KC DOG BLOG

Very Good Sentences -- Ontario Bill 16 Testimony

Today, an Ontario committee heard testimony from experts throughout Canada on Bill 16 -- a bill that would essentially repeal the Province's 7 year old breed ban and replace it with a behavior-based ordinance.

In response to one expert's testimony about how human behavior often impacts canine behavior and bite incidents, MPP Randy Hillier, one of the bill's sponsors, responded:

"It's one of the unseen consequences of the current law; it takes away the requirement of people to think and be responsible...they no longer have to think when we know the dog because all of the "dangerous" dogs are gone."

In listening to the testimony, it was interesting listening to the overwhelming amount of research and evidence provided by experts in Canada against breed bans and in favor of behavior based ordinances.  There was also a lot of testimony in favor the Calgary model of animal control because of its proven track record for success.

It was great to listen to the expert testimony and the combined decades upon decades of experience these people had in animal behavior, handling, training and identification - and hearing their consensus against breed specific laws. It is very telling....although no surprise as there has always been a lack of professional support for breed-specific laws.

You can watch and listen to the entire testimony below. It's exciting to hear most of the MPPs be on board with changing the legislation, and I strongly hope the momentum continues for repealing this poor law.

 

Ontario, Miami-Dade BSL repeals move forward

Well, it'd already been a fantatic week for BSL in the US with the news of Ohio repealing its state-wide breed-specific law (BSL).

The news continued to get better later in the week..

On Thursday, Ontario Bill 16 passed its second reading in the Ontario Legislature by a vote of 51-26. There is still a lot of work to do on this bill, but the next steps are for it to get a public hearing in committee (in 2005, when the BSL was passed, public commentary was overwhelmingly opposed to the breed-specific language). The committee will then debate the bill, and it would then move forward to a 3rd and final reading in the legislature. This bill has support from all three political parties in the legislature --- and continues to have strong (67%) support of the entire legislature -- so this is a great step in the right direction. More info (and images from the day) here.

Meanwhile, in Florida, HB 997, a bill that would remove Miami-Dade's beed ban, passed it's 3rd committe UNANIMOUSLY by a vote of 17-0 (4 missed). The bill has now passed through three house committees with overwhelming support -- 13-1 in Community and Military Affairs and 14-0 in Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The companion bill in the Senate, SB 1322, has passed it's two committees as well: Government Oversight and Accountability committee 9-2 and Coummunity Affairs Committee 7-0. SB 1322 will be heard in the Budget Subcommittee on Tuesday, 2/28. After that, both bills would be voted on by the entire House and Senate.  Still, a ways to go, but there has been a LOT of support for these bills thus far.

Both of these are really fantastic news for the two major BSL repeal initiatives as momentum continues in repealing unjust breed-specific laws across the continent. I'll continue to keep people posted as these bills (and others) move forward.

Repeal of Ontario's Breed Ban Tabled after first reading

Today, MPP Randy Hilliar tabled a bill that would repeal the ban on 'pit bull' type dogs in Ontario.

The bill is now scheduled to be debated in the house on February 23, 2012.  If (and hopefully) when the bill passes the 2nd reading, it will go to committee.  Then, it will go back to the house for a 3rd reading and then move on to be signed by th Lieutenent Governor, the Queen's Rep in Ontario and for Royal Assent.   So, while today is a very positive note, it has a long way to go.

That said, there is a lot of reason to be optimistic. 

The repeal bill in Ontario has been sponsored by members of all 3 political parties:  Hillier of the Progressive Conservatives, MPP CHeri DiNovo of the New Democratic Party (who has sponsored previous repeal efforts) and MPP Kim Craitor of the Liberal Party.  Having sponsors by all three parties will take some of the partisan politics out of the equation that led this to get passed in the first place.

It seems they are finally moving forward in Ontario -- as Hillier notes in his press release:

"This was the worst kind of reactive and short-sighted legislation, and I think we all recognize that it deserves another look....It's great when members of all parties can get together to fix the problems of the past -- and that's just what we're going to do.

