Brampton Officials take out full page newspaper ad to defend their position

The city of Brampton is getting just battered with letters and phone calls -- so in response, the city took out a full page ad (cost: $7291) in the Brampton Guardian to defend their position regardng Brittany and Rambo.

Brittany and Rambo are two Boxers that the city has seized under Ontario's Dog Owner Liability Act that the city is claiming are 'pit bulls' -- which are outlawed under DOLA.  The dog's owners are fighting to prevent them from being killed in the shelter and while the debate rages on, the city of Brampton has forbid the owners from even going to visit their dogs.

Here's a copy of the letter (you can double click to enlarge):

   The city is still defending their designation of the dogs a 'pit bulls' (they clearly are not) and then my favorite line of the letter appears at the bottom:

"We stand behind our Animal Services staff - they provide and important and compassionate service in our city. Our team takes enormous prid in how we approach and interact with every family and their pet. This case has been no exception."

This is the city that has been holding two animals in the kennel for what is now over a month and won't allow the owners to even visit their dogs at the shelter.  Apparently Mr. Lowery defines "compassion" differently than I do.

Comments

[PetDocsOnCall09]

It's so typical of goverment agencies (and many big corporations) to use the "those are the rules and we can't change them" defense.

Instead of spending more than $7000 to say "our hands are tied", why not show a little compassion and, at the very least, let the owners visit their dogs.

[Brent]

Agreed Pet Docs. True compassion would have been free.

[Rinalia]

Whoa, way to use city funds inappropriately! They're just digging themselves a big fat grave.

I am still baffled why on earth they think these dogs are American Pit Bull Terriers. And even if they were, I'm baffled why they think it's okay to take away the beloved pets of an old woman and try to kill them. BSL - bringing back the stupid!

[Social Mange]

Good investigation and post, B! I'm thrilled to see the cost of the ad in print.

Add to that:
- the cost of the Brampton Animal Control officers (paycheques, benefits, vehicles, gas, insurance) ignoring dangerous dogs and seizing peaceful dogs;
- the cost of the vet who demonized these dogs;
- the cost of City workers receiving the e-mails, faxes and snail mail and cruising blogs about this matter;
- the cost of the private security firm and the idling vehicles to “protect” Animal Control office from peaceful protestors (probably to be repeated on the 20th);
- the cost of City lawyers to cooper up an obviously unacceptable “offer” and “negotiate” with the owners and their lawyers;
- the cost of City lawyers and communications people to write the letter printed over Jamie Lowery’s name,
- the cost for Mayor Fennell to buy newspaper space ($7291) and send letters trying to CHA.

Fiscal irresponsibility, indeed. And to what end???

[Social Mange]

The province's breed-specific legislation was passed by a whipped vote. Those who objected could have absented themselves, but McGuinty's control is well-known and Liberal backbenchers feared being frozen out.

It's time for their consciences to speak loudly, and for ALL Ontario MPPs to vote to pass Cheri DiNovo's Bill 222 to remove breed-specific legislation from the Ontario Dog Owners' Liability Act.

[Becky]

Do you know how to write to the person who wrote this piece? Isn't it libel (or slander) to ID these boxers as 'pits'? They need to be called on this, at the very least.

Agreed, it is absolute cruelty, to both the dogs and the owners, to forbid any visits between them. Completely unnecessary. What possible reason could there be? It's just plain mean.

And meaness should NEVER play a part in any kind of legal matter.

[YesBiscuit!]

Let me get this straight. Seven Thousand. Two Hundred. Ninety-One Dollars.
You have got to be joking.
If that shelter kills ONE pet for lack of space, lack of funding or whatever - I call shenanigans.

[Valerie]

Truly astonishing...there seems no end to how low shelters can go.

[Becky]

I have gone back to look at the original post on this, which includes this statement.

They have completely sidestepped the fact/ ISSUE that everyone maintains these are not pit bulls.

In this particular case, fighting BSL will not be effective. However, EVERYONE must be made aware of the fact that these dogs are clearly not pit bulls, no matter HOW you look at them. In the photos, the boxer does not even look like a 'mix'.

As Michelle said back then, this alone should put the fear of God in every dog owner. When a city gets away w/ completely arbitrarily ID'ing a dog, every single dog owner needs to stand up and fight.

What has been done in this case is a crime. Literally. What can we do?

[Karen]

What can we do Becky? We do what the good folk of Lucas County did to dislodge that dog murderer Tom Skeldon.

They took their petition to the commissioners and said "Get rid of him or we get rid of YOU".

Suddenly - albeit by inches - they see the light in regard to BSL!

[YesBiscuit!]

Just had a thought - can the Canadian kennel Club step in? Perhaps if some Boxer and/or AmStaff judges rendered their opinions of the dogs' breed, it might help?

[Pibble]

Who are these "independent veterinarians" who are checking on these dogs? Don't they know their dog breeds, and why don't they speak up. Aside from the fact that they're being paid by the city, and are biased, they should be doing something to help these poor dogs and their families. This is despicable.

[Becky]

Every single time I have read or found a piece or article on someone who has abused a dog -- from Michael Vick to the GS that was dragged to death by some hoodlum, etc etc, I find HUGE, lengthy lists of comments 99.9% in favor of the DOGS.

People yearn to KILL people who kill dogs! People are furious and feverish in this! And they are very generous in sharing the cruel acts they would like to commit against such people.

Not that I believe this is reasonable, but I experience the feelings that they experience.

So, somehow, more and MORE people must respond to THIS atrocity and force this city to buckle. Our right to co-habitate w/ dogs is being threatened.

