I agree to Idea End Ontario's Breed Bans. Remove The "Breed Specific" Language
Voting Disabled

1163 votes

I disagree to Idea End Ontario's Breed Bans. Remove The "Breed Specific" Language

Rank 2

Idea#233

This idea is active.
Fair & Just Society »

End Ontario's Breed Bans. Remove The "Breed Specific" Language

Thousands of innocent family dogs have been victimized. Thousands of responsible owners have been & are unjustly & unfairly profiled! Ontarians want fair & effective legislation that improves public safety and reduces dog bites, not a ban pushed forward against all evidence and professional recommendations. Institute breed NEUTRAL laws that will remove the focus on a dogs appearance & make "reckless" dog owners accountable; NO exceptions and NO excuses. The public should be safe from ALL dangerous dogs no matter the size "type" or "breed". End breed discriminatory legislation.

Submitted by 1 year ago

Comments (615)

  1. Pinned Moderator

    jbdezdez I'm going to need you to refrain from name calling. Make sure to follow the community guidelines stating that all conversation should be relevant and constructive.

    To everyone else, if you see your comment straying away from the constructive nature of most comments, please refrain from posting it.

    1 year ago
    20 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. Pinned Moderator

    Fran Coughlin - as the idea submitter, you should not be trying to suppress dissenting voices as you have been with Helena and Scott when they have only been keeping their responses relatively moderate.

    Scott Richer - your comments are standing very close to the edge of the community guidelines. Please make sure to not overstep.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  3. Pinned Moderator

    This will be the last warning to all participants of this thread. Failure to abide by the community guidelines will lead to immediate expulsion from Common Ground.

    Community guidlines: http://commonground.ideascale.com/a/pages/guidelines

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. The breed ban has done nothing to increase public safety and has proven to be costly fear mongering. A proper, non breed based, dangerous dog law and education of proper handling, raising and humane training of our domestic dogs is what is needed.

    1 year ago
    112 Agreed
    6 Disagreed
  5. This ban was originally voted through by using scare tactics, and goes directly against the best-practice advice of many experts and organizations, including (but not limited to) the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Toronto Humane Society, the Ontario SPCA, and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. A government that actually has our best interests at heart would listen to expert advice, and use that information to make better decisions and laws.

    1 year ago
    108 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
    1. BSL is doing more harm than good.

      Its clear that Ontario and the Liberal party are losing precious voters & key skilled workers to other areas in Canada. People who would have voted can’t because they cannot live in Ontario and if the people are not there, they can’t vote or contribute to Ontario’s community and economy. This will result in a long term negative effect for Ontario.

      The government has many good policies which include citizens being held responsible for their own actions: if citizens are in possession of a car, hand or knife, they are to act responsible - if they act irresponsibly & harm others (e.g. drink drive, assault, murder) via ignorance or intent they are rightly prosecuted.

      This should also be applicable to owners of ANY pet animal with teeth, nails, beaks etc. If citizens allow their pets to harm, via ignorance or intent then the person in possession of that animal is responsible & rightly so should be prosecuted. The car was innocent, the cutlery knife was just on a table, the alcohol was in the bottle, and the pet was never trained … there is no difference.

      BSL is unjust and unfair & needs ending & changing to make owners responsible. As it stands now it persecutes innocent pets & responsible citizens. It’s like saying if you have a red car of certain shape (or SIMILAR shape & color) you will drink and drive and harm others and any SIMLIAR car will be destroyed, made illegal & owners prosecuted.

      Please Liberals have the guts to make these changes & to do the right thing for Ontario, your party, your citizens & innocent pets. Put this policy in line with your others & make citizens responsible for their irresponsible actions.

      Benefits would far be more fruitful: you would get my families vote and skills (plus thousands more I anticipate) if only you’d let us live in Ontario (our birthplace) with our very responsible furry pet Staffordshire bull terrier.

      Instead we find BSL has cast us and we are forced to give our experience, higher education, much sought after skills, taxes, votes + high income spending to another area in Canada - all that we would have gladly given to Ontario!!

      How can this be right?

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  6. It is time to start making people responsible for their actions! And STOP blaming an innocent animal....these are normal,loving trusting dogs unless they are put in the hands of lowlife scumbags !it's time to punish the DEED not the BREED!

    1 year ago
    91 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
    1. The problem is not merely with the breeds in question. The problem lies with the fact that certain breeds are perceived as being vicious and because of that they attract irresponsible owners who want to be viewed as cool or tough.

      Perhaps it's time to start licensing dog owners rather than the dogs. I don't think that everyone is qualified to be a responsible pet owner.

      1 year ago
      27 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  7. I won't move to Ontario because of BSL.

    1 year ago
    78 Agreed
    6 Disagreed
    1. You aren't the only one!

      1 year ago
      37 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    2. Same here. I would have moved a couple of years ago but we share our lives with a "pibble". We aren't willing to give up a family member so we can pay our taxes to Ontario instead of Quebec. Ontario's loss, I'm afraid.

      1 year ago
      39 Agreed
      4 Disagreed
    3. I just moved away from Ontario, and a big part of it was the ban. Letting my doglive his last year's in a muzzle- and judgment-free place (BC)

      1 year ago
      46 Agreed
      4 Disagreed
    4. I also left Ontario due to BSL back in 2006. When things were starting to look up I came home with my Pit. I kept up with petitions and such, even attended queens park for second reading. Now I have to save up some cash to get back out to BC where my dog had an amazing time, free of persecution. If only Ontario could wake up and be the province it tries to claim it is.

      1 year ago
      37 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    5. If you aren't in Ontario, can you please not be voting in this? It's an Ontario Liberal Party policy for current Ontario residents who vote in Ontario. I understand you care about other jurisdictions, but you won't be voting in the election so this doesn't do much good. If you want to influence Ontario's policy, live there. I understand your passion on this issue, but would you legitimately move back or ever consider voting Liberal (really and truly) if this policy changed?

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      31 Disagreed
    6. My dog has to stay in the US until the law here changes, so my fiancée can't move here until then

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    7. @ Shane McKenzie re: if you don't live in Ontario, please don't vote. Shane I understand why you would prefer non-Ontario residents not voting, however it is important that they have a voice as well. Many non-residents have already commented on the fact they have chosen not to live here simply because of the horrific ban. If the ban was not in place, they may intend to move to Ontario which would in turn give them the full right to vote. I think you have to take their votes into consideration. Ontario is depriving many Canadian citizens the right and freedom to live in Ontario because of the way a dog may look.

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    8. I returned a year ago last May after 25 years in the states to assist my aging parents. They were open to bringing my three dogs here, and I thought they would be great therapy for my parents. During preparations; that's when I discovered BSL in Ontario. And since one of my pack is an Am Staf and another is a Boxer, which also fits the BSL criteria, I was forced into a dilemma. I needed to return to Ontario but my dogs could be in peril if I brought them. I'd never heard of BSL before this and was torn as to what to do. In the End I left them in a safe home back in the states, together, there was no way to split the pack, far too bonded. So my "family" was torn apart by Ontario's BSL. Returning was the right thing to do, but I still miss my dogs dearly.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    9. Same here too I just got posted to CFB Petawawa but I bought a house on the Quebec side because I don't want to have to get separated from my 4 am staffs. It sucks because I have one hour drive back and forth and I will be paying stupid Quebec taxes but my dogs are worth it

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  8. It is a known fact the BSL does not work. No breed is born dangerous. It is irresponsible owners, uneducated breed owners and just plain evil people who want to use canines for horrific sports reasons or property protection who are to blame. They have to be made responsible for their actions. Take the media views out of this and listen to the people who have actually invested time into finding the truth by common sense and you will find a very different outlook on this senseless law. STEREOTYPING IS WRONG. Plain and simple. You can't morally blame the breed. You have to blame the deed. Owners are responsible for their pets and what they do. BSL makes our province racists in the canine world. I am NOT a racist in any way shape or form. The province needs to be more open minded on many subjects and the BSL is one of them.

    1 year ago
    75 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
    1. Statistically that doesn't seem to be the case. Statistically pit bulls bite more, and inflict more damage when they bite. And they do so by a wide margin. The only thing that seems to be in dispute is by how wide a margin. They aren't even comparable to other dogs in the studies I've read. I can't find a study that supports your assertion, but you seem to be making the assertion in earnest and I don't doubt your sincerity. If you a link that supports your assertion I'd appreciate a link.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      17 Disagreed
    2. @ Phil: I'm not sure where you are getting your stats from re: pit bulls bite more. I have included a few links for you to provide you with some bite incidents, breed and sometime, circumstances involving the bite. I think you may be surprised to learn that "pit bulls" are not as high on the list as you may think.

      What I feel, along with many other dog lovers, is that the DOLA needs to change to reflect 'dangerous dog' rather than a breed specific law. Do you feel it is right to kill a dog that has done absolutely nothing wrong simply based on the way it looks? I would hope not. Anyway, please take some time to read some of the following links. I hope it will help change your mind at least about the statistics.

      I would like to also recommend you look up on YouTube.com the following movie: Beyond the Myth: A Documentary About Pit Bull and Breed Discrimination.

      http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/DBRF-Canada-Copy-for-website.pdf

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/?tool=pmcentrez

      http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bites-in-canada/

      http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/02/pit_bulls_not_aggressive_research.php

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  9. The time is now to end BSL in Ontario. Across Canada and in countries around the world, BSL is being defeated, repealed and prohibited due to overwhelming evidence proving that targeting breeds or types of dogs will not reduce dog bites or keep the public safer. Public education is the key ingredient to reducing dog related incidents. All dog owners must be held to a higher account as it relates to the behaviour of their dog. Discrimination of dog owners based on the physical characteristics of their family dog, and stripping them of their rights and freedoms has no place in the Province of Ontario.

    1 year ago
    65 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  10. BAN THE DEED......NOT THE BREED!!!!!!!!!! END BSL!!!!!!!!!

    1 year ago
    61 Agreed
    5 Disagreed
    1. That's just common sense. After all, we do not prosecute the weapon but the person. Same same

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  11. All BSL has done is kill 1000's of innocent family pets for nothing othr then their appearance. In today's day and age of political correctness and equality for everyone and everything your liberal government should be very upset with how you have handled this entire breed ban. Punish the deed, not the breed.

    1 year ago
    54 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. If a family had a pitbull as a family pet prior to this legislation, they weren't required to give it up or euthanize it.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. Phil, that is not what happens though, some people live in buildings that are told, well, your dog is now considered an aggressive dog, even though it did not do anything, but the law now says that they are aggressive. so they have a choice, get rid of the dog or move.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  12. These are our pets and they are members of our family. They are no different than any other dog and we are no different than any other dog owners. It's time for a change and it's time for equality for all dogs. End BSL in Ontario!

    1 year ago
    49 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  13. al

    Expedite this by bringing Bill 16 back for a third reading. No reason to start over again as the first and second reading passed. If the liberal member hadn't pirogues government then this would have been passed and a non issue. This one decision on this one issue will speaks volumes as to her fundamental character, Bring back bill 16 for a third reading or waste everyone's time starting the process all over again. Anybody care to wager which one she'll choose?

    1 year ago
    46 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. AL, I see there is a lot of energy and interest on this topic. Don't give up the good fight man. Not so sure about the "character" comment. It may just not be a priority right at this time. There seems to be a lot of passionate people here. This can only be on the back burner for so long.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  14. Every school should make time to teach children how to meet and greet pets, specially dogs. Too many children get bit because they never learned the proper way to meet a dog. Dogs are everywhere, small or big they all can bite and it has nothing to do with the breed. Again, humans are responsible for their dogs and for their children. Schools teach children about predators, do not take candy from a stranger, do not get into vehicles with a stranger so why not teach them not to run towards a dog they don't know?

    1 year ago
    47 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. Great idea! EDUCATION!

      1 year ago
      25 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. Agreed! I have been trying to figure out how to do this locally, especially after having a child high-kick in the air in my pug's direction and yell "I HURT YOU, DOG!" O_o

      We have people immigrating to this country that get counsel on different aspects of life in Canada, but they're left in the dark when it comes to our furry family members. All they have to go on is their experience, and in some countries, dogs are considered dangerous, dirty vermin. Many people in my neighbourhood have this experience, and I want to help them.

      Also, "Stand Like A Tree" should be taught to EVERY elementary student, for safety.

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. Brilliant idea

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  15. We need to Punish &/or Educate the real culprit at the other end of the Leash. Yes, amazing enough I mean the Human not the innocent dog whatever the breed. Dog owners must be responsible and if not there must be clear and effective means to remedy this. BSL has not been shown to aid in public safety, in fact because of what I just stated likely is endangering public safety. See the Calgary model, a very good example of proper controls which have nothing to do with breed and everything to do with Human.

    1 year ago
    39 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Jesse, thanks for the links but this is not the statistics I am looking for. I need serious injury/death events statistics, events that triggered this legislation in the first place. Bites and chases are no doubt can be caused by any breed and of course can be improved by education and a threat of a fine. Unprovoked lethal attacks are a different story. And different statistics.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. Thanks Melissa, but again this is not what I need to make up my mind regarding this policy. What I need is 1) Statistics that takes into consideration number of registered gods in each category so we can see if one breed is more dangerous than another 2) Statistics "before" and "after" so we can see of the legislation works. May be it does not, but I need evidence, not emotions. Until this statistics is available I would rather be safe than sorry.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    3. Slava, there are no stats. The Ontario government is not interested, it is so much easier if you just rely on myths, newspapers reports, then on true numbers and science.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. Slava,

      "I need serious injury/death events statistics, events that triggered this legislation in the first place."

      Shouldn`t you be asking the Liberals to produce the Statistics that triggered this Legislation?

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    5. The 'Calgary Model' is respected world-wide. Bill Bruce, the brains behind the initiative, is now in Australia lecturing and doing workshops to help them eliminate BSL and educate on the benefits of adopting a Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw. Every municipality, every province should be following suit.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  16. Many responsible, law abiding, HIGH TAX PAYING citizens are being treated like common criminals simply because of the type of dog they have/would like to have. BSL does nothing to reduce dog bites/attacks; it is discrimination and nothing more than fear mongering. Do your research - Bully type breeds are NO different than any other dog - any large breed dog is capable of maiming or killing......stop the discrimination against not only a single dog breed, but also the owners and families that own them!

    1 year ago
    32 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
    1. Statistically though it appears as if Pit Bulls ARE responsible for a greater number of serious bites and fatalities. The same study by the CDC that points out that pit bull bite cases are over reported by the media, also goes on to point out that Pit Bulls are responsible for a disproportionate number of bites and fatalities. Nobody seems to be posting any stats that challenge that. The only studies I can find seem to indicate that Pit Bulls are far more dangerous than other breeds. Rotweillers are second, but they aren't even a close second. So what am I missing?

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      8 Disagreed
    2. Phil, these so called studies are based on media reports and the media is not qualified to identify the breed, and they are only interested in a story if it involves a so called pit bull. There was a media report a few years back about two pit bulls attacking a jogger in Quebec, made my local 11 pm news. Then it changed to two german shepards, turned out it was one german shepard, and it had chased a jogger. Recently, in California, reports re 5 shepards attacking people at a school, then it was changed to 4, now it is 3 dogs, 2 Belgian Malinois and one Dutch shepard.

      In Canada there has only been one death that has been attributed to a pit bull type dog, in Toronto, many years ago (shady circumstances, two dogs killed a man that had just gotten out of prison for attacking dogs owner, and owner left man alone in his home with the dogs), and never had a child killed by a "pit bull" but we have had children and adults killed by huskies, but you do not see anyone calling for a ban of huskies. Of course not, we seem to understand that that is an individual bad dog.