"I don't accept that violence is pre-determined. If we had a law like this for humans, we'd call it racism. Why is that acceptable here?  I believe that when an owner raises a violent dog, and that dog is involved inan attack, the owner should be punished to the full extent of the law. But there is simply no logic behind the targeting of a single breed of dog."

Agreed.  And good luck to our friends in Ontario who are fighting for a repeal of this law -- which has been on the books since 2005.

 

Ontario 5 year ban-iversary gathering

  Five years ago next month, Ontario passed its ban on several breeds of 'pit bull' type dogs. In spite of testimonial by 43 experts in a canine-related field telling the provincal government to not pass the ban (1 person supported it), the government went ahead and passed the ordinance.

Since the ordinance has been passed, there has beenno change in the number of dog bites in the province and yet thousands of dogs have been killed at taxpayer expense, and thousands of families have been separated from their family pets because of the ordinance.

On August 29, at Noon, at Coronation Park, they will be holding a rally to support changes to the legislation that will make Ontario once again open to all dogs -- and focus its dangerous dog laws only on aggressive dogs -- regardless of breed - based on the behavior of the dogs.

Go out and show your support.

More info at stopk9profiling.

Dog kept unjustly by Brampton Ontario Shelter Returns Home with broken Ribs

For more than three months, Rambo, and American Bulldog mix, was held in the Brampton, ON shelter and kept from his 73 year old owner. Finally, after more than three months of fighting, an independent veterinarian in Brampton determined that Rambo was not a 'pit bull' (which is illegal in Ontario) and Rambo was allowed to return home.

Turns out, according to the Brampton Guardian, Rambo didn't come back to his home in the same condidtion he went to the shelter. A couple of days after Rambo's return home, his owners had him X-rayed and determined that he had two broken ribs -- that had been broken for about 2-4 weeks.

So now, not only has the shelter been found to have confiscated the dog unjustly, and held him for 14 weeks, but now, may have abused the dog to the point of breaking his ribs while he was there.

All for absolutely no reason.

The Ontario breed ban is failing. And the cities who are trying to enforce the law, and the people who are unfairly targeted are the ones paying the price.

It's time to change the law.  Support Cheri DiNovo in removing all aspects of BSL in Ontario.

Creating Fear in the Media and Politics - on terrorists, pit bulls, & mis-information

   Earlier this week, Ottawa Citizen Journalist Daniel Gardner wrote a great article entitled "Dangerous Media Explosion" about the attempted terrorist bombing in Times Square, NY - -and noting that even though the bomb didn't go off, the media fear-mongering certainly exploded. Gardner writes:

"On talk radio, a blowhard breathlessly informed his audience that, although the bomb didn't actually -- you know -- explode, it could have, and if it had it could have killed "hundreds of people, maybe thousands," which would be difficult given that the deadliest such attack in history was a 12,000-lb. truck bomb that killed 241 U.S. Marines inside a crowded barracks in Beirut in 1983. But if the vehicle in Times Square had been packed with a completely different bomb, and if thousands of New Yorkers had strapped on bandoliers of hand grenades while balancing jars of nitroglycerine on their heads, and if those New Yorkers had huddled around the vehicle and waited until it exploded, it is indeed possible that it could have killed "hundreds of people, maybe thousands."

Gardner's article even appeared before this week's edition of Newsweek came out (pictured above, left) with the "Terror in Times Square" headline and the 53 number similar to TV Show "24"''s time-ticker number.

Gardner then goes on and mentions his book, the Science of Fear, which is a GREAT book about the media, businesses and politicians fear-mongering their way into gaining readers, viewers, sales and votes. If we have something to fear, we are more likely to pay/vote for someone to "fix" this problem for us. With nothing to fear, there is nothing to fix, and thus, we don't buy, or vote for change, or whatever it is they want us to do.

I wrote a long series on Gardner's book last fall -- you  can see all of blog postings on this book, along with related posts, here.

