by their trainers at all times and are forced to race in extreme conditions - ranging from subzero temperatures to sweltering heat of more than 100°F.

"Most dogs who slow down and become unprofitable are either killed immediately or sold to research laboratories."

Pammie, an active member of animal rights group PETA, urges people to log onto website www.helpinganimals.com to learn more about the plight of the dogs.

The blonde actress also pleads with other animal lovers to save a retired greyhound from certain death by adopting one.

She adds: "If you can offer a greyhound a good home, the Greyhound Protection League (www.greyhounds.org) organizes adoption programmes throughout the United States."

Pammie recently posed almost completely nude in the shop window of fashion designer Stella McCartney's London store as part of an anti-fur protest.
(C) BANG Media International

A DOG'S SACRIFICE

2006-07-25T10:20:00.000-04:00

Man and pet rescue each other from beast's teeth

A pit bull takes a mauling from a bear for his master

ALEX DOBROTA
Tom Tilley realized trouble was following him on the lush forested trail when his dog started to growl.

A loyal companion who goes with Mr. Tilley on his annual canoe trips to Northern Ontario, Sam, a five-year-old pit bull, often lets out a booming bark. But he doesn't growl.

"Something was wrong," Mr. Tilley said. "That's when I turned around."

About six metres behind him, an 82-kilogram black bear was treading stealthily on the trail.

But while the snarl alerted Mr. Tilley to the bear's presence, both companions played an equal part in this story about a man and his dog and how they escaped a bear. One took a mauling to save his master; the other killed the bear with a hunting knife to save his dog.

Last Thursday, with the morning sun shining over Lake Abbey, near Wawa, Ont., Mr. Tilley, a Waterloo resident, began his fourth day of a two-week trip by portaging his canoe on a short trail. He returned for his gear, spotted the bear, and started moving backward.

He said the bear disappeared into the forest but re-emerged on the trail, cutting off his escape. As Mr. Tilley unsheathed his Buck hunting knife, the dog sprang in front of his master, turned sideways and stood its ground. The bear lunged forward, plunging its fangs into the pit bull's white hide.

Mr. Tilley said his fear turned to rage.

"All I could see was my beloved canine friend getting chomped on, and the immediate thought was: 'You're not going to kill my dog!' "

Mr. Tilley said he jumped on the bear's back, clutching it with his left hand, while with his right hand he thrust the six-inch blade into its throat. The knife slid in to the hilt. The bear loosened its grip on the dog.

But Mr. Tilley was not quite finished: "I kept it up until he had stopped moving. I told my dog, 'Go back, go back. Stay away.' "

After the bear drew its last breath, Mr. Tilley set out in his canoe, preparing for a two-day trip back to the nearest community.

An hour later, with flies swarming over Mr. Tilley's and Sam's open wounds, the man saw two white points on the horizon.

Tourists from Michigan, equipped with a satellite phone, were fishing on the lake. They called in a hydroplane, which ferried the two companions to a Wawa hospital. The dog bore a wide gash across his back, and Mr. Tilley was suffering from a lacerated thumb, which later required plastic surgery.

That same night, Mr. Tilley and Sam drove back to Waterloo. On the way home, he said he teared up as he looked at the injured dog. Since Mr. Tilley's daughter, 25, and his son, 34, left home five years ago, Sam, an American Staffordshire, has been Mr. Tilley's constant companion. At 55, Mr. Tilley, who is a courier by trade, has had trouble finding friends who could travel . Sam could. And now, the dog had saved his life.

While Mr. Tilley convalesced at home, an employee with Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources recovered the bear's bloody carcass. An autopsy will be held to determine whether the bear suffered from rabies or any other disease that would explain its aggressive behaviour, ministry spokeswoman Jolanta Kowalski said.

In this case, the bear might have simply considered Sam as prey.

About 10 people have been killed by bears over the past 100 years in Ontario, according to ministry statistics. Most recently, Jacqueline Perry, a young Cambridge, Ont., doctor, was killed by a black bear last September. Her husband had attempted to fight the animal with a Swiss Army knife.

The highly publicized mauling prompted Mr. Tilley to walk into a Canadian Tire this spring and buy his own hunting knife. He hoped never to use it, he said.

But his encounter with the black bear hasn't dampened his love of the outdoors.

"My daughter tells me I'm not allowed to go back. I left my canoe there, knowing that I'll go back to get it."

There are 75,000 to 100,000 black bears in Ontario, concentrated mainly in the central and western parts of the province.

While it is illegal to kill a black bear without a permit, Ms. Kowalski said Mr. Tilley will probably not be charged because he acted in self-defence. But she also warned the public against trying to repeat a similar feat.

"We do not recommend that people jump on bears to try to fight a bear off somebody's dog," she aid.

Mr. Tilley said the impulse to protect his dog was visceral. Besides, he added, Sam saved his life.

"I hadn't heard anything, and without the dog's warning the first thing I might have known would have been [the bear's] jaws on my neck."