      I have shared my home and live with bully breeds for many years, sadly only have one old girl left now, cannot get another of my breed of choice, the wonderful Staffordshire Bull Terrier, a breed that has a stellar record.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. Just to add to Terri's comment: Firstly "pit bull" is not a breed, but a slang term for a shape of mongrel. It no longer refers specifically to the American Pit Bull terrier, but includes multiple breeds (as we see in Ontario) and any mutt that might be construed to resemble them.

      So it is meaningless in that sense, since any short-haired mutt can (and has been) be labeled a "pit bull" by people not up to speed on dog breeds.

      Regarding the CDC study, not only was it based on news reports, but also in many cases death certificates were not available. It also referred to "pit bull" as a purebred dog, rather than separating out the many bull-and-terrier breeds as should have been done. There are many flaws in the study, acknowledged by the researchers themselves. Furthermore, the paper is no longer current and should really be put to rest.

      For those interested in dog bite stats, in Toronto, bites have remained stable for a ten-year period, hovering around 1000 incidents per year (source: Toronto Public Health). While TPH doesn't collect by perceived "breed" (a whole other post in itself), Toronto Animal Services has recorded alleged breed types involved in the subset of incidents they have investigated. There were as many bites by American Pit Bull terriers as by Domestic Short-Haired cats over a 10-year period - the number was 20, or approximately 2 per year on average.

      While 1000 reported bites per year sounds high, one must keep in mind that there are at least 250,000 dogs in Metro Toronto (we use US census numbers to calculate approx populations up here). So, over 99.5% of all dogs never bite anyone.

      This whole issue has been overblown to the point of lunacy but it makes a wonderful distraction, doesn't it?

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  17. I couldn't agree more Fran!

    "End the current breed ban & institute Breed Neutral Laws which will focus on irresponsible owners and not a type or breed of dog"!!!

    This End the Breed Ban idea seems like it needs a dedicated voice in the Legislature. Your voice Fran! Goodness knows no backbencher or mainstream party leader is going to be vocal on this deserving topic each and every day.

    Vote for the following idea and it'll be easier for you, Fran, the Leader of the End the Breed Ban Party of Ontario, to get a seat in the Legislature!!!

    http://commonground.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Give-Voters-a-Reason-to-Vote/14492-25935

    Thanks in advance for voting for the idea and helping yourself, and us other likeminded Ontarians, to get someone in the Legislature who will advocate for Ending the Breed Ban every single day!

    Sincerely, Mark Andrew Brown, @SaultCabbie

    1 year ago
    37 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
  18. The media never addresses the fact that the so-called "breed" ban ("BSL") makes law-abiding people into second class citizens. The Ontario Liberals took Charter rights away from good people.

    Solely on the basis of the shape of their dogs (because the average "pit bull" is not a breed but a mongrel), law-abiding people are subject to presumption of guilt/reverse onus, warrantless search and seizure, use of non-expert testimony against them, no mechanism for proving innocence, restriction on travel into Ontario and much more. This law affects tourists as well as Ontario residents, and tourists have had to flee with their dogs to save the dogs' lives.

    Why was this law passed? IMHO - the McGuinty Liberals were taking heat for the "summer of the gun" in Toronto. The public approval ratings for the Ontario Liberals were in the gutter. They needed a scapegoat to distract from their abysmal performance. The proposed law was promoted by a former Attorney General who, despite his bombast and hyperbole, was unable to pick a "pit bull" from a series of pictures.

    The Liberals held sham committee hearings and then ignored the dog experts and scientific evidence. They passed an unfounded, unjust, vague, shoddy, ineffective and fiscally irresponsible law that has cost taxpayers an untold amount of money and killed thousands of unoffending dogs.

    There is no data proving that it is working, just as there was no data supporting a breed-specific ban when the McGuinty Liberals passed it (a whipped vote).

    In fact, many jurisdictions with breed specific legislation (which should more properly be called type specific legislation) are repealing the legislation because it has had no effect and has been ruinously expensive.

    One fact is that a dog’s shape does not predetermine its behaviour, just as a human's shape does not predetermine his or her behaviour. Another fact is that the owner is always responsible for his/her dog’s behaviour. It is the human element that determines a dog’s behaviour, not the dog’s shape. Dog experts testified to this at the Liberals’ hearings on BSL. The dog experts were ignored by the Liberals.

    Much as one judges a person by behaviour and not colour, you can behave logically and rationally by judging a dog and its owner by the dog’s behaviour or you can behave irrationally and illogically by judging a dog by its shape.

    BSL is subjective legislation. The only effective and enforceable legislation is objective, focusing on the behaviour of the dog and its owner. Not the shape of the dog.

    Breed specific legislation is exactly as its initials pronounce - BS legislation.

    1 year ago
    45 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. Correction: Statistically pit bulls are responsible for a disproportionate number of bites and fatalities. I imagine that's what prompted the legislation. It's not a sexy theory granted, but it's seems to be what's motivated most BSL throughout the world. Furthermore this law didn't turn law-abiding people into second class citizens. Families who owned a pit bull were free to keep their pit bull until that dog lived out it's life and died of natural causes.

      The fact that there are thousands of really awesome pitbulls, and thousands of really responsible pitbull owners was never in dispute. It's just that pits are statistically way more likely to bite, injure, mame and kill people. And the law wasn't punitive, every dog alive in Ontario at the time got grandfathered.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      9 Disagreed
    2. @Phil Terrell

      "Correction: Statistically pit bulls are responsible for a disproportionate number of bites and fatalities. I imagine that's what prompted the legislation."

      There is no Canadian or Provincial Database of bites.

      There`s been ONE Fatality in Canada.

      Stop posting nonsense that you cannot substantiate.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. No Phil, there are no statistics kept in Ontario or Canada. At the same time that Ontario brought in this legislature there were three attacks by shepard type dogs, but they ignored them, Michael Bryant actually said in Queens Park, that that was not normal behaviour for that breed. Two of those attacks required hospitalization.

      If our province had been trying to actually improve safety, like they said, they would have brought in an aggressive dog law, that addressed all dogs, not just dogs that had a look, short coated, muscular, block head, wagging tail.

      And, yes, it did turn us into second class citizens. If our dog got out an open door, and went and stood on the street, it was a death sentence, don't think so, well, it happened, two dogs got out when a family had company over, one, Buster, was not even a year old, and animal control just had to call the dogs over, they jumped in the van, which took them to their death.

      I know someone who put up security gates in her home, in fear of her dog getting out, as she had a neighbour, who after this ban came in, sat and waited to see if she could see the dog where he was not allowed, she would have been on the phone to the AC in a heart beat.

      And I can never have my beloved breed again, a breed that I have shared my home with for years, my last girl is not doing so well right now, has to have surgery next week, so I am facing the prospect of never having a dog again, because well, there are lots of breeds out there true, but for me, its the Staffordshire Bull terrier, an amazing breed of dog, a breed I have been proud to share my home and life with.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  19. Repeal BSL. This ridiculous law is driven by fear and ignorance and fueled with hatred....it has caused many heartaches for families whose loving family members--their pets - have become a victim of this "legalized murder" Despite the science supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing no evidence of any breed’s inherent propensity for violence. Do the right thing! End the mass slaughter of our family pets, and place the responsibility where it belongs, on the shoulders of the dog owner.

    1 year ago
    54 Agreed
    8 Disagreed
    1. Just a note...there's another idea on the same topic that currently has a lot of activity in it. Here's the link. We gotta get rid of BSL!

      http://commonground.ideascale.com/a/dtd/End-The-Breed-Ban-In-Ontario!-Remove-Breed-Specific-Language/14546-25935

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  20. Breed Bans do not work. Along with every expert organization even the White House and the American Bar Assoc.have come out against breed bans. We need effective well thought out laws that reduce dog bites and protect the public. We need to implement the Calgary Animal Services Program that is renowned throughout the world. Not this ineffective, harsh, cruel, shoddy, cruel, ban.

    1 year ago
    41 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  21. Banning a breed has been proven to have no effect whatsoever on the number of reported incidents of bites in any given state or province. The only result of breed banning is the killing of innocent animals, the tearing apart of families and pain and suffering for all. It;s time this government educated itself and stopped inhumane treatment of our animals

    1 year ago
    27 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  22. Breed Specific Legislation has cost cities tens of thousands of dollars in enforcement and litigation. The city of Brampton expensed 20,000 in 2010 when it litigated a case involving dogs that ended up not being pitbulls. This is a waste of taxpayers dollars and a bad look for the Ontario Liberal party when dog bites have not significantly decreased since 2005. Experts do not agree with the ban, facts are clear. Even the White House has issued a statement declaring breed bans ineffective. It's time to end the breed ban because it is costly and does not work. Common ground right? Let's try common sense.

    1 year ago
    28 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  23. I am not even a dog owner and I think BSL was a dumb idea because it blames the dog, who learns from... the HUMAN. These poor breeds (it's a new breed every few years - next will be the Akita or Husky) have done nothing wrong. They've been placed into the hands of irresponsible owners and until we crack down with harsher prison terms and larger fines for these people, any dog can become vicious and dangerous. It's just that when your toy poodle bites someone it usually

    doesn't rip someone else's face off or make the news.

    "There is no such thing as a problem breed. However, there is no shortage of 'problem owners'...." ~Cesar Millan

    1 year ago
    36 Agreed
    5 Disagreed
    1. Yes!!!

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Actually it's not a new breed every few years. It's been the pit bull for the last four decades.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      5 Disagreed
  24. If safety to the public is the issue, then please SERIOUSLY consider "Banning Motorized Vehciles from drivig in our urban public greenspaces, parks and beaches, without a spotter"!

    Innocent and unsuspecting children are at play!

    Trucks currently drive without a "spotter", a person walking in front, which gives the driver another set of eys and keeps the trucks from speeding!

    These oversized trucks (pickup and garbage trucks)are a greater risk and far more dangerous to the public, then a dog!

    An innocent child was killed while playing in the park by a City of Toronto truck. Why are trucks not banned?

    Trucks have proven to be a REAL safety hazard to the public, NOT responsible dog owners!

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  25. Why would this Premier of all Premiers encourage discrimination based on a label? Pit Bulls have repeatedly scored very high on temperament tests and yet this government still continues to persecute an animal because of the evil intent of some people. BSL does not work, never work and never will work. By killing all these innocent animals, you create false fear in the public, destroy living beings that have proven over and over to save human lives and actually cost more money to the public to keep this law in place. Do the right thing and end BSL now. Wynne needs to stop blindly following McGuinty and stand up for what the people want.

    1 year ago
    27 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  26. BSL is a failure, it does not address aggressive dogs, all it does is ban a look of dog. Aggression in dogs is not based on a look but a lot of factors. Instead of banning a dog, look at Calgary, which reduced their bits, look at education, children need to know how to behave around animals, encourage people to take their dogs to obedience classes, there was so many more options, but no this liberal government just wanted to ban a look.

    1 year ago
    21 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  27. Banning a specific breed does nothing to prevent aggressive dogs. Owners need to be responsible. Some of the nicest dogs I've met and trained with have been 'bully' breeds. It's time to BAN the DEED NOT the BREED!

    1 year ago
    21 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  28. The goal of breed-specific legislation was said to be to increase safety for the general public and reduce dog bites. We haven't seen that, nor has anybody enacting breed-specific legislation seen results. The cost of this is high to tax-payers as well as families with pit bulls(or other muscled dogs). The science doesn't support breed specific legislation either. Since when is it okay to judge something based on appearance when all scientific evidence says that there IS no evidence for the judging?

    Breeds that have been targeted in breed-specific legislation in various areas/times(this is not an exhausted summary, just the ones I'm aware of): Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Corgis, Argentino Dogos, fila Brasileiro, Presa Canario, American Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Japanese tosa, Doberman, Corgi and any of the mastiff variety. Not to mention any dog that may happen to look like them, regardless of blood.

    So many of these dogs(indeed, any) make great house pets in the right household. There is no science to support getting rid of any of them - it's entirely the people behind the dog. We need to get education moving on how to handle/respect dogs and we need to focus on how people treat dogs. People get bit by dogs that people aren't controlling. I want legislation that puts the responsibility back in the lap of one or both of those people(depending on the circumstances). That type of legislation is shown to reduce bites. That was the goal of breed-specific legislation. Let's enact something that actually does something instead of just wasting tax payer dollars. Or at least take this piece of legislation out as it doesn't do anything positive for the communities.

    1 year ago
    21 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  29. I know a lot of people argue it's the breed or it's how they're raised, but neither is right. A dog is a reflection of it's current handler and it's current lifestyle. An unstable, emotional or aggressive person is going to create instability with any dog they handle. A couch potato with a high energy dog is also going to have problems.

    I have spent many years working with rescues to rehabilitate unstable dogs so they can be adopted. I work with every breed, every size and every temperament and I can tell you that breed makes absolutely no difference in aggression. Dog attack = owner failure. There is no other reason.

    1 year ago
    17 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  30. Kathleen Wynne and the OLP,

    I'm a federal liberal recently switched from PC for over 10 yrs. I'm a lawyer. I'm an active member of my community, member of the Chamber of Commerce in my city and am now participating in federal politics. I'm 31 yrs old. I pay taxes. Went to university in Ontario and grew up in Ontario. I am now domiciled in Ontario. I am liberal minded and I support the LGBTQ movement. I am old enough to contribute to the economy and I'm young enough to engage the hearts and minds of the young voters. I AM YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE. End breed specific legislation in the next year and I will seriously consider changing my provincial stripes.

    1 year ago
    23 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. If indeed politics is to be based on consumerism, and not principle, then all policies must be based on what the "target audience" wants, as you suggest. This is the precisely strategy and set of mind used by the Harper PCs (whom you have abandoned) to win the last elections.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Just to be clear --- I support this proposal wholeheartedly. It's your reasoning that scares me.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  31. Premier Wynne,

    I am not a constituent of yours. I don't live in Ontario. I'm not even a Canadian citizen. So anything I have to say about the laws in your province doesn't really matter, right?

    WRONG.

    You see, I may not be able to vote for your party in the next election, but I hold quite a bit of power nonetheless. I am an American who would love to visit, vacation, and even reside in Ontario. There's only one problem - the fact that your province has BSL prevents me from doing any of those things.

    I am planning a vacation for later this year. While the events I will be attending will be in the greater Toronto area, I will not be staying in Canada. Instead, I will be giving the city of Amherst, NY, all the money Toronto could be getting in the form of hotel costs, gas for my car, late-night fast food and coffee runs, and all the other expenses that go along with a vacation because I will be bringing my 2 dogs, Sandy and Rosie, with me. Sandy and Rosie are American Staffordshire Terriers.

    Let me tell you a bit about these "vicious beasts" that you feel should be executed on the spot simply because of the way they look. When Sandy was 2 months old, she stopped a man from breaking into my apartment in the middle of the night. God only knows what exactly his intentions were, but I can assure you, they were less than savory. She alerts me when my blood sugar is low before I'm aware of it (I have Type 1 Diabetes). She detected a melanoma on my leg when my doctors assured me nothing was wrong. Rosie is a rescue dog. Ma'am, if you have never had the pleasure of being a rescue dog's person, I highly recommend that you do so. There is no love in the world like that of a rescue dog.