In the Ottawa Citizen article, Gardner talks about fear about other statistically unfounded fears (in Gardner's book, he notes that the true fear of Terrorism is statistically overblown, because we could have a 9-11 type attack every week in the US and still have fewer people die from terrorist activities than die in automobiles each year -- and yet, we have no fear of automobiles) and in particular the subject of safety in schools. Parents are notoriously concerned about safety in our schools following highly publicized attacks like Columbine and at Virginia Tech University, and yet, while tragic, students are infinitely safer in our schools than they are in our homes, or in transport to school. Gardner writes:

Excessive fear can inflict a terrible cost. It can diminish the quality of life, obviously, but it can also result in squandered resources, since schools that spend money on security consultants, metal detectors, and lockdown drills have less money for textbooks, musical instruments, and healthy food in the cafeteria.

He's right of course, there are many things we spend dollars on that curb our fears -- and yet other things we SHOULD allocate those dollars toward that would alleviate real statistical concerns in our society -- like poor educations or health conditions from poor food quality in our school cafeterias. But we don't, because we don't always act rationally and let fears drive our decision-making process.

*******

The day after Gardner's article ran, the Toronto Star ran a typical example of a fear mongering piece (I've posted a picture of the page to the left -- yet can catch it online for yourself here and get a 14-day subscription for free).

The column ran in conjunction with an article about Cheri DiNovo tabling a bill in Ontario's Parliament that would recind the provincial breed ban on 'pit bulls' -- which I wrote about yesterday. 

In The Star's column, it takes a quote from Merrit Clifton stating that without the provincial breed ban -- "all hell would break loose."

However, there is no evidence that would support Clifton's claim.If you look at the number of dog bites by year in Ontario, there has been virtually no change in dog bites since the ban was put into place at the end of 2005 -- in fact, bites have remained very constant (except for 2003, before the ban took effect, numbers were dramatically lower).  Maybe even more telling is that in the past 45 years, the entire nation of Canada has only seen one fatal attack by a pit bull type dog. 

So there appears to be no evidence that all hell had broken loose in the years before the ban -- and no evidence that if the ban were recinded there would be any problems either. So it appears to be yet another attempt by the media (and Clifton) to stir up a fear of all hell breaking loose without any evidence that it would. Meanwhile, as with Gardner's school example, the resources being used to enforce this unenforceable breed ban -- a ban that is based on fear-mongering and not solid fact - would be better used in multiple other ways to deal with REAL problems and concerns....not just made up ones.

But the media -- and politicians like those who were responsible for enacting the ban in the first place - are great about creating fear -- it garners good eyeballs, and votes.  If Ontario wants to really improve public safety (from dog bites and from all other) it will ignore those who rely purely on fear-mongering to try to create policy, and rely solely on those who are using fact-based measures to determine what would be effective policy--and all of those professional organizatoins are 100% against the province's breed ban.

******

I would be remiss if I finished this post without a couple of comments on Merrit Clifton.

Clifton has made a bit of a name for himself for his feaux study on dog bites. I won't go a lot into a lot of detail on this here - -as I've covered his misleading attempts manipulate data to justify breed specific legislation to prevent shelter killing here, and Lassie Get Help has a really detailed break down of his "analysis" here and here and here.

It should go without saying that you cannot have an accurate study that is based 100% on media reports (where even the severity of an injury comes solely from a media report) that represents a mere fraction of a percent of the total dog bites that require hospitalization in this country and expect the numbers to tell you much of anything. Never mind that someone who doesn't know the difference between a Bull Mastiff and a Presa Canario, or the sameness of a Blue Heeler and an Australian Cattle Dog, should not be put in charge of tracking anything by breed.

But Clifton thinks it's statistical research -- which is problematic.

But Clifton's most recent "report" points to even a bigger comedy of mis-information that I just feel obligated to touch on - -and shows exactly what happens when someone tries so hard to make a point that they start literally creating data to support it.

In Clifton's 2006 study (that covers media-reported bites from 1982 - November 13, 2006), Clifton's numbers suggest that there were 2,209 "attacks doing bodily harm" and 1,323 "maimings".