If you see a bear

Face the bear. Do not run. If you are with others, stay together. Make sure the bear has a clear escape route, then yell and wave your arms to make yourself look bigger. Use a whistle or air horn, if you have one. The idea is to be aggressive and persuade the bear to leave. This will work if it is afraid of humans. If these attempts fail to frighten the bear, slowly back away while giving the bear a wide berth. Climbing a tree to get away may offer little protection, as black bears are excellent climbers. A bear may stand upright, swat or beat the ground with its forepaws or even bluff charge -- a way of saying you are too close. Back off and give the bear more space. If the bear comes within range, use pepper spray if you have it.

Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Canoeist stabs bear to death in Ontario

2006-07-23T22:34:00.000-04:00

Last Updated Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:34:51 EDT
CBC News

A man stabbed a black bear to death with a 15-cm hunting knife, saying he knew he would otherwise become "lunch" after it attacked him and his dog on a canoeing portage in northern Ontario.

Tom Tilley and his dog, shown in an undated photo, escaped an attack by a black bear while portaging near Wawa, Ont. (Waterloo Region Record/Canadian Press)

Tom Tilley, a 55-year-old from Waterloo, Ont., said his American Staffordshire dog growled a warning, then rushed to his defence as the bear came at them on a trail north of Wawa on Friday.

As the dog battled with the nearly 90-kilogram bear, Tilley jumped on its back and stabbed it with his knife.
"Love is a very powerful emotion and my thought right away was: 'You're not going to kill my dog,'" Tilley told the Waterloo Region Record.

"I really consider my dog a hero. Without that first warning, I would have had the bear clamping down on my neck."

An avid outdoorsman, Tilley was four days into a 12-day canoe trip. He said he heard his dog growl and noticed the bear closing in on him. He waved his arms and slowly backed away. But the bear came closer, cutting off his escape route.

"That's when I knew I had a serious problem.… I was lunch," he said. "The bear took a few steps down the trail and clamped its mouth on the back of my dog. It gave me the quick opportunity I needed to run around to the back of the bear, get on its back and with my knife start stabbing it."

After making sure the animal was dead, Tilley realized that both he and dog had been bitten.

'That's when I knew I had a serious problem.… I was lunch.'-Tom Tilley, a 55-year-old from Waterloo, Ont.

He dragged his canoe across a short portage and paddled for about an hour before he came across a pair of Americans who had a satellite phone. They called for help and two hours later, a cargo plane arrived to take Tilley to Wawa for medical attention. He was released from hospital shortly after.

Bears rarely attack humans, but there have been several killings and serious maulings in Canada in recent years, including:

In late April, a grizzly attacked and killed Jean-Francois Pagé, a 28-year-old man from Whitehorse who was working in the bush about 30 kilometres east of the Yukon community.

Jacqueline Perry, 30, was killed by a black bear that attacked her and her husband at a campsite in Missinaibi Lake Provincial Park in northern Ontario in September 2005.

Isabelle Dube, a 26-year-old mother of one, died in June 2005 after being mauled by a grizzly bear while she and friends were running on a hiking trail near Canmore, Alta.

Dog found headless in river

2006-07-20T09:55:00.000-04:00

By TRACY MCLAUGHLIN
SPECIAL TO THE TORONTO SUN
BRACEBRIDGE

Police here are hoping the public can help solve the mystery behind a gruesome discovery of a dog that had been tied up, beheaded and left floating in the river.

"It's weird one, that's for sure," OPP Const. Ted Smith said yesterday. "Is this some sort of voodoo or what? ... You can only speculate."

Police said the dog's paws were bound with rope and it was decapitated. By the time a man found the dog floating on the weekend in the Moon River near Arnold's Bay, 10 km west of Bracebridge, it was already decomposing.

"It was definitely upsetting for this young man," Smith said. "We have no clue as to why someone would do this to a dog ... was it someone who didn't like pit bulls?"

He said the dog may have been of a pit bull or Rottweiler breed but without the head he couldn't be sure.

'IT'S A SCARY THOUGHT'

The large brown dog had short legs, a stocky body, short hair and weighed about 20 to 30 kilos. Other than the bound paws, Smith said he couldn't tell if the dog had been tortured before death.

"It's a scary thought of what happened to it before it was decapitated," he said.

He said the first step is to find out who is missing a dog that fits that description.

"Hopefully it will lead us to whoever did this," he said.

Smith said possible charges would include cruelty to animals, which can carry a sentence of up to six months in jail.

As well, a person could be charged with mischief, which carries a sentence of up to two years in jail.

"Certainly some animal activists are not happy with that," he said.

In the United States, a man was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison two years ago for killing and beheading his dog.

James Abernathy, 43, of California, was convicted of felony animal cruelty for killing the dog under the state's three-strikes law.

Abernathy would have faced a maximum of six years if not for two prior convictions for violent crimes.

Now....does there seem to be something wrong here. In Ontario, you'd serve up to 6 months for this horrible crime, yet in the US, you'd be sentenced 25 YEARS TO LIFE. Does this say something about this country?

Pound officer sues over attack by dog

2006-07-19T10:02:00.000-04:00

After a dog attack put him in hospital with permanent scarring, a Winnipeg animal control officer is using the courts to bite back.

