.jpg)
If you're a dog owner living in Toronto, Brampton, or anywhere else in Ontario, or if you're simply visiting Ontario with your dog in tow, it's important for you to understand a nasty piece of legislation that was added to Ontario's Dog Owners' Liability Act (DOLA) in 2005.
The dreaded "pit bull" ban, also known as breed-specific legislation, is regularly used and abused by Ontario's animal control officers.
Think you're safe if you don't own a "pit bull"?
Not so.
Any dog—regardless of breed or temperament—is in danger of being seized from your home and destroyed, based on nothing more than the uneducated opinion, distorted perception, or sanctimonious whim of an animal control officer.
Under this subjective, arbitrary law, a "pit bull" is defined as a pit bull terrier, a Staffordshire bull terrier, an American Staffordshire terrier, an American pit bull terrier, or any dog whose "appearance and physical characteristics" are "substantially similar," which means all short-haired, large-headed dogs, not to mention some substantially dissimilar dogs, can meet the "definition."
So if Animal Services says your dog is an illegal "pit bull," it's an illegal "pit bull," even if it's actually a Boxer, a Bulldog, a Chinese Pug, a Great Dane, a Yellow Lab, a Chihuahua mix, or a mutt of undetermined parentage. And it's up to you to prove them wrong.
Surely, the spirit and intent of the law is to protect humans and nonhumans alike from serious harm. But to target certain dogs—no matter how loving and docile—simply because of their appearance or breed is outrageous.
Furthermore, the Act is unconstitutional. "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."
For instance, Section 8 of the Constitution says "everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." And yet, animal control officers can be as unreasonable as they wish when they decide—without any provocation or proof of wrong doing—to seize your dog.
Section 11 (d) says "any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty." Unfortunately, you and your dog are presumed guilty at the moment of seizure, and the onus is on you to prove your innocence and that of your dog, which is not an easy feat. Just ask the families of Brampton's Rambo and Brittany.
Section 12 states that "everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." Yet dog owners can be fined or jailed despite their innocence. And their dogs can be seized and put to death or, according to the Animals for Research Act, sold to research facilities where they will be tormented for the rest of their lives.
Section 15 (1) says "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination." But under the current wording of the DOLA, dog owners are discriminated against and do not enjoy equal protection.
On November 18, 2009, Toronto's MPP for Parkdale-High Park, Cheri DiNovo, tabled Bill 222, aimed at removing the breed-specific references in the DOLA. The second reading will be later this year, and she desperately needs your support.
Please visit stopcanineprofiling.com for information on how you can help put an end to this atrocious legislation.
Comments
It is because of people like Anita who feel they have a 'right' to have large, dangerous animals in public places that I and many others support BSL. Sure, golden retrievers and poodles bite as well, but the carnage caused by pitbulls makes them a danger to the general public - especially when people like anita agitate for the right to own these chewing machines.
dave: Thank you for your comment. But you've completely missed the point of my article.
I have many comments for you Dave but since I need to leave for work, I will just post a question, how many breeds would you have banned? Golden Retrievers and Standard Poodles are large breed dogs.
I'm just trying to get some detail here as to what you are actually saying.
Dear Dave;
I sincerely hope you don't own a dog. But, per chance you do, the point of the article wasn't relating to the defense of chewing machines, as you so colorfully put; but that the legislation is blindly flawed (ignorance has a habit of doing that).
I say I hope you don't have a dog, because I doubt you would do the dog justice, if an officer came to you, exclaimed your dog was indeed an "illegal pit bull" even though you yourself knew the parentage of the dog (let's say, it's a poorly bred lab).
Or, what if you had an adorable Boston Terrier? But he was bigger than "most" - and thus, must be a small pit bull.
I understand that ignorance is bliss. But I really would love to see the look on your face when you one day a smiliarly flawed law directly affects you... I wonder if you'll remember anything...
Dave where do you get your facts from? There hasn't been a pitbull related fatality in Ontario in over 50 years.
Just like any responsible person owning / having any breed that is our right. If someone thinks any dog is inherently more dangerous then another, they really do not know anything about dogs. There is no such thing as a dangerous breed. There are dangerous individual dogs and 99% it is because of dangerous owners. Having worked , owned, rescues, fostered, groomed, adopted many dogs in over 30 yrs. I can tell you I have been bitten by the so called " friendly, family" dogs more often and no less then 15 stitches. I would rather these so called " dangerous dogs" anytime , any day and anywhere before the so called " nice dogs".
Anita.. you go girl. Love your breed(s) and be proud. Let the ones who have no self assureance have the others. Our dogs deserve to have a strong confident owner not a namby pamby twit.