In Clifton's 2009 Study (which covers bites from 1982-through the end of 2009), Clifton reports 2,694 "attacks doing bodily harm" and 1,493 "Maimings".

So from 2006 to 2009, Clifton reports 485 "attacks doing bodily harm" and 170 "maimings"

However, Clifton takes it one step further. He also pulls out the total number of attacks by "pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes".

In 2006, Clifton shows this number to be 1,638 "attacks" and 893 "maimings".  In 2009, he shows 2,147 "attacks" and 1108 "maimings".

So in the time frame, he shows 509 attacks doing bodily harm by his selected groups of breeds and 215 maimings. So in the past 3 years, Clifton's "report" shows that pit bulls, rottweilers and presa canarios were were responsible for MORE  attacks and maimings than he shows even happening -- which is obviously impossible.

For the life of me I cannot find any mathmatical error in the numbers -- and because Clifton doesn't provide any back up information it is impossible to tell where the error is. But needless to say, it pretty much distinguishes any idea that his report is valid if he is reporting three breeds of dogs as being responsible for more attacks than he reports actually happened during a 3 year timeframe.

And that folks, is what happens when you let the fear mongerers lead the parade.

We, as a society are better than this.  And shame on the Toronto Sun for running the fear-mongering article and for continuing to push fruitless, wasteful legislation.

H/T on the Toronto Sun Editorial to Brindle Stick.

Another bill on the table to repeal BSL in Ontario

Nearly a year after initially not gaining support for a bill that would repeal the ban on 'pit bulls' in Ontario,Cheri DiNovo has introduced another bill* that would amend the Dog Owners Liability Act that would remove the ban on 'pit bulls' from the legislation.

Good luck to DiNovo and the residents of Ontario.

The breed ban in Ontario went into effect in October 2005 and was spear-headed by then-attorney general Michael Bryant - -who at this point is awaiting trial for his role in killing a man on a bicycle last year.

In the past year since DiNovo's most recent bill was denied, a lot of evidence of the failings -- and costliness - of Ontario's breed ban has become very evident.

Last month, the Toronto Humane Society released numbers that suggested that there has been no decline in the number of dog bites in Ontario since the ban was enacted. The community of Brampton has confiscated dogs and housed them at taxpayer expense for months even though the dogs' breeds were mislabeled and false -- and that they have unjustly confiscated dogs on a somewhat regular basis. This, along with several cities in the province determining that the law was just not enforceable.

And several cities have had to deal with protests in their own cities about the law (even though it is a provincial law) - with one mayor noting that he wanted to go out and protest the law with the protesters.

The bill may go nowhere -- but there does seem to be growing support among the residents of Ontario to repeal the bill. So hopefully the MPPs will begin to listen.

*Also, one note to clarify a factual error in the article I linked to above. The article states that similar bans exist in Austria and England (which is true) but Florida actually has a state law PROHIBITING any city in the state from enacting breed-specific legislation - -and killed a bill that would have removed that prohibition last week.

More on this from BrindleStick.

More from The Toronto Sun.

And more from me later related to this.

Onatario's BSL Failings are not isolated to Brampton

The Canadian Press has been all over a story today from out of Ontario, about the failings of the nation's Dog Owner Liability Act (DOLA). DOLA was passed in late August of 2005 -- and since then, there has been no change in the number of dog bites in the province. Here are the numbers:

2005- 5,428 bites

2006 - 5,360 bites

2007 - 5,492 bites

2008 - 5,463 bites

2009 - 5,345 bites

The supposed idea behind the ban was to increase the safety of the people in the province by reducing dog bites. However, the bite numbers have simply fluctuated by 1-1.5% since the ordinance was passed -- which would be just the typical year-to-year changes. 

There is certainly no downward trend.

No, what is happening is that the taxpayers are paying for good people's dogs to be confiscated -- and either shipped to Newfoundland or killed.  It's not improving people's safety. It's tearing family dogs away from families. And it's costing taxpayers money.