Brian Baryski, a city animal services employee, has launched a lawsuit with the Workers Compensation Board against Czeslaw Pawlowski for damages over injuries inflicted by a Labrador-shepherd cross nearly two years ago.

Baryski was knocked to the ground and bitten on his arms and legs by Pawlowski's dog, Mishen, in September 2004 while trying to seize the canine with other pound officers at Pawlowski's Pritchard Avenue home.

The lawsuit, filed in Court of Queen's Bench, claims unspecified general and special damages for Baryski and the WCB, which compensated him for a five-week period while he was off the job recovering.

"This has kind of played with my mind. I'm more leery of dogs, knowing what kind of power they have," Baryski, a pound employee for more than 25 years, said in March of last year during a court case that led to a destruction order against Pawlowski's pet.

Baryski was taken by ambulance to Seven Oaks General Hospital following the attack, during which Pawlowski allegedly punched him several times in the face.

Baryski refused comment through managers at the Logan Avenue animal services pound yesterday.

"The officer in question himself has asked me to send his regards and said he certainly doesn't wish to speak about it at all," said animal services field operations co-ordinator Rand Parker.

SCARS

Pawlowski -- a Polish-Canadian in his late 60s who speaks little English -- could not be reached for comment.

Though Baryski is back on the job, the statement of claim says he will continue to suffer a "loss of income" because of the attack that injured his right elbow, forearm, hand, right bicep and groin area. The claim adds he has scars "which have caused him pain, suffering and disability" for which he has sought chiropractic care and physiotherapy.

Parker did not confirm whether the destruction order on Mishen has been carried out. The dog attacked four people in separate incidents, including Baryski.

Hardworking Pit Bulls Buck Bad Rap

2006-07-18T10:21:00.000-04:00

The missing woman would not have survived another night if Dakota hadn't found her when she did. The elderly woman suffering from dementia had been missing for several days when the pit bull—trained to assist law enforcement agencies in search and rescue—located her at the bottom of a steep ravine, her motionless body partially submerged in a small stream.

But when Kristine Crawford, Dakota's guardian, was approached by newspaper and TV news reporters after the successful rescue, she was confronted with an unusual question.

"The first thing they all asked was 'Did your dog bite the woman when she found her?'," Crawford said. "That's something no search and rescue dog handler with another breed is ever asked."

They've been called killers and monsters in the media, yet thousands of beloved pit bulls live peacefully with families across the country. So where's the disconnect?

Pit bull guardians and animal welfare groups say that it is irresponsible owners and poor breeding—not an inherently vicious breed—that are to blame when pit bulls exhibit aggressive behavior towards humans.

"The media's image of the pit bull as a natural human aggressor is attention grabbing, but false," said Crawford. "In spite of their propensity to challenge other dogs, the typical pit bull is stable, reliable and adores people. Any display of human aggression, whether due to genetic mischance or bad environment, is an aberration. Pit bulls that bite humans are not typical of the breed."

Yet, across the country, communities reeling from shocking press reports involving dog attacks and pressure from nervous residents are increasingly turning to breed bans in an attempt to control the pit bull population in their area.

Pooch Prejudice

Breed bans—or breed specific legislation (BSL)—make it illegal to own a certain breed of dog. They are considered by animal welfare groups and pit bull guardians to be discriminatory quick fixes that punish responsible guardians by banishing all pit bulls—regardless of history or temperament—while doing nothing to address the real problem of irresponsible owners. Pit bull bans also fail to consider the problems presented by dogs of other breeds, no matter how dangerous they may be.

"Focusing on one particular breed is unfair to the community as a whole because it gives people a false sense of security and leaves them at risk of injury by dogs that truly are dangerous," said Crawford. "Lawmakers need to realize that any dog, regardless of breed, can be a danger in the hands of an irresponsible owner."

Crawford is doing everything in her power to reverse the negative label that plagues pit bulls. She is the founder of For Pit's Sake—a nonprofit organization that, with the help of pit bulls, educates children and adults about dog and wilderness safety, works with physically and mentally challenged children and adults and performs search and rescue work. All of Crawford's three pit bulls—Dakota, Cheyenne and Tahoe—are trained therapy dogs, and Dakota and Tahoe are trained as search and rescue dogs.

"The key to reversing negative stereotypes is to contradict them in direct interactions with individual people, in the media and through education...and that's exactly what For Pits' Sake strives to do through all the different activities we are involved in," said Crawford.

Though Dakota, Cheyenne and Tahoe can't single-handedly change opinions overnight, they are working hard to fight the stereotype—by winning hearts and minds one person at a time.

"When the people who have seen my dogs at work hear the word pit bull, instead of thinking of a vicious monster, they remember the image of pit bulls searching tirelessly for someone's missing loved one, interacting with children in our Safety Around Dogs class or comforting an abused child," said Crawford. "They think of pit bulls making a difference in the community."

Watch Dakota Work!
Catch Dakota in episode #57 of the National Geographic channel’s show Dogs With Jobs.

New Fido Ad

2006-07-13T15:54:00.000-04:00

This is a new Fido (cell phone service) billboard ad. Isn't it great? Especially when this type of dog is "restricted" in this province......