    My dogs would lay down their lives for me, and that is - and will forever be - reciprocal. What they will NOT lay down their lives for, however, are the grossly discriminatory laws that the province of Ontario has. So, unless you and your party step up and do the right thing and repeal Ontario's BSL laws, the only money I'll be spending in Toronto will be the cost of 2 double-doubles at Timmy's.

    On second thought, maybe not. I owe a friend a cup of coffee, but he has an affinity for Starbucks. And he has a passport.

    1 year ago
    43 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. Well written and whole heartedly agree with you.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Bravo! Well said and it's a shame that people like you are staying away.

      Many celebrities of late has said the same thing.

      It's all really very embarrassing for us Ontarians.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  32. There has to be repercussions to the owner of an animal that bites causing damage to someone. The law should ban these people from owning animals for a specific time period and they must complete some kind of proper animal training. This cost must be incurred by the offender if they want the chance to ever own a pet again. I think it is important to look at this as owning a pet is a privilege, not a right.

    1 year ago
    16 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. We all agree with that but law must apply equally to all.NO BSL.That`s all we ask.

      1 year ago
      16 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. I agree with Bruce. Care and control (or lack of it) includes socializing and training any pet. Here's my slogan:

      If your dog bites, give it to me.

      Whenever someone who can't (or won't) handle a dog gives up that dog, everyone benefits. I took a pit bull from someone who had her for five years and she kept getting worse with wanting to bite other dogs. It took me 3 months to straighten her out (and this is my first dog, so it doesn't take an expert to teach dog bite inhibition). If a dog bites, take it away from its owner and give it to someone who will care for it properly and ban that owner from having any dogs for ten years. This goes to the source of dog bites -the owners.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. Don't just take the dog away but do fine. What we do by taking dogs away is creating a straight destruction scenario. Requiring muzzles and whatnot is far enough. Somebody who has a dog that felt pressured into attacking and bites shouldn't be removed from the owner(that it cares about) because of one incident. Repeated incidents? Sure... however that is a HARD ban to come down on right away. Mistakes happen, sometimes it's not the owners fault (no matter how guilty the owner feels, sometimes things get out of your control)... to take away immediately is a huge cost to the system and peoples ability to cope. I learned the other day that my dog resources guards - she didn't damage anything(against other dogs) - this has flown out of nowhere, she never did this before and there were no warning signs - she'd let puppies take water from her. Now though I take proper precautions to ensure nobody anywhere can get hurt. Had she contacted at all a bill that says take her away would deem her dangerous and removed from me and I could lose all my pets who are perfectly fine... that's, not cool. Not to mention that if you do that people will lose their animals quickly and they'll be unwanteds and they'll be put down.

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    4. Doug Wedel, I'd love to know what method you used to 'straighten out the dog'. Please email it to me: [email protected]

      Thanks.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    5. I sort of agree Bruce but bite incidents must be fully investigated like they do in Calgary.If you kick my dog & she bites you causing damage, should I be held responsible for that or should you be held accountable?Circumstances have to be taken into account.Dogs have a right to defend themselves or react to pain.They feel pain after all.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  33. It is wrong to blame the breed and not the owners! These "owners" are people who want to make money off of the suffering of animals! So what is the retaliation? Banning the breed and giving a slap on the wrist of the person who forced their dogs to viciously fight other dogs! How many times do these busts yield, a small jail time if that, and euthanizing every single dog they get. These dogs who actually come from dog fighting rings are actually proven to be amazing, sweet, gentle animals and all of Michael Vick dogs are proof of that! A lot went to Dogtown and were widely known as the friendliest dogs they have ever seen. It is absolutely stupid to ban an entire breed because of people! Any dog who attacks a person, it is because of the owner not teaching the dog manners or neglecting it, and the person who got bit not noticing the signs. Most dogs lash out when they are scared, they try everything to tell you to back off but people don't care to read about these signs, get bit and then the dog gets put down. It is very sad to see that people are more then happy to make something suffer for a quick buck. Banning a breed because of people is stupid! That's like saying every single black teenage boy is a gang member who sells drugs and is to be feared. It makes no sense.

    1 year ago
    12 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  34. No Gov`t has the moral authority to take the life of an innocent animal due to it`s LOOK!

    The Ontario Liberals have also made a sham of the Democratic Process by REFUSING to call the most recent Bill (to repeal) for 3rd & final Reading.

    The facts don`t support BSL.They never did! http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bites-in-canada/

    And IF BSL WAS proven to reduce dog bites/Fatalities one would have to ask why the Liberals targeted these specific Breeds & this particular shape?

    The Fatality stats we have DON`T support targeting this type of dog.

    BSL does NOT work PERIOD!

    This card carrying Liberal has not voted Liberal since this law was enacted & NEVER will again as long as BSL is in effect!

    Also with the deficit we have, why do we seem to have money to prosecute law abiding dog owners who have done NOTHING wrong but we don`t have money for Seniors,for Autistic kids etc,etc,etc.

    Another point:This law prevents those with disabilities from entering Ontario with a Service Dog that MIGHT fall under this vague law!What are they supposed to do?2nd Service dog JUST for Ontario?

    Another point: Who exactly do the Liberals think they are to tell VETERANS where they can or cannot live?

    These brave men & women made many Sacrifices & now they`re being told they can`t live in Ontario due to the look of a Family dog??

    Another point:Immigrants.I was contacted by a Lady from the UK who wanted to move to Ontario but they had a Staffy.Do the Liberals REALLY expect families to kill their family dog for the privilege of living in Ontario under Liberal rule??

    It seems we welcome Terrorists like Khadr but not Terrier-ists from the UK.This law must end NOW!Don`t insult us by continuing to block Bill 16 & forcing another set of Readings & Committee Hearings.This issue is NOT going away!

    And finally Kathleen Wynne as a Gay Woman should be ashamed herself!

    Gay people can marry in Canada but our Gay Premier may keep them out of Ontario due to the look of their family dog??

    HOW can we respect this Hypocrite??

    1 year ago
    18 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  35. This ridiculous breed ban has cost the liberals my vote. Nothing liberal about the ban at all..........it is quite the opposite, isn't it!

    1 year ago
    21 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  36. Nonsense law written in answer to media sensationalism. "Breed banned" does not assure public safety, but it sure does assure those who abuse innocent animals stay well underground and very much unpunished for their crimes against animals of all breeds and species.

    Now they can fight dogs and use bait animals with impunity. Good work OLP.

    1 year ago
    15 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. I believe all the crazy myths about pit bulls -their jaws lock (impossible), they were only bred for fighting (no breed ever was), feed it gunpowder and it goes crazy (feed MY dog gunpowder and I will go crazy!), and the list goes on... These myths were invented and propagated by pit bull owners, those owners who wanted some kind of legendary super-dog. If even one of these things were true, they would be the only animal since time began that ever had that trait or capacity. This kind of owner is the one everyone thinks should never be allowed to have a dog. SOOO. Ban the owner of a dangerous dog from having any dogs, not the dog or the breed. So many so-called vicious and dangerous dogs have been turned around and are either so easy to control they present no safety risk to our society or are completely turned around and have become the perfect family pet.

      I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GETTING TOUGH ON BITING DOGS as long as we go to the source -the owner, not the dog and not a breed or group of breeds.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  37. While I do agree with your points, there are more important issues than dogs in the Province.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    25 Disagreed
    1. Shawn - this just isn't about "dogs" - it is about every Ontarian's civil rights!!!! I am an upstanding, tax paying, law abiding citizen, yet the OLP treats me like a common criminal for owning "a dog".

      1 year ago
      21 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. Shawn, you're truly amazing. I bet you never owned a dog or even a pet. While I agree there are a lot of important issues, if you own a pit bull or anything which even closely resembles one or the other four breeds which are banned, then this issue means everything to you. Pit bulls give so much love, you have no idea why they are so important to us. They change how we view all dogs and all pets.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. This costs taxpayer dollars to enforce. This is about public safety too. DOLA was put in to reduce bites - public safety. It's not doing it. This new law follows methods that have been proven to work AND cost less. In fact the systems that are trying to be followed help keep all projects for domestic pets under the cost of people who own pets - isn't that amazing?

      Why would you want to support an old piece of legislation that doesn't work and costs you money when it would barely take anything to turn it around and make it not cost you anything and also improve the safety of the average person?

      While it may seem that BSL is "about dogs" - there's a lot more to it than "just dogs".

      1 year ago
      14 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    4. May I suggest that many people were blinded by the issue of dogs, thereby allowing for "reverse onus" to be placed in the law books setting a dangerous slope for all of us to lose our basic rights and now no longer incident until proven guilty. It was never about the dogs it was about taking away personal rights and using a smoke and mirror situation (would the general public really care that much about a dog to be paying attention. Check out the court case Cochrane v the Queen, its been used over 14 times and NEVER AGAIN about a dog, but it has been used to deny access and rights.

      1 year ago
      17 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    5. Shawn, yes, we have a lot of issues in this province, but this issue is important. We are being told what we can and cannot own,simply by what it looks like, based on myth, not facts. If we do not stop this, what is next. If they get away with telling us, you cannot own a dog that is short haired and muscular, who knows what they will add next, when all the short haired, muscular dogs are gone. This ban has resulted in thousands of dogs being killed, based solely on what they look like. Totally disgusting.

      1 year ago
      14 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    6. It may not be important to you but your not the ONLY person in Ontario. Who are you to decide what's important to everyone and what's not?

      1 year ago
      16 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    7. Really? Like being allowed to drink in public at picnics? Give me a break.

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    8. Dogs are just an excuse for the Liberals to infringe on any rights we have left as Canadians...what can be more important than your rights? possibly being able to go an extra 20 k on the 400 series?

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  38. Liberals had my vote until BSL was introduced. Had the liberals listened to the experts we would live in a better safer place today. The experts told Mr. Bryant that BSL would not work nor would it protect the public. It devastated a group of dog's that look a certain way that were guilty of breaking no crimes. They just greeted you the same enthusiastic way every day. They were proven to be one of the very best breeds with children and a great family member. It is up to us to protect the innocent or those that can't protect themselves. History continues to remind us that it is not right to punish because of look's or heritage . BSL was not the right way to go in the beginning nor is it the right way to go today. Get rid of BSL and right a terrible wrong. Thank You

    1 year ago
    17 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. It seems that the Liberals would rather align themselves and have Ontario policy & laws influenced by the US hate groups, than listen to expert opinion and the voices of the people of Ontario. Shame on the Liberal Party!

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  39. Jon

    This indeed is a very important issue. Though I must say I was surprised to see it as the top issue in Ontario. Wow!

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  40. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    This is no surprise to many of us Jon. While the Liberal Party has done all they can to ignore the removal of breed specific language in the Dog Owner's Liability Act (DOLA), we know each Liberal MPP has received more than twenty thousand individuals emails from people across the province of Ontario. Those emails were documented and sent out from just ONE of many websites created to remove the breed specific language in DOLA. We all want a dangerous dog act that will protect the public from dangerous owners and thus their dogs. However singling out dogs based on appearance, not behaviour, is discriminatory and backwards. It has also been a serious waste of resources. 43 out of 44 experts testified against BSL in the initial hearings; but the party took the advice of a "dog walker" in Michael Bryant's riding the former Attorney General deemed an "expert". http://www.dogwatch.net/bill132.pdf

    1 year ago
    22 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  41. What’s our common ground as Ontarians? Public safety, cutting unnecessary and ineffective spending, and equality for all citizens. This issue cuts deeply across all three and affects all Ontarians, dog owners and non-dog owners alike. I am pleased and proud that this is the top issue on this forum. Please, listen to the people and take the opportunity to reverse this erroneous and ineffective legislation.

    1 year ago
    19 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  42. As a note, I'm not interested in your opinion on this forum if you admit to living outside of Ontario. Just saying.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    27 Disagreed
    1. Unfortunately Shane, this issue also affects people who live outside of Ontario. We cannot discount the input of those who would like to bring their travel and tourism dollars to Ontario or those who wish to contribute to the economy by moving here. Not to mention the detriment this legislation causes to Canada's reputation as an inclusive and just society.

      http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/dola-pubsfty/dola-pubsfty.asp#TOC_15

      "What if I am just passing through Ontario with my pit bull?

      You will be in contravention of the law if you are found to have imported a pit bull into the province. Your pit bull may be subject to seizure and you may be subject to a fine and/or jail time."

      1 year ago
      23 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. What about the countless families that have had to leave the province to save their four legged family members? They surely deserve a voice even if they are no longer physically here.

      1 year ago
      21 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. What if you have family in Ontario, but cannot visit, cannot return to the province where you were born, because of the shape of your dog. You are very short sighted, Shane, to take this view. You cannot even cross Canada if you have a dog with a certain look, but have to go down, through the states, because if you take the chance, and come through Ontario, and get stopped, your dog can be killed. And with reverse onus, meaning the owner has to prove the dog is not a pit bull, it should concern every citizen in Canada. Reverse onus goes against everything Canada stands for.

      1 year ago
      15 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    4. So are you saying that the Liberals only want people with Liberal approved dogs living in this Province?Everyone else KEEP OUT!

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    5. Shane you do not fully understand the depth of this issue if you think this does not impact those living outside of Ontario as well. Many families have been FORCED TO MOVE OUT OF ONTARIO BECAUSE OF THIS BAN and would very much like to move back. Are you really so confident in your opinion on this matter that you can sit there at your keyboard and say that you have NO INTEREST in hearing what those poor families have to say? WOW. Shame on you.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    6. guess your Ontario is also not interested in tourism dollars? Makes sense with everything else this government has done.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    7. I was born in Ontario, am a resident and lived there until I graduated. I now, study and work in Québec. I'm fostering 2 staffies. It will be difficult now to visit my family for Christmas, how sad is that?

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  43. Punish the Deed not the Breed

    1 year ago
    50 Agreed
    9 Disagreed
  44. I believe that as a Canadian citizen and resident of Ontario I and everyone else should be able to choose whatever breed they wish to own as long as they are responsible owners, please stop punishing innocent dogs who are family members. Please start looking at the real problem and start punishing the bad owners for their actions. I do not want to see or hear about anymore sad heartbreaking stories about families torn apart because of a stupid ignorant law that really is NOT effective at all! I especially don't want to hear about anymore dogs having to be KILLED just because of the way that they look! We should be teaching our children to love and respect all living beings, not to judge others based on media and stereotypes. It is not fair to those poor innocent dogs nor is it fair to us dog owners who love our dogs as if they were our own. Please fix this 8 year long mistake. Let our dogs live in peace. Educate don't discriminate! If it wasn't for my parents I would be long gone out of Ontario, I would move to the other side of the country most likely BC, but that's also not fair that good people must pack up their lives here so that they can live in peace because of this stupid ban on a misunderstood breed. I grew up in Ontario, I am a Canadian citizen, I have rights don't I? So why do I feel like I don't? Please have a heart, fix this mess.

    1 year ago
    16 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  45. I am the proud owner of toy breed dogs, but that doesn't make me believe in the myths surrounding "pit bull" type dogs. I know that any type of dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands. We need to stop focusing on the look of the dog, and start focusing on the owner of ANY dog who has demonstrated behaviour that is a threat to public safety. This ban is a waste of money, and has proven to be ineffective. Even the White House has stated that the research shows breed bans don't work. The Liberals need to get with the times and admit BSL was a disastrous mistake!

    1 year ago
    18 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  46. I am ecstatic and darn proud that this issue is top on the idea forum. I cannot be more happy at this point that we are now on common grounds. It's a start, it is the beginning of the end of BSL, and I have complete faith that Ontario will finally see the light and see for themselves what they have done to those poor innocent lives that they murdered, what they have done to the good abiding citizens and owners of these gracious and loyal dogs called "pit bulls". For shame Liberals for shame.