Toronto Humane Society Spokesman Ian McConachie commented that DOLA has failed to make ths streets safer and "targets the wrong source of the problem. Dogs are not born violent, they are made that way by irresponsible owners who train them to be that way or neglect them and they develop behavioral problems. If we want to reduce the dog bites, we have to address the route cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals."

There are a lot of questions that remain about the numbers -- but suffice it to say, there is currently no evidence that the ban is working, and a lot of evidence that people are being unnecessarily harrassed because of the ordinance and that the ordinance itself is unenforceable.

Breed bans remain an internationally failed attempt at solving the dog bite problem -- when not far away, in Calgary, we have a wonderful example of what can be done to improve public safety by focuing on irresponsible dog owners...not dog breeds. 

For more:

One Bark at a Time -Ontario Pit Bull Ban Ineffective According to THS.

Brindle Stick - Surprise, Surprise...Ontario 'pit bull' ban isn't working

For tie Pit Bulls - Ontario Dog Bites not reduced

There are always others - more stories and statistics come out in Brampton

Last week, I noted that two dogs, Brittany and Rambo, were finally allowed to return home from the shelter in Brampton, Ontario. The dogs, held for 97 days by the city under the provincial breed ban were finally allowed to return home after an independent veterinarian ruled that the dogs were not 'pit bulls' banned unter the ordinance.

The dogs were allowed to return home because one of the dogs' owners was financially able and willing to fight the city to get the dogs back.

But unfortunately, there were others that weren't so lucky. There always are.

The Brampton Guardian -- which has done a great job of covering the breed mis-identification struggles of their city under the Dog Owners Liability Act - had a story late last week that notes that the seizures of Brittany and Rambo were not isolated incidents. But that in the past, the dogs have been taken from homes never to return because the owners could not afford legal representation.

In early 2009, Gail Crocker's boxer mix Rosci, and another dog in the home, were confiscated from her home. Rosci had been licensed with the city for 7 years as a Boxer mix, and then, one day, the dog was taken. There was no warrant, the dog was just taken right off her front porch. "Right out of my arms," said Crocker. The Animal Control officer involved was the same one that took Brittany and Rambo. "It just seemed to become personal." said Crocker.

Crocker paid a $800 medical bill for the dogs to be spayed and microcipped -- and the city told her the dogs would be killed if she did not find a home for them outside of the province. Crocker shipped the dogs to a home she found for them in Newfoundland -- at even more expense to the owner.

Meanwhile, in January, just 7 days after Brittany and Rambo wer taken, Animal Control showed up at Angela Rodriguez's door, and confiscated her dog Missus. Even Rodriguez had paperwork from her vet showing that Missus was a Boxer/American Bulldog mix, the city never gave her a chance to show the paperwork. After paying the city vet $400 to spay and microchip Missus (and in the process, aborting Missus' 11 puppies), they were forced to send Missus to Newfoundland to live with a relative. "What they did has affected our entire family," said Rodriguez. "Our two other dogs seem to be lost without her. My five-year-od daughter could not stop crying."

In the past 4 years, 55 'pit bulls' have been confiscated from people in Brampton under DOLA. Of those, 31 of them were seized in 2009  -- a 138% increase over the number in 2008. Of all of the seized dogs, only 2 have been deemed pure bred dogs -- the rest were all mixes that may or may not have been really 'pit bulls' at all. And Peel Health Statistics show that there has been no change in the number of dog bites over the past 7 years -- with the numbers fluctation only slightly between 280 - 300 dog bites per year.

The Brampton City Commissioner of Community Services Jamie Lowery blames the legislation for the city's problems. "It's not the city, it's the legislation," he said. "That is clearly the biggest problem we have. That DOLA is very vague and ambiguous. It speaks to certain breeds, but also brings into question about characteristics, so we are charged with trying to enfore or interpret the legislation. It's vague at best and the worst part is there really is no relief valve in the legislation for an appeal."

Lowery also said municiple procedue is to "work with the owenrs" when the breed of dog is in question.

Like, apparently holding the animals for 97 days while they have to pay for lawyers to get the animals out - -and preventing the owners from even seeing the dogs for 2 months or allowing other owners to show paperwork proving their dogs were not 'pit bulls' before being forced to be shipped to Newfoundland.