Dave, I am the proud owner of a rescued Bull Terrier. You may say that they are completely different, but as a logical pet owner, I am well aware of what he is capable of. My first Bull Terrier was attacked by a Husky that nearly ripped his tail and ear off. He was also attacked by two Shar-Peis that left him with deep puncture wounds. In both of these instances, he NEVER even tried to fight back. He lied on the ground and tried to escape these aggressive dogs. I was 6 when I got my first Bull Terrier and he slept in my bed for all 12 years of his life. His personality was solid and he would adjust depending on if he around elderly people, children, or his doggy friends. I have a neighbour that fostered a Lab for the Guide Dogs of Canada. She failed the course as she became very dog aggressive. They since adopted her and her aggression has continued. The Shar-Peis that attacked my dog also lived in my neighbourhood along with an aggressive Wheaton, Corgi, Cattle Dog, and Shih-Tzu.
Oh Davey,Davey; Get your head out of the tabloids! Firstly how LARGE is one of these dangerous animals? Most weigh LESS than retrievers. The APBT virtually ties with the Golden for temperament. APBT 83.5% with 665 tested. Golden Retriever 85.5% with 720 tested. Check out the American Temperament Test. I'd post a link to Fantino's statement saying who had the MOST registered bites when the BAN came but they are not allowed. However it was the LAB! Guess who has the KILL rate for dogs in Canada? Husky's and Sled Dogs! Oh the info is out there. You just need to get Your Head OUT of the Tabloids.
Continued...
My current Bull Terrier was attacked by a Catahoula Leopard Dog in a dog park. He was playing with two dogs and the female Lab humped the Catahoula. They owner said "Uh Oh" and I turned to watch her dog pin my dog to the ground and attack his face. She said "He always attacks the nearest male dog when she humps him". Why are owners that display such stupidity not punished? That dog should have never been in the dog park and should have never been allowed off the leash. We then decided never to return to the dog park because owners cannot be trusted. We went to play in a local baseball diamond and there was a woman there with a miniature and standard Poodle. The miniature Poodle jumped up at Tazz's face and attacked him. The only dog bleeding was the Bull Terrier. These cases aren't an exception, they are the majority. I have personally been bitten by a Vizsla mix, Chow Chow, Shih Tzu, and Cocker Spaniel. Regardless of breed, I have only blamed bad owners and never the dog
Davey; While I mention ACTUAL facts below I want to say that based on what dog has killed more people in Canada and who has BIT more is NOT vindictive that the WHOLE breed is bad. It is however indictive of irresponsible ownership of both breeds. Husky's and Sled dogs were the least unsocialzied being used as mostly working dogs in the North. Second, lots of Labs bite because owner's did not train them properly. I don't believe in calling EVERY kettle black when there are thousands and thousands of silver ones. But then, thats just ME.
Forgot to mention: Dave (et. al.) Why then, during the presentation of the ban years ago, did the opponents of the BSL include a list choke-full of veterinarians, humane society staff, and professionals of all walks of life, with mass FACTS under their belts, to explain the defense. While McGuinty et al had embellished, exagerated fear-induced 'information' - who were clearly much too blind to listen and learn. Additionally, many of the countries they referenced as having had, for years, a "working" BSL - have seen over-turned those same bans for lack of efficiency. More to the point, they had an increased number of attacks/bites, and...wait for it...they weren't of the "chewing machine" breed! *gasp*
Dave, what "large, dangerous animals" are you talking about? Men kill and maim more women and children than all the dogs throughout history. We should ban men before we ban dogs.
There is no such thing as a "pit bull". That is a slang term for a dog with a certain appearance, and encompasses many pure breeds of dog as well as crossbreed and mixed breed dogs.
You cannot predict a dog's behaviour from its physical shape any more than you can predict a human's behaviour from his/her appearance. I trust that you would not attempt to judge a person from the colour of that person's skin...or perhaps you would, which would explain why you think that the exterior predicts the interior.
You apparently have not read the Ontario Liberals' breed-specific legislation, which contains abrogation of law-abiding citizens' Charter rights. You do not seem to understand that legislation such as this affects only law-abiding dog owners. Irresponsible dog owners just change breeds and continue to create dangerous dogs.
Any person who refers to "large animals" when discussing the pure breeds demonized by the Ontario Liberals' breed-specific legislation proves that they know nothing, nada, zip about dogs.
its the owners who make dogs vicious not the dog nor the breeds fault-maltese terriers anf golden labrodors are on the dangerous breed list over 300 attacks in ? yrs 2? so sad but that doesnt make them illegal here(aus) so sad they are gorgeous my mate has huge pitbull who is the beta dog to a fluffy tiny terrier!!!
Dear Dave - Can you hear what they are really saying? They DO support your right to walk without fear in public places.
However, they are reacting very strongly against a point of view that threatens innocent lives while ignoring root causes of the problem... irresponsible breeders and owners.
As always, we must look at INDIVIDUALS to avoid being prejudice.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!