    1 year ago
    15 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  47. Of all the concerns currently in Ontario, how did this topic end at the top of the list? I don't think non-residents have much to say in shaping OLP policy. It's unfortunate that this process can be high-jacked in this manner just because you love your dogs.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    25 Disagreed
    1. So trying to abolish an ineffective law that is difficult to enforce doesn't affect the citizens in the Province of Ontario? Last I understood, we as taxpayers pay to have those ineffective laws enforced; spending money on laws that are difficult to enforce rather than applying those funds to infrastructure, social programs or other areas needing resources seems like a more rational idea.

      Banning a breed of dog based on appearance doesn't affect tourism? Think again. Last I understand, tourism dollars bring in much needed revenue, especially to smaller, rural towns and cities in the Province of Ontario; revenue that affects job creation and increases employment opportunities.

      Stripping law abiding, tax paying citizens of Ontario of their right to own a well-behaved, well socialized, friendly, happy dog because of it's appearance doesn't affect the people of the Province? Last I understood, Canada was a country of free speech and free choice. Of course, that only applies as long as you don't live in the Province of Ontario.

      Portraying every day, average dogs as monsters merely for the media hype doesn't affect the Province of Ontario? Better rethink that one too - in an effort to increase public safety a PROPER dangerous dog law needs to be implemented. Banning a breed because they have short hair and a muscular build DOES NOT promote public safety.

      So Mark, rather than thinking with such a narrow-minded view, maybe you should look at the big picture before making such a ill-thought out comment.

      1 year ago
      19 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    2. Clearly if there has been this much of an out pour of support surrounding this issue, it's a LARGE concern of Ontario citizens. If you honestly think that this issue is just about dogs, you better take a better look at the bigger picture..

      1 year ago
      16 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    3. as previously stated by residents, those 'non-residents' that have issues ARE important. do you know how much money tourism makes? now think about how much difference it'd be for people who would move here or travel but can't because they have pit bulls? its a foolish law and was just designed to prey on the uneducated persons fears, in order to get votes. Also, if you'll notice-MOST comments are from 'residents'.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    4. I have no dog in this fight.I own a Lab.This isn't a dog issue.

      My fellow Citizens are entitled to the same Rights as you and I.

      Presumption of Innocence & not to be subjected to warrantless entry & illegal search & seizure.

      You need to look beyond the red herring 'pit bull' that the Liberals used to violate people's fundamental Rights.

      Read the law & replace 'pit bull' with something else.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    5. You don`t think non residents should have a say on this issue? Well that`s certainly the way to make sure they remain as NON RESIDENTS!

      People who want to move to Ontario are being denied entry BECAUSE of the LOOK of their family dog!I`d say that gives them the RIGHT to have a say!

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    6. You don't get why people care about their dogs more than the corporate tax rate, education or health care? Buy a dog and you might one day understand. Welcome to the internet, the place puppies and kittens rule and public policy discussions die a lonely dusty death.... unless of course the policy relates to puppies or kittens.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    7. So trying to restore full citizenship and Charter rights to law-abiding people isn't important to you? How would you feel if you were subjected to reverse onus, use of non-expert testimony, had your right of travel within Canada restricted, and more? Because that is all in this law. Please read the legislation and understand the implications; if the Ontario Liberals are permitted to do this to one group, they can do it to many, and you may be a member of one of those groups.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  48. This is idiotic. Of all the public policy concerns we have for the future as a province, this is the top of mind issue?!? Unbelievable.

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    30 Disagreed
    1. No what is unbelievable to me is how some people can be so insensitive. I am so thrilled this is on the top, we have been fighting for our dogs and our rights as residents of Ontario for nearly a decade. I can not wait for the day that there will be no banned breed but instead tougher rules for dog owners to maintain responsibly dog ownership. Kevin, you do not see the big picture, this ban teaches our children to judge others based on appearance, this ban also rips families apart, if a dog resembles a pit bull type dog it has a very high chance of being killed because of a stupid ignorant law. Have you ever had a pet? More importantly a dog? Dog's have the biggest hearts, they are so loyal, innocent families shouldn't have to be punished because of a law that does NOT work. What's idiotic about it is the fact that this law was put in effect in the first place.

      1 year ago
      19 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      You believe in reverse onus Kevin? People should have to prove themselves innocent if someone (and sometimes a nut case) accuses them of something? You believe in warrantless entry into private homes? If someone owns a dog (that's one in about 4 Ontario homes)that is NOW the case. You think travellers in Canada should have to drive AROUND the province of Ontario to avoid the possibility of having a pet seized? If they don't they can do six months in jail and be subject to a $10.000 fine and a provincial offense if that family does not just hand the dog over and fights for the pets life. All these things are indeed in DOLA. They are also against "Canadian" Charter Rights. In THE charter people are innocent and the crown must prove guilt. In the charter we are supposed to be free of warrantless entry, search and seizure. We as Canadians are supposed to be able to travel freely throughout Canada! Please "get" this is as much about CANADIAN charter rights as it is about "dogs". Sad people don't really understand this issue.

      1 year ago
      25 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    3. It's an indicater of what's wrong with Liberal Policy. They won't admit a mistake and continue to make it over and over. Bsl is a bad law admit it fix it .Same for all there other issues like drive clean another unfounded policy

      1 year ago
      18 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    4. You people seem to equate animals to humans. NEWSFLASH: they aren't! Governments are responsible to its citizens (PEOPLE), NOT animals. Out of concern for public safety, the government passed legislation banning pit-bulls as a breed in Ontario. Deal with it. I, as a tax-paying citizen feel safer with this piece of legislation in force. If you don't like it, take your dog(s) and live elsewhere. This is not about equality, the economy, healthcare or anything of relative importance to the good and future of the province. It is purely emotional-driven rhetoric by dog/animal lovers who place equal or greater importance on animal rights than they do with human-kind. As I said before, we have far more important matters that warrant public discussion and debate: repealing the pit-bull ban isn't one of them.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      29 Disagreed
    5. Finally, this policy in particular has already been debated, extensively, with strong arguments from both sides, and subsequently a decision was made to legislate the ban. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's wrong. Now let's move on, we all have much bigger things to concern ourselves with.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      27 Disagreed
    6. ok Kevin. dog bite stats in Ontario in 2005 when BSL was brought in were just above 5000. dog bite stats in Ontario in 2010(5 years later) were STILL about 5000. since there are fewer pitbulls obviously SOMETHINGS making up for the difference? should we ban all dogs? huskys, rotties, even Pomeranians have caused deaths. if we were to ban every breed that had attacked-EVERY breed would be banned. please use some common sense and look into FACTS not the propaganda the gov't spouts as 'truth'. pit bulls achieve better stats on temperament tests than most 'favourite' breeds! Finally-just because you don't have a pet that you care about doesn't mean the people who fight for theirs are second hand residents.

      1 year ago
      17 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    7. Kevin you need to calm down and take your uneducated opinions and park them. You clearly have no heart. We realize that dogs are not humans. You also remind me why I prefer dogs over most people. Dogs are not judgemental pricks like you, you don't have to be blood related to be part of a family, you also don't have to be the same species. Who are you to judge how us like that? In fact, how dare you or anyone else to judge the love and bond between people and their pets, dogs are supposed to be man's best friend. Are you even aware of the FACT that dogs evolved along side humans? We taught them and they taugh us. We helped them and they helped us. For thousands of years. When a dog and a human cuddle and bond there's a chemical that both the human and the dogs brain releases. It's the love chemical, same thing happens when two people fall in love. How would you feel if you couldn't be with someone you love? It breaks your heart. That's what happens when families are torn apart because of this ban. Another bad thing about this ban is that dogs that aren't even pit bull type dogs but are mix breeds and have similar physical characteristics are targeted and euthanized for their appearance. You are a mean ignorant uneducated person. We will NEVER stop fighting for the dogs we love, until this mistake of a ban is abolished I will NEVER stop fighting for the rights of ontario residents and our dogs. I know I'm not the only one. Please do some real research about the subject.

      1 year ago
      17 Agreed
      4 Disagreed
    8. Kevin, you say that this has been debated, lets move on. Well, if the liberals had actually listened to anyone who disagreed with them, then I might agree with you, but as they totally ignored everyone, experts included, who disagreed with the ban, then, yes, we must keep at this. Who did they listen to, well one presenter wanted pit bulls banned because she saw one attack a tree. Another one wanted them banned because a mastiff, not a pit bull, had killed his cat. Another because she was a property manager, and some of the residents in the building she managed were afraid of them. These they listened to.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  49. To all who think this is "idiotic" and there are more important issues... perhaps that is true... for YOU. This is important to ME and many others. We think our pets are FAMILY, and while you may think this is ridiculous and how can a dog be so important?, I say to you, to each his own. You go and fight for what YOU think is important, and we'll continue on as well. In no way should we judge each other like that. There will be the people who fight for old people, for children, for the environment, etc. NONE of us is wrong. It takes ALL kinds to make this world go round... keep that in mind. And if this isn't your cup of tea, keep your comments to yourself as well. Thank you.

    1 year ago
    25 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. Amen, beautifully said, could not have said it any better.

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  50. The current legislation has been costly to tax payers and a drain on so many innocent families. It has not been effective and only has increased public fear and negative stereotypes to both canine and owner. When need to be the example for other provinces And countries world wide. Ontario government show everyone that you are leaders and not followers. There is proof that BSL does not work and ownership is the key. Turn to Bill Bruce of Calgary for a positive influence. Stop killing our innocent family members. Do the right thing Ontario.

    1 year ago
    16 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  51. I am so happy that this is at the top of the list! I have been volunteering at an animal sanctuary in the USA for a few months now and have met so many Pitbulls and they are all the sweetest most loveable dogs I have ever met! BSL doesn't work, it is expensive and it is unfair to responsible dog owners. As a citizen of Ontario I would be overjoyed to see this backwards law overturned.

    1 year ago
    19 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  52. BSL is no different than treating and punishing people based on how they look. We have changed laws,publicly apologized to and compensated various ethnic peoples in Canada for our misguided perceptions and persecutions of them. To treat dogs any different shows that we don't practice what we preach.

    1 year ago
    17 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  53. BSL is a disgraceful law blaming a breed for behaviour. It does not work and pit bulls are lovely dogs like any other dog breed. Train your dog and love them and you`ll have good behaviour. It is dog owners that need to be held accountable for aggression by a dog of any breed. BLS is very immoral legislation. What breed will be nextÉ

    1 year ago
    17 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  54. Because of the bsl clauses of the DOLA, I, a military veteran, cannot visit my family with my service dog because she bears "similar physical appearance" despite not having any pitbull like breeds in her DNA. BSL is far to vague and outdated to be effective. Punish poor behaviour, enforce fair sanctions, hold the other end of tge leash accountable for actions, not a dogs look. I miss my family, i NEED my dog like no other

    1 year ago
    22 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  55. Banning a breed is no different from banning a race. BSL is a disgrace!

    1 year ago
    15 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  56. I couldn't agree more! The DOLA should be focused on the actions of the individual dog and, more importantly, their owner. I read the comment made by "brazin" above, and it breaks my heart. If we look at human history, discrimination of any sort has only been effective at empowering bullies and reinforcing ignorant beliefs.

    1 year ago
    15 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  57. It's really kinda sad to see that so many people are interested in debating this topic over anything else that has been posted....lol

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    17 Disagreed
    1. No its not sad..its actually great to see

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  58. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    AH, before BSL Austin I personally spent a fair amount of my volunteer time working with children with disabilities. Also spent time volunteering for church activities; even helped feed the homeless in downtown Toronto. Had more time with family and friends and spent one heck of a lot of more time on my business. TRUST US, there are MANY here who would love to be putting efforts elsewhere and look SO forward to the day when BSL is history so we can indeed move on. BSL has not only stolen the lives of numerous family pets, it has stolen much out of our lives also.

    1 year ago
    19 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  59. Moderator

    This related idea may be of interest for the animal lovers here!

    http://commonground.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Ban-animal-gas-chambers-in-Ontario/15053-25935

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  60. See the Calgary model on the control of dangerous dogs, an incredible success that many locations worldwide have studied and copied or adapted. Hold bad owners responsible for what their dogs of any breed do, and punish them ... instead of innocent dogs that are victims of ineffective and unfair breed profiling.

    1 year ago
    15 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. Nope, I don't want to punish the owner for what happened to my child. I want to prevent it from happening. Once happened it's already too late...

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      14 Disagreed
    2. Slava, if you're referring to your child being bitten by a certain type of dog.. I'm sorry, but the behaviour of that dog is not a representation of an entire group of dogs just because they look similar. That's a ludicrous idea. I was mauled by a Great Pyranese, it does NOT mean that all large, long haired dogs are inherently dangerous. That dog was dangerous. Just like not all short haired, muscular dogs are dangerous. There will ALWAYS be dangerous dogs. We need to have legislation in place that actually protects the public!! Banning a group of animals based on the way they look does nothing to keep us safer (as we've seen by the lack reduction in dog bites since BSL was enacted).

      1 year ago
      16 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. Hey Slava-I'm a red head. If I attack someone does that mean ALL redheads are dangerous? well dogs are the same way.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    4. Slava, this law, with its breed specific wording, does nothing to protect you and your child from a dog that does not have the "look"

      this government banned. If you think the only dogs that bite look like a certain type or breed, then you are mistaken. All dogs can bite, all this law does is make you feel safe from one look of dogs.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  61. We should be proud to live in Ontario. PLEASE remove the barbaric BSL legislation - it has been a huge nonsensical issue to manage from many perspectives. There are HUGE BENEFITS by removing this BSL legislation and we would applaud any government who could actually get the job DONE to abolish BSL.

    1 year ago
    16 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  62. Premier Wynne, I believe you still appear once a month on CBC Radio One's noontime phone-in show Ontario Today. Citizens can call and speak to you about what matters to them... any subject. I hope many will listen in and make their views known to you about ending BSL.

    1 year ago
    12 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. You will never get on air.I was invited 2 participate in 2 Town Hall call ins.I was cut off when I said I wanted her to defend BSL.She can't therefore she won't even engage.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. Well, it's not the same show, it's not the same producers, and maybe when the Premier knows how much interest people have in this issue she will be motivated to discuss it :) I think it's better to try to speak with her than you give up right away.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. Oh I haven`t given up.I`ve been in this fight since this BSL issue 1st reared it`s ugly head.

      BTW have you seen the email from Kathleen Wynne sent to a BSL Fighter that`s posted on supporthersheysbill.com

      It leaves no doubt where she stands.

      Any Liberal BSL Fighter who`s still voting Liberal should read that email.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. jamiemoira - where is that letter on the website? I can't seem to find it.

      Also, I heard that Wynne's opinion is that Ontario has far too many dogs as it is.

      ...

      Hope this 'idea' will change her mind before it's too late for most 'pit bulls' in Ontario as they are quickly aging ...

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  63. I'm very happy not to have these dogs on our streets. If you'd seen a loved one havehis face bitten through by a lunging pit bull that had been acting friendly and accepting pats to the head only seconds before, you might agree that these animals are dangerous and unpredictable. No one NEEDS to have a pit bull in Ontario, and this is a frivolous cause.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    25 Disagreed
    1. Tell that to the lady who had her nose bitten off by a lapdog at a Home Depot a few years ago.