Brampton continues to show us why Ontario's Dog Owner Liability Act is failing, and why all breed specific legislation fails.

- Breed ID for mixed breed dogs is virtually impossible

- It continues to break up families who own dogs that end up being targeted even though the dogs are not of the targeted breeds

- Taxpayers end up paying a large share of the burden to enforce the law

- And in the end, the overall public safety of the area is not improved.

Also, great work by the Brampton Guardian for digging below the surface to get the real story to what is going on in their community in violations of seizure laws, forgoing due process, and the breaking up of families from their family pets.

 

Brittany and Rambo are set free - Brampton City Officials fail - and even more BSL problems in Ontario

 Finally,Brittany and Rambo were set free by the Brampton Animal Shelter. An independent veterinarian came in and evaluated the two dogs and determined what pretty much everyone has known all along, that neither dog was a 'pit bull' and were not banned in Ontario.

The two dogs were confiscated from different homes on January 13th of this year -- after the city suspected them of being 'pit bulls'.

The dogs have spent the last 97 days in the city pound - -at taxpayer's expense - while the city has paid for lawyers and full-page advertising in the city newspaper trying to justify confiscating the two dogs.  They even denied the owners visitation rights at the shelter for nearly two months.

After months of incurred expenses by the city, the dogs were finally set free.  The incident just illustrates the colossal waste of resources breed bans are - -as neither of the two dogs had violated a single animal control law, neither had had any complaints against them, and neither showed any signs of aggression. But for more than 3 months, two families were torn apart due to the city seizing the dogs, and paid more than $20,000 in legal fees. Meanwhile a ton of taxpayer resources were wasted, headaches and embarrassment were created for the city trying to justify their decision to seize the non-aggressive dogs.

The city may be facing further litigation as the dogs were seized without a warrant -- although the city says there were "exigent" circumstances behind the seizure that allowed them to seize without a warrant, but never said what those circumstances were.

The city of Brampton, of course, refuses to bow out gracefully.

As a part of the agreement with the city, the owners allowed the city to designate the dogs as "potentially dangerous" and thus have to wear a muzzle in public and post a big red "dangeorus dog" sign at the home. The owners agreed to it because they feared that further legal action would take months causing the dogs to have to spend more time at the city shelter.  Keep in mind, the dogs are described even by the city vet as friendly, were in violation of no city ordinances and are not pit bulls - and the city still mandated the dogs be declared as potentially dangerous.

Instead, they should have been offering an appology -- for taking the dogs and holding them for 3 months for no reason and for wasting a ton of taxpayer dollars.

At least the dogs are safe back home, where they belong.

It is exactly this type of problem that has led several Ontario cities to just quit enforcing the province's dog owner liablity act - -including one of the largest cities in the provence -- Ottawa.

*******

Meanwhile, citizens in Sarnia, Ontario are also protesting their city hall because of the provincial breed ban. And it turns out the mayor of Sarnia agrees with the protestors.

"It's provincial legislation -- not the city or the humane society," said Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley. They should be at the MPP's office. I don't even agree with teh legislation myself, but we have to enforce it."

But actually, they don't -- not if the precedents set forth by Ottawa and others is any indictation.

A year ago, Sarnia made some changes to how they enforced the ordinance following a series of confusing cases of breed identity.  Officials note that they are still killing one innocent dog a month due to the ordinance.

"It's very fuzzy legislation; the province passed it, but now they have no involvement in the law itself," said Bradley. "In fact, I'd like to go join the protestors, myself".

He should.

Residents of Ontario -- you have a voice. You have elections for new MPPs coming next fall, and you should send a very clear message to the MPPs there that you support repealing the ordinance. Find out how the candidates feel about the law, and then actively support and help those who support a repeal campaign for office. The MPPs work for you, and the law is working for no one.

For more on the situation in Brampton:

Brindle Stick - Brampton city hall should have a Dangerous Sign posted on the front door.

Lassie Get Help: Stay Classy Brampton Bureaucrats