All I know to do at this point is to write to this city, and pass this story on to as many people as possible and beg them to write.

I realize that sugar works better than poison, but please correct me if my attitude is wrong: I think these folks need to be threatened (w/ legal action, not physical), ridiculed and challenged -- FORCED to use reason in this nightmare.

We're all angry about it, we all see the insanity in this, but can we even imagine what we would be suffering if these were our dogs? We need to start thinking that way, in order to keep things from happening that way.

[Keira]

All I can tell you is that I work at a vet clinic & although I love the vets most wouldn't know what breed/mix a dog was. They treat problems not breeds. Most do not breed dogs(which is fine by me)& have less knowledge of the different breeds then me. In 2001 I adopted a dog from the vets(7 at this time) I currently work for that was brown & tan. Just like a shelter would, they called him a shepherd mix. Needless to say color is the only thing this dog has in common with a shepherd. He is 40lbs tall, skinny, very fast & he like small animals to much. He is a suluki mix. I've had suluki owners tell me he is.

[Pibble]

@ Keira: I'm not saying you have to be a breed expert, but if you look at the pictures of these two dogs, one is clearly, without doubt, a Boxer. The other looks like a Dane. In my opinion, they aren't multi-mixes who need DNA tests to specify their breed composition.

If these dogs were "obvious" Pit Bulls, there wouldn't be this huge public outcry, this wouldn't be such an argument, and the city wouldn't be defending itself through full-page ads.

And, again, I'm not criticizing, but I would hope that any veterinarian would be able to tell a Boxer from a Poodle. Several diseases and conditions are breed-related.

I agree with YesBiscuit - the CKC or another independent, breed expert should be called in, and soon.

And let the families visit with their dogs, for goodness sake. What is the point in prohibiting the visits?!

[Eden Springs]

Taking everything human out of the 'humane' movement one law at a time.

Good job, Wayne Pacelle and HSUS Canada! A few more instances like this and folks might stop buying your lies and see you and your pals at Toronto (In)Humane Soceity for what you really are.

[Angie]

Correction.
HSUS stands for the Humane Society of the United States. Has nothing to do with Canada.
It's the Brampton Animal Services Shelter responsible for seizing Brittany and Rambo, NOT the Toronto Humane Society. THS are actually pit bull friendly. THS goes to great lengths to rescue and find homes for pits. The former president, Tim Trow, owns a pit bull.

The real villain(s)is the Liberal Party, their pathetic BSL and over zealous AC Officers at numerous CITY controlled shelters throughout Ontario

[Lauren E]

If they did the right thing in the first place, they wouldn't need to pay for an ad. The family's haven't had to pay for newspaper and television coverage because they have done nothing wrong. Brampton animal control will get their coverage when they do the right thing and admit their mistake.

[MichelleD]

Let's find out how the city vet is that IDd these dogs as pit bulls and shut down their business. If anyone knows who they are please post.

[Lori]

I think this is a miscarriage of justice and I do not in any way support or defend the government's actions in this case, but I'm trying to wrap my head around what's really happening.

I read the above letter/advertisment looking for the promised clarification, but didn't see it. Everyone keeps saying that these dogs are obviously not pit bull mixes because they don't LOOK like a "pit bull." However, while the government's advertisement did not say this, I think the issue (in the government's mind) is not the APPEARANCE of the dogs but their documented lineage -- from at least one parent (the father?) who apparently was listed at some point in time as a pit bull mix. It sounds like that parent whose breed mix is being questioned has been listed as different breeds on different documents, with the majority of the documents listing the dog as something other than a pit bull mix. For some reason, the government is using the single document listing "pit bull mix" and dismissing any and all other breed identifications (presumably because they believe the vets & owners were being deceptive because BSL was being discussed or had been passed??).

Does anyone know the details of the documents being acknowledged/used by the government versus the documents that the owners are offering?

We all know that mix breeds often don't display the traits of all of the breeds in the mix, so it's certainly possible that these dogs are pit bull mixes (regardless of how they look). By the letter of a moronic law, IF these dogs are pit bull mixes then yes, the animal control agency did have a right to seize the dogs. Was it right to do? I don't think so.

The reason I'm asking about the paperwork is that I'm not 100% certain about what breed mix/ID is on the paperwork for the various vets that my bully mutt has seen in the 4.5 years that he has been with me. I realize that I don't live in Ontario and that each animal control jurisdiction will have it's own interpretation of their ordinances and for identifying my dog's breed, but given that I know for certain my dog has been listed as a variety of different breed mixes over the years, the whole mess with the paperwork for one of the parents of these dogs is of particular interest to me. Any info that others have would be appreciated.

[Jennifer]

Lori, my understanding is that the one instance in which the dog was labeled a "pit bull" was a clerical error (not the owner's fault--I think it might have been whoever processed the city registration paperwork?). The dog's owner was unaware that his dog had been labeled as such, and when he found out, he immediately requested that the records be changed. This mistake happened well after the ban had passed, so it wasn't like the owner was changing records to avoid the "pit bull" ban; he never considered his dog a "pit bull."

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Brent. This has been a convoluted story to keep up with.

[Brent]

Jennifer, that is how I understand it as well...which is how they ended up with two dogs from the same litter at the same time that were owned by two different owners.

[Lori]

Previous to the one instance of clerical error, the dog had always been labeled as a mix that did not include pit bull?? I suppose it doesn't matter a lot, but I'm wondering if the "pit bull" error was on the earliest record of this dog or if it is in the middle of earlier and later non-pit bull records. If it was the first ever record, I might be able to see why the city is being so freakin' stubborn. (Not that I think they are actually right!)