      You should read this link from the OVMA (Ontario Veterinary Medial Association) - if anyone knows about dogs and dog breeds, professionals trained through years of education and work experience would:

      http://www.ovma.org/pdf/oepnletter_bill16_may12.pdf

      October 2012 - 5 year old girl mauled - NOT by Pitbulls:

      http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/13/girl-5-mauled-by-dogs-improving

      Dog related fatalities in Canada from February 1983 - February 2012 - only ONE identified as a Pitbull Mix, some unknown breeds:

      http://www.chicobandido.com/2012/03/dbrf-201202/

      So please, justify your response once actual statistics and credible information is provided.

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. The ignorance and lack of education is mind boggling. There has been more deaths and attacks by sled dogs (huskies, malimutes, etc.) in Canada then any other breed; however those stories do not receive front page coverage. Why would anyone own a "sled dog" type if they knew the actual numbers? One can say. Before posting such garbage do your homework. Listening to media hype and unprofessional bias journalism rather than facts makes you a mindless uneducated follower. Maybe one day you will have a mind of your own and have facts to back up your ignorance.

      1 year ago
      14 Agreed
      4 Disagreed
    3. That is the most ignorant statement I have read here so far, do you think that because "Pit bulls" are banned that they are no longer being bred? Guess what, the bad guys, the ones we want to stay away from dogs, they aren't afraid to break the law, there are still many Pit bull type dogs being bred till today in plentiful numbers, people register their pit type dogs as boxers, American bulldogs, etc. There has not been any change in bite statistics in Ontario in the 8 years that pit bulls have been banned. It is a well known FACT that BSL does NOT work. What we need is stricter laws and harsher punishment for animal abusers and for those who are not responsible dog owners. Please go educate yourself on the matter before throwing around your ignorant and incorrect opinion based on what you see on the news, the media is always right you know, (eye roll)

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    4. You sound like the average ignorant uneducated person about this breed. Congratulations. Haha

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  64. Dawn, I don't need to justify what I've seen with my own eyes. Pit bulls are dangerous, unpredictable and very very strong animals that don't belong in Ontario.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    28 Disagreed
    1. Then I guess all dogs should be banned in the Province of Ontario - as someone above stated, there have been more attacks, with fatalities, by sled dogs........

      I participate in dog sports and I have seen more aggressive "other" breeds - I personally have been bitten by two Labs and a JRT and my one Border Collie was attacked by an Australian Shepherd and a Golden Retriever.......again, not one Bully breed dog.

      Before making such a broad statement, you really should do some homework. If you did, you would know yourself that Bully breed dogs are no more dangerous than any other breed of dog. They are NOT unpredictable, they are not aggressive, and yes they are strong, but so is a 70 pound lab, Rottie or Husky. Any large breed dog, regardless of breed will be strong.

      1 year ago
      14 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    2. Many things can be said about people. I have seen "with my own eyes" many life changing and altering things that are negative. Would it be justified for me to lump what I seen and hold all people of certain races responsible? NO! My sister was bitten by 3 sheppards, would it be fair to claim all sheppards are bad? NO! We know better.

      You close minded thinking is exactly what is wrong with society.

      Unfortuently it's people like you that hate and ignorance still exists in today's world.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    3. Here you go - this was in the news this morning.......this "vicious, killer dog" saved his entire family from dying in a house fire:

      http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/heroic-dog-saved-florida-family-fire-now-depending-171523560.html

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    4. So Helena, what makes you the all encompassing pitbull expert? Do you have credentials on pitbulls? A veterinarian or dog expert perhaps???? Your comment is a tad judgmental, don't you think? Maybe a teeny bit misinformed? Overreactive maybe? :) Have a great day.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    5. They are strong but not dangerous. .. Rottweilers are even stronger should they be banned to how about our very own police dogs the Sheppard? You need to do some research and get your facts straight.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    6. Helena, please define or describe a "pit bull". Then differentiate from the dozens of purebred dogs, thousands of crossbred dogs and hundreds of thousands of mixed breed dogs. A dog's appearance does not predetermine or predict its behaviour, just as a person's skin colour does not. Subjectivity does not belong in law. Objectivity does; judge solely on the behaviour of the dog and its owner, not the appearance of the dog.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  65. Pit Bulls are not unpredictable? Tell that to the guy who is living with permanent scars on his face from a pit bull that was happily let him him pet it seconds earlier. Tell that to the dog's owner, who was left gasping, "My god, she's never done anything that before I'm so sorry I'm so sorry!!!" She later had the dog put down.

    Sorry, but reading articles on the internet is no replacement for real life experience, and my experience with this breed was a horrific one.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    23 Disagreed
    1. Again - tell that to the poor lady working at a Home Depot in Ottawa in April 2011 who had part of her nose torn off her face by a Shih Tzu when she went to pet him.

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/dog-bites-off-part-of-home-depot-greeter-s-nose-1.1052768

      You're missing the point - banning a BREED is ineffective - implementing a dangerous dog law is what will actually contribute to ensuring public safety.

      1 year ago
      16 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    2. Helena, please come visit my house and tell the two children (who are now 7 and 11) that were BORN with my pit bull mix that he deserves to die because he's a short haired muscular MUTT (not even a purebred dog.. he just has some characteristics). Don't we teach our children to not discriminate based on looks? I've been mauled by a dog (Great Pyranese) that I spent EVERY DAY with at a Doggy Day Care. He attacked me out of the blue for no reason. I have permanent disfiguring scars. Does that mean that all large hairy dogs like Pyranese are going to be vicious? Definitely not. Pull your head out of your ass.

      1 year ago
      14 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. So.... let me get this straight, pitbulls have earned your label as the "only" unpredictable breed???? Huh? Again, Helena, you have got to do some more objective research on this, and not base your warped, inexpert opinion on ONE personal incident, honestly!!!

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    4. Your experience with THAT DOG was a horrific one. A dog is only as good as it's current owner regardless of breed.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    5. EVERYONE please do not bother with trying to educate this Impossible person bcuz we will be wrong even b4 we speak, but here Helena Handbasket (more like basketcase) here is a link on the definition of impossible ppl, ppl like YOU... "impossible." These are individuals who push the wrong buttons, irritate us to no end and annoy us whenever we talk to them. These are the people that we find arrogant, critical, and negative or possess some other character deficit. www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/716555/jewish/The-Mirror-Theory.htm

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    6. what about the family that lost their 3 WEEK old BABY to a POMERANIAN. what about the husky that killed a toddler? you've seen one pitbull attack and now you think they all are bad. Was it even in fact 100%, beyond ANY doubt, even a pitbull? I just used this example: I'm a redhead. if I kill someone does that mean ALL redheads are bad? well dogs are the same way. its not like dogs are toys that are produced with the same stats and shape and technology. not two dogs are alike. your ignorance is actually quite frightening! I'd rather cuddle a pitbull-dressed in a meat dress- than meet you!

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    7. A baby was killed recently, 2 months old, by a golden retriever x labador cross, so are we going to ban them too now. I have been around dogs my whole life, most of them bullies, the only time I have been attacked by a dog, it was a weimaraner, ran at me, jumped, was going for my face, luckily for me (and the dog) it got my arm instead. Do I want Weimaraner's banned, no, it was one bad dog with an owner that had no idea what to do with her dog.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    8. I have many scars from hockey sticks - ban hockey

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    9. I am sorry for your acquaintance who was bitten. I am sorry for anyone who is bitten by ANY kind of dog. "Pit bull" dog bite victims are not deserving of more empathy than the victims of dogs bites by other kinds of dogs. I have a scar on my face from a non-"pit bull", as does a friend of mine. Is our pain somehow lesser than your friend's because we weren't bitten by "pit bulls"? That's a seriously skewed attitude to my mind.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  66. A Shih Tzu is not going to be able to kill a grown human being. A pit bull easily could. I just don't agree that other dogs are as dangerous as pit bulls. I don't. I've lived around dogs all my life but I've never seen anything respond so suddenly, viciously and potentially fatally as that pit bull did.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    25 Disagreed
    1. Again, pure ignorance rearing it's ugly head.

      I too have been brought up around dogs my entire life, and I participate in competitive dog sports and have done so for the past 12+ years and I have never been bitten by any type of Bully breed. My dogs have never been attacked by any type of Bully breed. I can't say that about other "popular" dog breeds out there. I currently have 6 dogs, one of which could be labelled a "banned breed". I also have a purebred Australian Cattle dog, CKC registered and pedigreed, yet animal control accused her of being a "Pitbull".

      How fair would it be that my Cattle Dog, who is NOT aggressive and who is NOT a banned breed, be seized and killed because an Animal Control Officer "thought" she was a Pitbull. It's a good thing I have her pedigree, otherwise, she may possibly not be here today.

      How fair is it that my dog that could be labelled a Bully breed not have the right to walk out in public without fear of being seized and killed?

      BSL is nothing more than racism. We fight to abolish racism - why should my dog be discriminated against simply because she is muscular with a short coat?

      1 year ago
      15 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. There have been instances where small dogs like Jack Russells and Pomeranians have mauled children and babies, again it is the deed not the breed. So your argument is invalid.

      1 year ago
      14 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. A Pomeranian mauled and killed a child in LA.. Guess that goes against your standards, huh?

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    4. ANY large dog would harm a human. ANY. So in your Backwards thinking i guess ALL dogs larger then 30kg should be killed and banned. Sad. Small dogs CAN harm Small children ask my son who was mauled by a yorkie and was left with freaking HOLES in him!!! why? for Sitting next to the dog wasnt even looking at it, a dog he knew since birth!! My pitbull, who was 18 before he passed never raised a tooth to none of my kids even while dying in pain he wagged is tail as my kids sat with him on the floor. Its all about how a dog is raised and trained. Nothing to do with a BREED!

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    5. Give me a break, Helena. You should see a Rottie or shepherd attack if you want to see some real damage.... Have a nice day!

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    6. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      I was viciously attacked by a black dog with long hair. I do not believe ALL black long haired furry dogs are "dangerous".

      1 year ago
      19 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    7. Come work in a grooming salon. You'd be surprised which breeds are the vicious, unpredictable biters. It's not pit bull type dogs.

      1 year ago
      15 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  67. Dawn, If you want to cherry pick articles supporting your cause, we could go back and forth all day and I could match you point for point, but that would be extremely tedious and I don't care to spend my time on such a trivial issue.

    I could, for instance point you to study in the medical journal Annals of Surgery which states, "Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites." Or the Children's Hospital of Pittsburg study which states that half of all dog bites over a five year period were caused by pit bulls.

    If there are more attacks by sled dogs in Canada, that's because THERE ARE MORE SLED DOGS in Canada.

    Regarding that lady that got her nose bitten off by a Shih Tzu, imagine how much worse it would have been had it been a pit bull?

    There are many studies confirming the prevalence and severity of pit bull attacks, but since you've already decided that my opinion is "pure ignorance", I see no point in continuing this discussion. At least I didn't have to resort to insults.

    My main opposition to this whole thing is that this is a trivial matter that has already been resolved by the existing legislation. There is no reason that humans need to keep pets that can KILL other humans. There is no pressing need for more pit bulls in Ontario. There are many many many more important issues for our political leaders to be spending their time on.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    21 Disagreed
    1. Helena - how about you reference relevant data like I did. Perhaps you could write to the OVMA and tell them they don't know what they are talking about. My guess is ONE of the DVMs on that letter has more education and experience with dog breeds than you will ever have.

      With regards to your comment there are more sled dogs in Canada than any other breed, wrong again - my guess is MIXED BREED DOGS takes that title, and unfortunately for those of us who understand dogs and the issues around the subject of BSL, a lot of mixed breed dogs are being labeled as Pitbulls, seized and killed.

      Your comment about people keeping pets that can kill humans - there have been multiple sled dog maulings and killings in the past year than any other breed - with your thinking, that breed should be banned immediately!!! Not only can they kill humans, they HAVE killed numerous humans - I can recall 3 cases off the top of my head without even researching it! That is the difference between you and I - I research things, you don't. Basing one personal experience on one example is not researching it.

      This may seem trivial to you, but obviously in the subject string, you are the minority. Good thing legislators didn't feel the same way about abolishing slavery or it never would have happened. The law was passed, so be it - move on to the next issue.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. This is Canada, NOT USA. If you want to quote articles/stats then please make references to the ones that apply to Canada not that bogus anti pit bull site south of the border. Google fatal pit bull attacks Canada and see how many hits you get. Here's a link from a very reputable source you should read: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. you want to get us stats involved now? well of the 30 fatal dog attacks in the us last year only 3 could be 100% proven to be a pit bulls and further more-only one was a 'pet'! (theres 'pets' and theres 'resident dogs' resident dogs are chained outside, crated, locked up, anything but a true family member) and this matter was NOT solved by the legislation brought in by this gov't. dog bites in Ontario in 2005 when BSL was first brought in, were a little over 5000. dog bites in 2010(FIVE years after BSL) were STILL over 5000. so with fewer pit bulls obviously SOMETHING is making up the difference. the best thing would be to ban ALL dogs. but then the gov't would see a REAL fight!

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. You're pushing some strong arguments. There is no reason why humans need to keep pets that can kill other humans (or the owners themselves).

      This is a forum produced by the Liberal party. I haven't seen another by any other party or government representative. The only other forums I've seen are generated by the community by those interested in the matter directly. In these, there are a few people who hate pit bulls and will do anything to see them wiped out completely. And these same people always claim that pit bulls are the worst dogs, followed by other breeds, implying these other breeds will be next.

      No group with any expertise about dogs says that exterminating pit bulls will end dog bites, severe or otherwise.

      No statistic shows that eliminating pit bulls will eliminate dog bites.

      I propose to have a one bite policy (one bite that causes harm) for the owners, not the dogs. This will single out any owners who either train their dogs to bite or let them go wild enough that it's the same result. Let's remember that no dog bites and causes severe harm at first. All puppies are perfect. They learn how to bite and cause harm over time. If no one is willing to take a dog with a bite history, then it will die with all of the other unwanted dogs which get put down by OUR shelters. I'm convinced this will end dog bites which cause harm and make it virtually nonexistent regardless of breed.

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  68. Helena, you really need to do some more research on this wonderful and gentle breed and get up to speed here! Unfortunately media alarmism and panic have gotten to you... The most formidable jaws are those of the Rottweiler, not the pitbull, betcha you didn't know that one either, did you? IT IS NOT THE BREED, IT IS THE OWNER and this legislation, a.k.a. Bull Shit Legislation, led by alarmists and overreactive fanatics simply does NOT work. Talk to the dog experts, those in the know and get the real facts and enjoy your day!

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  69. For the Annals of Surgery article, you can view the abstract here, but you have to have a subscription to view the entire study:

    http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2011&issue=04000&article=00023&type=abstract

    If you have a subscription to the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, you can view the abstract here.

    http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2009&issue=08000&article=00028&type=abstract

    These are studies published by medical researchers, not special interest groups. I have researched this, but I have not done so in a biased way.

    About slavery, yes they abolished slavery, which I think is great. Our government banned pit bulls, which I also think is great, so I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    18 Disagreed
    1. You're quoting American literature so it's not relevant to this issue. Here's something you should find interesting..

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. In case you didn't want to read the entire article, here's an important part.. "The American Staffordshire terrier, the most widely legislated breed in Canada in the period under study, caused 1 fatality (Table 1). The rottweiler, a target of breed-specific legislation in fewer jurisdictions, and the husky, possibly an unlegislated breed, caused more fatalities, as did the mixed-breed dogs. The rottweilers, huskies, and the mixed-breed dogs were also represented in larger numbers."

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. You should really try and use relevant data - we are discussing Ontario, Canada, correct and not the US?

      Population of the United States - 313.9 million; number of dogs in the US - 69,926,000 (https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Statistics/Pages/Market-research-statistics-US-pet-ownership.aspx); number of Pitbulls in the United States - 2013 - approx 4 million registered (http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/19/the-truth-about-pit-bulls/).

      Population of Canada - 34.9 million; number of dogs in ONTARIO - can't find any accurate stats, but I guess it is a lot less than the US; number of Pitbulls in Ontario - hard to know, and any relevant data would be dated.

      There is a big difference between comparing attacks/bites/maulings of a country the size of the US versus a PROVINCE!

      "Abstract

      In Canada, public debates on dog attacks are dominated by studies from the United States. An electronic search of media reports in the Canadian Newsstand database, for the years 1990 to 2007, identified 28 fatalities from dog-bite injuries. Predominant factors in this case series were owned, known dogs; residential location; children’s unsupervised access to area with dogs; and rural/remote areas, including aboriginal reserves in the prairies. A higher proportion of sled dogs and, possibly, mixed-breed dogs in Canada than in the United States caused fatalities, as did multiple dogs rather than single dogs. Free-roaming dog packs, reported only from rural communities, caused most on-reserve fatalities. Future studies are needed to assess if this rural/urban divide is observed in nonfatal attacks and if the breeds that bite in Canada are different from the breeds that killed. Breed representation in this paper and, perhaps, multiple-dog overrepresentation should be understood in the context of the overall Canadian dog population."

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/

      Dogs

      The American Staffordshire terrier, the most widely legislated breed in Canada in the period under study, caused 1 fatality (Table 1). The rottweiler, a target of breed-specific legislation in fewer jurisdictions, and the husky, possibly an unlegislated breed, caused more fatalities, as did the mixed-breed dogs. The rottweilers, huskies, and the mixed-breed dogs were also represented in larger numbers.

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    4. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      LOOKS like there is a AMERICAN PRO BSL lobbyist in the comment section. Not surprised.

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
  70. Why is it not relevant? Are Canadian pit bulls more polite than American pit bulls? Do they say sorry more often?

    It's the same breed regardless of what country it lives in. The same article you cite states that "Breed representation in this paper and, perhaps, multiple-dog overrepresentation should be understood in the context of the overall Canadian dog population." It's pretty simple - if there were more pit bulls in Canada, there would be more pit bull related attacks and fatalities.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    17 Disagreed
    1. See comment above. You have the audacity to say people who want to see the BSL abolished are biased - trying to compare stats for the United States versus Canada is not only biased, it is misleading!

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    2. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      In CANADA over Fifty Years there has ONE fatality involving "pit bulls" (the owner was being attacked by a drunk wielding a bat) and 53 fatalities where OTHER dogs have been involved. THAT is why those that ARE "irresponsible dog owners" should pay and NOT dogs based on appearance. We LOOK to decreasing ALL dog attacks and KNOW the focus of seizing and killing dogs based on appearance does NOT enhance public safety. Take you fear-mongering elsewhere. Thanks.

      1 year ago
      18 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. Helena, what's a 'pit bull' first of all?.. It's definitely not a breed of dog. There is a LARGE population of 'pit bull' type dogs in Ontario, they are one of the most popular types..yet bite stats on these dogs, IN CANADA, are still few and far between.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    4. Moderator

      jbdezdez I'm going to need you to refrain from name calling. Make sure to follow the community guidelines stating that all conversation should be relevant and constructive.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    5. Its not as relevant because it is well known there is much more dog fighting with pitbulls in the US than Canada other wise more aggressive pitbulls. .

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    6. A response to jbdezdez: I support this suggestion, but foolish extremist comments such as yours are not at all helpful. You stated that "there is no difference between profiling humans or dogs". Actually there is a huge difference between profiling humans and dogs. Various breeds of dogs are bred for specific reasons and characteristics -- and thus can be and should be profiled accordingly.

      People are not bred to produce certain 'types' or characteristics (at least not much yet) so profiling doesn't make sense.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    7. Helena, "pit bull" is not a breed. You've just disqualified yourself from having any dog knowledge.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  71. End the ban. It has PROVEN to be ineffective here and elsewhere. Instead, look towards effective legislation i.e Calgary's laws regarding dogs. It WORKS without discrimination, without killing innocent dogs and without making dog owners feel like second class citizens.

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  72. It is not misleading to anyone who understands anything about interpreting empirical data.

    I am not judging anyone by their skin, your insults, combined with that kind of talk just sounds desperate and hysterical!

    I'm basing my opinions on personal experience, backed by medical research that plainly states that pit bull attacks are more damaging and more often fatal than attacks by other dogs. Once again, plainly stated by doctors who have no reason to lie about this: "Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs."

    Sorry, but it's the truth.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    18 Disagreed
    1. You're blatantly telling me that my dog deserves to die because of the way he looks. Guilty till proven innocent I guess works for you?

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    2. Know how many times dogs are mislabelled as 'pit bulls'? No clear obvious breed? Must be a pit....oh, you got bit by a more than 12 inches tall? Must have been a pit....many breeds once crossed can produce a pup with similar physical characteristics to a 'pit bull' that is one of many problems with the ban as it is. How can you enforce or regulate against something that can't be clearly defined? Happy dogs playing fetch in the field rarely make the evening news, so naturally the market will be oversaturated with 'big mean dog' stories.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. again! how do these HUMAN doctors know the difference between a pitbull and an American Staffordshire terrier? or even a bull terrier? because the victim told them? how the hell do they know??

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    4. pit bull is a look of dog, many different dogs, when cross bred can have that look, such as boxer, when crossed with different breeds, can have a "pit bull" look, short muzzle, muscular, short coat. Same with mastiffs, I know a mastiff x lab cross that is always getting called a "pit bull". She is not. I have heard people say, "must have been a pit bull" when taking about bad behavior in an unknown dog. My daughter was attacked by a shepard x lab, when she went to the hospital, no one recorded the breed. No one was interested in that or in the circumstances. Sorry, but that is the truth.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    5. Helena Handbasket I am afraid you are incorrect. Autopsy reports on dog bite related fatalities from various breeds do not support your statement (nor your 'personal experience') that pitbull attacks are more damaging than attacks by other dogs.

      http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/do-certain-types-of-dogs-inflict-injuries-unlike-other-types-of-dogs

      BTW just what is your 'personal experience' with dog related fatalities? Are you a coroner? Doctor? With so few dog bite related fatalities in Canada (51 in the last 49 years. An average of one a year Canada wide) I'd be shocked if even one single person had the misfortune of having to complete an autopsy for two different incidents let alone enough to be able to form an opinion worth sharing as 'fact'.

      http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/FDA%20Canada%20-%20Copy%20for%20website%20-%20Thru%20Aug%202012.pdf

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  73. To demonstrate that you are having difficulty interpreting the very articles you are quoting - when it says "Breed representation in this paper and, perhaps, multiple-dog overrepresentation should be understood in the context of the overall Canadian dog population." that means that the reason Rottweilers and pack dogs rate higher in Canadian dog attacks is because there are more of them than there are pit bulls. If there were more pit bulls, there would be more pit bull attacks.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    22 Disagreed
    1. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      PLEASE IGNORE HELENA. She has put through NO ideas and appears only in this comment section to fear-monger and promote scare-tactics. If this keeps us, please request the moderator to block her.

      1 year ago
      17 Agreed
      6 Disagreed
    2. Just out of curiosity are you related to Hell in a Hand Basket?

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. Do not want to respond to this person, but had to comment on the line "If there were more pit bulls, there would be more pit bull attacks". There are thousands of pit bulls in Ontario, after the ban came in thousands of innocent dogs were killed, numerous others were shipped out of the province. Pit bull is a look, there are three pure-bred dogs in the list, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Pit Bull Terrier, but the ban includes the generic pit bull and any dog that resembles the above three. In the town where I live, there are many pit bulls, only a few rotties.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  74. Regardless of any ones opinion of the breed, the bsl specific sections of the DOLA are unconstitutional, vague and gross violations of Charter rights. Being able to enter your home to sieze your property (and yes, in the eyes of the law, dogs are property unfortunately) based soley on a suspicion based on a look without warrant, facing a lengthy and costly delay to defend yourself and your innoocence, not being able to enter or move about portions of this country all because you are a dog owner, the list goes on. Yes, 'pit bulls' have a bad reputation, yes, they are capable of causing damage when in the wrong hands and the wrong situation...but bans do not work. Education, enforceable sanctions and follow through does. Comparable to guns....does banning handguns stop street and gang violence? No, if anything it makes it more of a risk as it has to go further underground where no regulations exist whatsoever.

    Don't like the breed? Fine, that is your right, afforded to you by this great country, but being able to love the breed, thats the same right for those to choose

    1 year ago
    17 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
  75. This ban has failed to do what its intent initially was. Pit bulls are still being bred. Killing off the breed is such an immoral, disgusting and sick thing to so. Educate yourselves. There is no way of proving that it is in fact the breed that makes pit bulls "dangerous". Open your minds before opening your mouths.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  76. For those looking for Bite Statistics for Ontario

    There is no Provincial Database of bites.

    The Liberals refused to comply with most of the recommendations of a Coroner`s Inquest into the death of Courtney Trempe killed by a NON 'pit bull'

    Apparently her death was of no interest.

    http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/courtneyinquest.html

    So much for their professed interest in Public Safety.

    1 year ago
    13 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  77. The Liberals did not even bother replying to the OVMA when they urged Repeal of BSL in an open letter to all 3 Leaders.

    Kathleen Wynne has carried on the tradition of not listening or responding to Experts.

    http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/ontario-veterinary-medical-association-urges-repeal-of-breed-specific-provisions-in-dog-owners-liability-act-dola/

    1 year ago
    13 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  78. I moved to Alberta with my SO and we got a lovely pit last Christmas, sad news is I am pregnant and would like to move home to where all my family is but can't without giving up my dog... I really hope the bill goes through because it is ridiculous that I have to choose between giving up my dog or to be closer to my family in Ontario! This ban on pits is ridiculous because my dog, and almost all the people I know out here own pits and they are all beautiful and so loving... Blame the owners not the dogs !!

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  79. For those of you who want to exterminate 3 rare Breeds & short haired mutts with whip tails & square heads(aka 'pit bulls')...what would you like the Liberals to do with Husky type dogs?

    http://brindlestick.blogspot.ca/2011/10/yasir-naqvi-ottawa-centre-responds-to.html

    Proof positive that the Liberals don`t even believe their own nonsense.

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  80. What would you do if there was a knock on your door & A/C said we`re here to seize your 'pit bull'?

    http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/breedbanslabradormistake.htm

    Now what would you do if you didn`t have CKC/AKC registration papers?

    Remember it`s reverse onus.

    Crown doesn`t have to prove your dog is a unicorn.

    You have to prove it isn`t!

    The Liberals have stripped the presumption of innocence from dog owners.ALL of them.

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  81. I will never be a Liberal supporter as long as this ridiculous BSL is in effect.

    When I was newly impressionable by political parties as I started to actively participate in voting, the Liberals dropped this bomb and lost my support (and willingness to listen to any of their words) immediately.

    BSL doesn't work. Innocent animals, families and communities are suffering!!!

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  82. Good point! There is no 'innocent until proven guilty' for these innocent furry family members. Such a shame that hasbeen stripped from them.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  83. Ontario will be a better place for everyone as soon as the cruel and unnecessary Breed Specific Legislation is annulled.

    1 year ago
    13 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  84. It is time to fix this terrible mistake!

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  85. When this law originally passed, I watched it happen on tv, and couldn't believe what I was seeing.

    I lived the first 42 years of my life in Ontario, and was forced to leave because my only other option was to hand my best and only friend over to some bureaucrat to be killed for political gain.

    I live in Alberta now, and I'm not alone. There are a lot of pitbull owners in the West now, who are former Ontario residents.

    Some of us would like to return home. Some want, if nothing else, to be able to visit our friends and families we were forced to leave behind. That is not possible. We have committed no crime, we did nothing wrong, but we are exiles in our own country.

    The last time I looked, this is Canada, NOT Soviet Russia. Canadians don't exile people to Siberia (or another province).

    Except... Ontario most certainly does.

    Why? Simply because the WORST premier in Ontario's history, BAR NONE, wanted to create the illusion of "DOING SOMETHING" about a non-existant problem, in order to distract attention from his own government's mismanagement.

    This cannot stand.

    1 year ago
    16 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Tom I so agree, I know personally three responsible tax paying citizens who moved out of Ontario and hear of so many others. One such singer, songwriter, artist made a personal video about her move.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  86. As a breed, pit bull terriers earned a bad reputation in Ontario. This pro pit bull campaign now sounds a lot like the NRA campaign in the US, pit bulls don't bite people, owners do. Well in that case should we not start paying attention to the fitness of pit bull owners to own dogs capable of such attacks? After all pit bulls were bred to heighten certain characteristics desired by breeders. With some success. Dogs always reflect their owners, as children do their parents. If you want to own certain breeds maybe owners should face certain requirements. Assault weapons require different licensing from .22 rifles for shooting targets and rabbits.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    5 Disagreed
    1. The thing is though pit bulls aren't inherently dangerous like a gun. I also think that nobody here has stated that "people bite" instead of dogs. What they're saying is that a human who lets dogs be aggressive without controlling it(as in if you know Fluffy doesn't like kids, muzzle it before it bites somebody) will just get a different dog that they'll raise to have aggressive tendencies. We aren't like the NRA because we're talking about living things that don't actually kill people as often as it's claimed... if you die from a bullet wound that's pretty evident... but there are studies showing that the vast amount of "pit bull" attacks... aren't. I read an article where the picture of the dog was a LAB and they claimed it was a pit because it bit. We want the focus on the owners because the owners are the ones not controlling the dogs. We want the focus on the owners because in Calgary that model worked to reduce bites. This doesn't. This bill has done NOTHING for it's main cause of reducing bites. To say that any pit bull should have to wear a muzzle is to say that they'll bite, yet they have been with us for so many decades without being considered a problem... what happened? People who create the dogs that viciously attack anything that they see abuse them(note I'm not speaking of dogs with neurological problems here). We need to stop those people. Stopping the person with Sparks down the street from going to the dog park won't stop the person who neglects and abuses their dog from just finding another breed. Various breeds have been hated before for being "inherently aggressive" and people moved on to new dog breeds so that they wouldn't be "caught"... why support this vicious cycle? Calgary has been fixing their bite rates SO MUCH by saying "if your dog attacks unprovoked we are charging you" - we don't use that system yet, at least not properly. Say own what dog you want but you are responsible for if something happens and then bite rates drop. That's what the science says. Science says guns cause damage when used, that isn't true of keeping pit bulls. Many live happy lives without ever attacking anybody... however people who want a big mean tough dog will find one that isn't a pit and they won't stop an attack if they don't care to. Let's control them, please. I don't want any dog being trained to attack me, regardless of breed.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. Back in 2004, when they started to talk about this ban, the media had a field day, reporting incidents, anything that had the word pit bull in it. On the same weekend that a child was attacked by a chow chow and had to be air lifted to the children's hospital, a pit bull and a doberman got into a fight. Guess which one made all the papers, the dog fight. The other only made the local papers. There were three attacks by german shepards at that time too, thing is Michael Bryant, the jerk behind the ban, well, he grew up with shepards, so he said that that was not normal behaviour for the breed, and dismissed those incidents. Two of them involved hospitalization. So why did Bryant give shepards a break but nailed the so called pit bulls (which there was never any real pictures of the offending dogs, just those ones that the media always bring forward when it is a so called pit bull attack). There is no news in dog attacks unless it is a pit bull. There was an incident a while back, man put his dog out at night, it is dark, dog gets attacked, man cannot see what attacks his dog, but he said he figured it was a pit bull. Made the news.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. Shouldn`t Husky Type dogs have the bad reputation?

      http://brindlestick.blogspot.ca/2011/10/yasir-naqvi-ottawa-centre-responds-to.html

      Perhaps the Media & the Liberals have caused the bad reputation for 3 rare Breeds & short haired mutts with whip tails & square heads aka 'pit bulls'

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  87. The ban on certain types of dogs was designed to help reduce injuries from dog attacks to adults and children.

    The ban was based on the following:

    1- The breed or mixed breed of dog most likely to attack humans (despite responsible owners)

    2- The dog who is most likely to cause the most damage when attacking a human being.

    I think that the legislation was well meaning, considering that:

    1- Many,many dog owners are not responsible with the ownership of their dogs. I live on a busy street with large lawns and a lot of people walking their dogs (at least 20 dogs a day). Around 40% of dog owners do not pickup after their dog poo left on lawns.

    2- Dog owners who are responsible with the behaviour of their dogs are often faced with "but he never bit anyone before" from their dog. A friend of mine who is a world recognized expert on dog behaviour despite all his expertise, was unable to stop his shitzu from biting people, and had to get rid of his dog.

    3- Fines or removal of the dog of irresponsible dog owners has never stopped them from being irresponsible owners. Such punishment does not work.

    The main complaint about the current legislation is the vagueness about what constitutes a dangerous breed. While it is easy to say that the ownership of a black bear is dangerous to people, the definition of a pitbull is vague and confusing. This is an area of this legislation that needs to be revisited, so that dog-owners-to-be know exactly what kind of dog not to get.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    15 Disagreed
    1. Okay, so let me get it straight.. Bill 132 was put forth to protect the public from a breed most likely to bite (stats show that is not a pit bull type dog) and a breed that would do the most damage (again, stats show thar a pit bull type dog has only ever killed ONE person in Canada (its owner was being attavked with a bat) yet husky type breeds have killed numerous). Right.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Better Green World

      You have your facts wrong. You must have gotten them from the government. The legislation could be made acceptable if the words "pit bull" were removed and replaced with "dangerous dog". Period.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  88. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    Better Green World; Thanks for your input but you might want to look at the study done called "Breed Differences in Canine Aggression" by Deborah L. Duffy a, Yuying Hsu b, James A. Serpell done at the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society, Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3900 Delancey Street,Philadelphia, PA 19104-6010, USA. The intensive study seriously disputes the comments you made. Here is a direct quote from the study; "Breeds with the greatest percentage of dogs exhibiting serious aggression (bites or bite attempts) toward humans included Dachshunds, Chihuahuas and Jack Russell Terriers (toward strangers and owners)". FACT is there are many professional studies that dispute your statements. To name another? "IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? COMPARISON OF GOLDEN RETRIEVERS AND DOGS AFFECTED BY BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION REGARDING AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR”. THAT study helped to remove a breed ban recently in Germany; as they found virtually NO difference. The study goes hand in hand with the ATTS scores as both the retrievers and the American pit bull terrier TIE with other and rate among the highest of all breeds. YOU said "fines or removal of the dog of irresponsible dog owners has never stopped THEM from being irresponsible owners. Such punishment does not work". SO THEN who IS being punished by Ontario’s breed ban? RESPONSIBLE OWNERS! THAT IS WHO. Fact is there is NO "dangerous breed" and this has been documented in study, after study, after study. The American Medical Veterinary Association invested many of their resources and much of their time and put together a TASK FORCE, after which they made a statement AGAINST breed specific legislation (BSL). They ended using all the information gleamed and put a booklet together called "A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention". What they found in THAT task force makes sense; a community approach makes sense; breed bans do not. You want to KNOW what breeds are most responsible for dog bites in the GTA for the last TEN years according to Toronto Animal Services? Would you believe #1 is the German Sheppard; #2 is the Parson Jack Russell and number #3? YOU ready for this? You sure? It is the Labourer Retriever! Read about a lot of "vicious" attacks by those dogs in our newspapers? NO because media does not find them "newsworthy" or "interesting" enough. The ban was "smoke and mirrors" and it has been cited in a study it was more or less used to take the heat of all the publicity for the gang shootings in 2005. Media still refers to 2005 as "the year of the gun" and yes the ban did become the Toronto papers new focus- as it was indeed very controversial; WITH REASON. The current legislation should have NEVER happened in the first place. Every credible expert testified AGAINST it of which the list is too long to put here. Do you know what it means when people call something a "red herring"? Here is a link to some documentation if you are truly interested in becoming educated on this issue, which I truly hope you will be. http://supporthersheysbill.com/resources-documentation/

    1 year ago
    19 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  89. The fact that this topic has more votes than any other topic on this site has genuinely made me lose a little bit faith in humanity. I mean this very honestly, in that I actually got excited about the prospect of this website, and now I just feel sick to my stomach. I cannot believe that with all the incredibly important social issues raised here, which span the gamut from education to end of life choices, that everyone is wasting their time talking about what dogs are or are not allowed to be owned in Ontario. What is this telling our politicians about the people of Ontario? Do we really care more about owning a specific dog than we do about the future of our entire society, the education of our children and the rights we have when it comes time for us to die? I think everyone here needs to do a little bit of introspective thinking, and hopefully realize the overwhelming insignificance of this issue in the sea of other critical issues facing the people of Ontario. You should all be a little bit ashamed of what you've done here.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    19 Disagreed
    1. I'd say public safety and citizen unrest are worthy issues. That's where the dog debate originates. The problem is that some people, who don't know anything about the issue feel it's better to rip families apart creating animosity, even rage, within the communities than to deal with the public safety problem by promoting community involvement.

      1 year ago
      16 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. You talk abt educating our children.Do you really want children to be taught to judge a book by it`s cover,to bully others based on a stereotype,to kill what they fear,that some are more entitled to RIGHTS(Presumption of Innocence) than others?

      Do you not care how your tax $ are spent?

      Each prosecution based on nothing more than the LOOK of a dog costs taxpayers $100,000.

      Do you not see a better use for that money?

      Homecare for Seniors

      More baths in LTC or Physiotherapy(which has just been cut by the Liberals)

      How about treatment for Children with Autism?

      You`d rather they waste your money on a red herring like BSL?

      Your Apathy & inability to see the forest for the trees says more about you.

      There was NO reason for this.They did it to distract from their own scandals at the time & apparently it`s still working because we`re still talking abt this rather that the present scandals ie Gas Plants,Ornge,Deleted emails.

      This law needs to be repealed for many reasons.

      The dogs are collateral damage to what the Liberals have done.

      They need to own up & put a stop to this now!

      Have you given any thought to what the disabled including Veterans with PTSD are supposed to do if they have a Service Dog that MIGHT fall under this idiotic Legislation?

      Do they have to acquire TWO Service Dogs,1 for Ontario & the other for every sane area?

      If you think of no one else,think of Veterans & the Disabled!

      Who are the Liberals to tell Veterans from Canada or anywhere else for that matter that they can`t live in Ontario because of the LOOK of a dog whether it`s a pet or Service Dog!

      Seriously think of that.

      1 year ago
      15 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. Owen, all the issues you mention are important, but the liberals trying to tell us what dogs we can own was important enough to them to "waste" parliamentary time on a ban that every knowledgeable person told them was counter productive when it comes to public safety. What does that tell you about the government, should be your question.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  90. This is the kind of fringe issue that is going to rise to the top when you crowdsource a political policy. There are a few thousand people that are really worked up about this, and the rest of us are like "Really? Bit Bulls?". Imagine if Liberals made this the central piece of their platform? Forget about the environment or economy, let's breed more pitbulls.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    16 Disagreed
    1. Josh, really there is no such breed as a pit bull. One if every four households are said to have dogs. That's all a "pit bull" is. Just a mixed breed dog. Suggest you value your rights and freedoms just a little bit more. I mean really? You think you are so mindless to have your elected official start to tell and dictate to you what even your the appearance of your dog has to be? THINK ABOUT IT. You really do not think that our legislators should NOT Be called out for shoddy, costly, harsh, cruel, ineffective, unenforceable laws?

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Josh. Do you own a dog? If not, let's for a moment pretend you do. Your pup is not a pit bull HOWEVER it fits the description what a pit bull is as per BSL. A neighbour calls Animal Services to report your pup is an illegal pit bull. AC arrive, agree it's a pit bull, seize and hand you a citation. You now have to appear in court and hire a lawyer. You see Josh, as per BSL, AC doesn't have to prove your pup is a pit bull. The onus is on you to prove it isn't. You go to court and lose. The judge orders your pup put down. You now have to go home and tell your family your beloved pup is dead. Not for anything it did, only for how it looked. Would that upset you Josh? Would that make you angry enough to take up the fight to end BSL? When BSL came into effect, many people didn't worry or care because their dog was not a pit bull. When AC came knocking, seizing innocent dogs, residents of Ontario began to care. BSL is not just about pit bulls. It affects every dog that resembles one or not. Here is one example: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/breedbanslabradormistake.htm

      1 year ago
      16 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. Josh - it should be a concern for everyone that laws are being made against all repeatable and reputable evidence and expert opinion. This careless lack of accountability could be easily extrapolated to the issues you're most concerned about. Economy-wise, your money, your tax dollars, is supporting a media-hype driven murder program.. It's principle.

      (I don't own a "pitbull")..

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. In my opinion, the law has nothing to do with dogs, and everything to do with using a red herring to erode civil liberties.

      Even the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision of Superior Court, said that there was no evidence to support banning dogs in Ontario. They said that the government has the right to ban property, that they don't need a valid reason for it and don't have to be able to narrowly define it.

      This is an extremely important issue. It's about warrantless entry on a pretext, unreasonable search and seizure in public on a pretext, restrictions on mobility, a reversal of the burden of proof - where a defendant has to prove a negative, and an impossible one at that.

      It has nothing to do with dogs, they are just the 'tool in the toolbox' to quote the Attorney General who pushed the law through. It has everything to do with your right to be free from harassment when you aren't doing anything wrong.

      People need to wake up on this - it is definitely one of the most important issues to face Ontarians in decades.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  91. this stupid law has been around long enough. time to get rid of it and start making people responsible for the actions of their dogs instead- regardless of breed! if the liberal party ever wants a vote from me again, ditch this law asap!

    1 year ago
    12 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  92. Put an end to breed specific legislation. Stop the stereotyping, and start enforcing responsible pet owners!

    1 year ago
    32 Agreed
    7 Disagreed
  93. I really hope this law gets taken out! I believe its the owners who don't realize how strong of a breed they can be and those who don't know how to properly train/work with these dogs so many ways the government could solve this issie though!

    1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  94. I agree with jr pelland - dog owners should be licensed. Also, it should be harder to own a status dogs ('pit bulls', Rottweilers, mastiffs, etc) than a little dog. Have the potential owner(s) interviewed/screened to ensure that they understand what kind of dog they are getting. The owners have to have the mental capacity to realize what these larger dogs need (more space, more exercise, more training/socializing, etc) in order to make them good pets. Not just things to have around to make the owners look good/tough.

    I think a lot of unnecessary dog deaths can be solved by the above.

    I own a 'pit bull' and she's now 10. She's had to wear a muzzle for 8 years of her life. I hope that this ban will be ended before she passes on so that she can be seen by others as the sweet dog that she is, and not one that looks like Hannibal Lecter, forcing people that don't know us to cross the street in fear ...

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  95. You don't even need to own a dog (of any breed) to understand that this, BSL, is simply a provincially funded murder program. Please make laws based on evidence and credible expertise - not on media hype...it's embarrassing really.

    1 year ago
    13 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Premier Wynne is quoted as saying "there are too many dogs in Ontario anyway". Ky, I couldn't agree with you more. And, if Kathleen Wynne were to deny she made this comment, then I would apply reverse onus, in that she would have to PROVE she didn't say it.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  96. It seems to me that this also comes under the innocent until proven guilty idea. I have friends whose dogs are trained, maintained properly, socialized and much loved pets and my friends and their dogs are punished for the ill behaviour and bad management of others. Banned breed people could be required to take classes before ownership and when they get their dogs and I think that would weed out most of the bad owners. I doubt that the Liberal government will do much to eliminate this ridiculous ban, not much faith in them per se.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  97. The Liberals just can't admit that they are wrong on this issue (or any other). A new bill has now been reintroduced into the Legislature and I am confident that we will soon see an end to this unnecessary and cruel legislation, as well as quite possibly the end of the Liberals.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pit-bull-named-years-top-american-hero-dog-at-the-2013-american-humane-association-hero-dog-awards-226656851.html

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  98. Today I was at petsmart buying my doggy food and treats and whatnot and a lady was standing in front of me in line with an adult chocolate lab and another couple walked into the store also with a chocolate lab, this one was younger and smaller and the couple asked the lady if their labs could say hello because they thought it was cute their dogs looked alike and the lady agreed, the older lab was wearing a muzzle the one that just wraps around the snout, she broke free from that one and lunged herself at the smaller dog and tried attacking him. Am I supposed to think all labs are dog aggressive now? No I do not think that BUT I have met far more dog aggressive labs than Pit bull type dogs. Please end this ban, it really is all the owners fault.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  99. BSL does not work in Ontario. Pit Bull puppies are still being born in Ontario because too many people do not even know the law exists or just dont care. In the mean time Presa Canario dogs and like breeds are being favored for fighting or making bad owners look tough or mean. End BSL and hold dog owners responsible for their dogs actions not the breed.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. I agree that BSL does not and never will work. I agree that puppies are still being born in Ontario that would fall under the legislation based on appearance. These puppies are mixed breed dogs of unknown lineage. The term 'pit bull' is used to profile these dogs. "Pit Bull" is not a breed. I totally disagree that criminals are turning to other breeds. Why would they do that? They are criminals and don't care about bans. These people were around before the ban, are around now and will be around after BSL is repealed. BSL has nothing to do with dog fighting. It has been an offence under the criminal code for quite some time now.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  100. BSL does not work. All of the professionals in the field that testified stated this before the law was enacted. Politicians had all of this information at their disposal but chose to ignore the professional advice received and enacted laws based on their own personal opinions (or using this as a distraction to remove focus from other political activities as many have suggested). This is the height of arrogance. What is the use of asking the opinions of the subject matter experts under the guise of using this information to base your decision, if you are just going to waste taxpayers time and money and do whatever you wanted to in the first place regardless of what they say?

    This law is downright embarrassing to citizens of Ontario and is making us a laughing stalk around the globe. Refusing to revoke is just as arrogant. The behaviour of the liberal MPPs during the second committee hearing on Bill 16 with regards to the amendments put forth was deplorable. They voted against changes they had agreed were improvements during the hearings. They did not do this in the interest of public safety. They did this to ensure the Bill went through 'as is' knowing that it was going to go through regardless. This type of defiance is similar to a child throwing a temper tantrum. There is no room for this type of passive aggressive behaviour when it comes to public safety.

    Refusing to bring the bill back to third reading as it was before parliament was prorogued is not only a waste of time, but also a blatant waste of taxpayers money. If the Liberal party insists on behaving this way the cost should come out of their salaries!

    In addition there are many dog owners now terrified because awareness of the vague and subjective verbiage used to define a pitbull in the legislation is starting to become public knowledge. Dog owners of different breeds are now afraid their dogs may be seized because someone considers them 'significantly similar' to a pitbull type dog. There is no mechanism in place for Ontario citizens to pro-actively find out if a dog they would like to purchase or adopt fits this 'description' ahead of time and is then guaranteed to be safe. This is very disconcerting to the majority of dog owners who feel their pets are part of their family. It's like raising a child and not knowing if someone is going to come to your door and take your child away to be killed. For example. A pitbull has a tail, teeth, and walks on all fours. So does my cat. A cat is most similar to a pitbull/dog than it is to a human. So is my cat therefore 'significantly similar' to a pitbull? Depends on who is deciding and what criteria they are using. This may be an extreme example but I think it demonstrates exactly what other dog owners have to worry about every day.

    I have no political party preference. But if the Liberal party continues to behave this way against public wishes and contrary to statistical data and expert advice from those in the field, any trust I have left will be gone.

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Great comment. One thing I would like to add is the waste of courts time and the money spent with people simply going to court to defend the LOOK of their non offending K9. I would estimate over one Billion. No stats can confirm this as they refuse to provide the information. Many real criminal & law breakers are released due to delays in getting to court. Why, cause their are too many a responsible, law abiding, tax paying Ontario Citizens using up valuable court time JUST defending the look of their K9 and kudos to each one of them.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  101. For those who think that Bully breeds are nothing but vicious killers, read this link about how a "Pitbull" was named the 2013 top hero dog by the American Humane Society: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pit-bull-named-years-top-american-hero-dog-at-the-2013-american-humane-association-hero-dog-awards-226656851.html

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  102. It is high time that we stop discriminating against certain "breeds". Breed specific legislation is ANYTHING but specific!!! Any dog that "looks" like a pitbull.... where are the specifics there? It is exaclty the opposite, completely arbitrary!!! Much research ans PROOF exists that "pitbull" type dogs are NOT more dangerous than any other dog. PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED!!!

    1 year ago
    25 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  103. Wynne's email to a BSL fighter is on the Ontario 2013 Election Page on supporthersheysbill.com

    PLZ read Liberal supporters!

    She will never call Hershey's Bill for 3rd Reading w/o massive Public outcry.

    She needs to go to EndBSL!

    Look on the left sidebar

    1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. I think Wynne responded as a wise and responsible politician who puts public safety first and I agree with her. Any change in this policy must be based on concrete facts and solid safety research. There is no such thing as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ for animals - human safety takes unconditional precedence.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      14 Disagreed
    2. Unfortunately Slava is not aware that the liberals have been shown and told all the concrete facts...and yet they ignore us and do nothing to fix THEIR mistake.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. Slava,

      We`re NOT talking about Innocent until Proven guilty for DOGS!

      It`s about Ontario Citizens.Dog Owners have been stripped of the Presumption of Innocence.

      If you are charged with a crime,are you presumed innocent or are you presumed guilty?

      Ontario dog owners are simply asking to have their Rights restored,the same Rights you have!

      If this was EVER abt dogs in the 1st place & BSL worked wouldn`t you think they would have banned Husky type dogs?

      Use your head.

      http://bit.ly/ZngodQ

      They used a red herring...a shape of dog to strip people of their fundamental Rights.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. Slava, what you do not get is that the ban was never based on "concrete facts and solid safety research", it was a smoke screen to take our attention away from one of the first McGuinty broken promises, about not raising taxes, and then of course, he brought in the health tax. Bryant, who was the one behind the ban (and who we now know was drinking a bit too much back then) did everything he could to steer peoples attention to his ban, and he sure did not use facts. This was never about safety, if it had been, it would not have been breed specific, but about aggressive dogs, no matter their look, breed or shape.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  104. Have a look at ReEstablish Innocent until Proven Guilty under Fair & Just Society.

    That is exactly why this Ban must be repealed!

    That is what they have stripped from every single dog owner in Ontario & every dog Owner who wants to move to Ontario!

    Where would Michael Bryant be today if he had had to prove his innocence?

    If the Liberals are charged with a criminal offence for deleting emails will they be presumed guilty?

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  105. The comments are so heated... I have refrained but will post one last time. For those with the crazy ideas that these are horrible dogs who just won't see the light, give up on them. There is no point trying to convert them. It's done. What we can focus on is educating the rational, sane people who just plain don't know. For EVERYONE, I urge you to watch this video. This is a panel of EXPERTS. These are world reknowned doctors, behaviourists, etc. who have specialized in behaviour, and who have devoted their lives and money to understanding dogs and dog behaviour. None of the fanatics have done that. I urge anyone to argue with the facts in this video. The rest of the "naysayers" are NOT experts. The people in this video, I TRUST. Please everyone, give up 13 minutes and watch this. If this doesn't change your mind, nothing will, and move on.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. this is an excellent video, well done, well researched. Wondering how many of those out there that are saying keep the ban have taken the time, it is long 13:49 minutes, to watch this. Take the time. You might actually learn something.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  106. Wynne`s Email

    http://supporthersheysbill.com/ontario-election-2013/

    "Thank you very much for writing me, and taking the time to participate in this important conversation.

    Molly and Buster, our “twins”, were fantastic companions. I truly enjoyed all of the privileges of being a pet owner – the unconditional love, the greetings after a hard day’s work and the daily walks. I also enjoyed the responsibilities of pet ownership, and that included ensuring that our dogs were well trained and didn’t pose a risk to public safety.

    Ontario Liberals made the decision to restrict pit bulls. After a series of horrific accidents around the province, we decided that the interests of public safety would be best-served by restricting that particular breed. My position is that repealing this legislation would be a step backwards. I hear your concern and I know that this legislation has presented challenges for some dog owners, but I believe that all Ontarians want what is in the best interests of public safety."

    All the best,

    Kathleen

    OVMA`s Letter to McGuinty re this Legislation

    http://bit.ly/MgMmEP

    As someone else mentioned this Legislation reflects a bigger problem with the Liberals.

    They refuse to listen to Experts.

    They refuse to admit when they`ve made a mistake.

    They refuse to apologize.

    They refuse to correct their mistakes.

    This Party needs to go.

    This Province is in a mess because they`re ALWAYS right & everyone else is wrong,even the Experts.

    Maybe Wynne has a Veterinary degree from an online School in Nigeria.

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. I think Wynne needs to GO away NOW!

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Collectively the liberals have a degree in wasting tax dollars.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  107. BSL only affects good people for the most part. A pit bull puppy can sell for 1000$ easily with no paperwork in Toronto. you see them on the facebook market groups and kijiji all the time. they arent going anywhere. and the people who shouldnt have these dogs are the ones breeding them when it's illegal. drug dealers, dog fighters, they dont take there dogs for walks in the park; they chain them in a fenced yard or a house guarding whatever it is they guard; or fight them in underground rings. These dogs rarely see the light of day, BSL or not.good people take these dogs in to give them a chance at a better life, and have to live in fear. what we need is n aggressive dogs act, like calgary. if you see a vicious dog you report it, simple. they deal with each situation uniquely. not like here where you can walk down the street with a vicious dog without a mussel, as long as it isnt a pit bull.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Joe that was perfectly said. Absolutely you are so right.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  108. Although an unjust law, this should be not be getting the attention it's getting here. Hospitals, homelessness, child poverty, education for immigrants, job security, etc.. will move our province forward. Not this.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    17 Disagreed
    1. Really?

      Each Prosecution is costing Taxpayers $100,000.

      Could that money be used by Hospitals?

      Would it help the homeless?

      Could it be used to alleviate Child Poverty?

      Immigrants? Do we only want Liberal approved Immigrants with Liberal approved family dogs in Ontario?

      Job Security-Would you like to have to give up YOUR job & move out of Ontario to save the life of your family dog due to Liberal lies?

      They USED a red herring to distract the Public from Scandals back in 2005 & this issue will go away when they admit that & repeal this law!

      They don`t get to play Politics on the backs of dead dogs.

      http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/ontario-veterinary-medical-association-urges-repeal-of-breed-specific-provisions-in-dog-owners-liability-act-dola/

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  109. Our daughter is a veterinarian working in the UK. She had every intention of moving back to Ontario once her training was finished. She won't consider the move home now because she has two beautiful rescued staffordshire terriers. She says "as long as my Dogs aren't welcome in Ontario then neither am I and I wont be moving home". Our family has also worked and volunteered for our local shelter for over fourteen years now and our vast experiences with Pit bulls have always been positive until this ridiculous legislation came into effect. We have successfully re-homed many pit bulls in other provinces and into the USA where BSL doesn't exist. I have always voted Liberal; however, if the Liberal party of Ontario refuses to listen to experts and refuses to consider the fact that they might have over reacted then I will have no other choice but to vote for a different party in the hope that they will be reasonable, and I will continue on with the fight to have this absurd law repealed. Place the blame and subsequent penalties for dog attacks (by any breed) where they belong, with the owner. The sooner you do this the safer we will all be.

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  110. I live in Nova Scotia but cannot even consider traveling to Ontario to visit friends and family as I cannot in good conscience spend my hard earned dollars on Ontario tourism while Breed Specific Legislation is in place. Primarily, I cannot travel with my dogs, both Boxers, although one is most likely a mix and her appearance is too questionable to risk seizure in Ontario. I have turned down training only available in Ottawa for my Federal Government job, as I am staunch in my beliefs that all dogs should be treated as individual cases and not lumped together by breed.

    Repeal Breed Specific Legislation, and I'll feel free to travel to your province once again.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  111. for any of those that SUPPORT BSL...Ohio removed their BSL after 20 years. what does that tell you??

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. The dogs place of origin, (Ireland and UK) countries that had them the longest out of everyone, has them banned. What does that tell you ? Burnaby BC just installed bsl because they see how Ontario and Manitoba's BSL works.

      http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2012/06/29/injuryprev-2012-040389.full

      BSL doesn't have to work for pit bull owners in order to work.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      12 Disagreed
  112. BSL.......boooooooooooooooo

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  113. Ontario is the only province where ambassadors of PitBulls like Junior, Elle, and Slater are not even allowed to cross the border. It's time to wake up Ontario and stop discriminating like the rest of the provinces. We have MPP's across the province who are trying to introduce laws that deal with dangerous dogs and hold irresponsible humans accountable. Listen to these MPP's as they have done proper research and they have listened to experts in the canine field. This website is an opportunity for Liberal party to find out what the people want and it is clear that this is an important topic to the people of Ontario.

    1 year ago
    13 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  114. This letter could have been addressed to the Liberals

    http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/your-letters/what-will-be-burnaby-s-response-when-our-children-get-bitten-by-other-breeds-1.651428

    It applies to all who have the Power to make laws & to those who abuse that Power.

    1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  115. Instead of listening to the experts and Ontario voters, the Liberals chose to listen to rhetoric and have their palms greased the the US hate groups. Are you listening now Premier Wynne? Do you think we are going to go away? Guess again!

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  116. "Breed" bans (which are really 'shape' bans) are a type of magical thinking. They presume that appearance dictates behaviour. They also play to a low-information demographic in that they confer second-class status on some dog owners based on the appearance of their pets rather than their actions.

    Despite overwhelming expert opinion and evidence - statistical, scientific and anecdotal - showing that no particular breed or shape of dog is any more or less dangerous than any other, misinformed governments are still considering dog 'breed' banning, even in the 21st century. It makes one wonder what the real purpose of the legislation is, since it obviously doesn't relate to dogs or dog bites at all.

    In fact, the three breeds banned in Ontario are among the rarest in Canada, so what's up with that?

    1 year ago
    12 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  117. I think there is much more to this than the supporters realize. so let me Ask a few questions with obvious answers as to why BSL needs to remain in part.

    Are these pit bull dogs specific to the illegal, immoral, unethical sports of dog fighting ?

    does that give reason for specific controls ?

    would removing those control's contribute to irresponsible ownership of dogs that have combative functions ???

    I see BSL as a much needed set of guidelines to ensure responsible ownership for fighting dogs, It isn't based on hate, its based on the historic failures pit bull owners have provided these dogs. Giving into the needs of the source of the dogs problems (pit bull owners) won't help the dog one bit. They need Protection from people. They NEED that. without that you will have a failure occurrence rate that will bring BSL back, because these dogs fighting and biting has a way of killing full grown adults, children, neighbors, and peoples dogs on the street. These dogs do what mankind bred them to do, those that wish to ignore that and place them back into the hands of the general public ?? Can't make a claim that they are trying to help the dog. These dogs are not like most other dogs, Most other dogs don't have the highest DBRF % in human history, most other dogs aren't having their "image changed" from a dog fighter to a family dog, and most other dogs aren't specific to illegal sport. People being the source of the dogs problems won't help the dog by allowing its access to the general public, it will be a means for the original abuse to continue. You want BSL removed ???? you inturn are ok with the dogs abuse. Keep that in mind. BSL has done wonders in Ontario, to the point that Calgary AB can't compete with. (the last years worth of pit bull attacks in Calgary speaks for itself)

    These dogs are specific to these behaviors, these immoral sports, and unethical people as they always have been.... That needs to be controlled. BSL was a success and the rest of North America that doesn't have BSL, suffers through the dogs situational failures and collateral damage, Ontario Minimized it, Burnaby BC just re-installed BSL, Cause removing it doesn't provide the dog protection from people, it gives them free license.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    15 Disagreed
    1. its clearly obvious Scott dont know anything about dogs in general or what BSL actually does to those that own a dog..ANY dog...if your cool with forfeiting your rights as a Canadian citizen then shame on you for disrespecting ALL our lost soldiers that fought for the very rights you so blatantly disrespect...There really is no need to keep looking under your bed for the boogy man when all you have to do is look into the mirror...Ive read your comments on other threads and actually feel sorry for you ...may you find peace and solace in TRUTH its out there and easy to find. If you dont beleive the words of the hundreds of thousands of people that are in the know reagrding BSL...go adopt a dog and learn first hand...

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. How can you work with dogs yet know so little about them? Who the hell are you to tell me which breed of dog I can and can't own. When I was a little girl my family took in a pit bull puppy that came from a dog fighting ring. She was so young and already was being trained to fight. She turned out to be the best friend I ever had. Miss her dearly. I will always fight for this breed. Have you looked into the eyes of a pit bull? Their eyes have so much emotion in them. It hurts knowing people like you exist. You know absolutely nothing. Dog fighters don't care if they break the law by fighting dogs so why would they care if they break the law by owning and breeding illegal pit bulls? They don't care that's the point. We need tougher laws that are focused on dog owners and dog abusers. Why should innocent dogs and their owners be punished? Answer that.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. So if we follow your "logic", we are really protecting pit bulls by killing them because we are preventing a few criminals from abusing them in dog fighting operations? That's like saying we should kill orphaned children to guarantee they won't be abused by pedophiles. BSL is not based on logic but on hysteria and misinformation. I actually CARE about public safety and providing communities with good animal services programs. BSL has been unsuccessful at preventing dog bites yet has increased costs for municipalities (taxpayers). I see people tie up their [non pit bull] dogs outside stores and leave them unattended, but that's not illegal. I've seen this result in bites to children. Most dog bites in Ontario still have nothing to do with pit bulls, so is the next illogical step to make another breed illegal? There are successful alternatives to BSL, as YOU are aware but continue to downplay. Your logic is seriously flawed and is leaning towards being in the same camp as those who want to end dog ownership.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  118. your line of thinking is as foolish as banning bait dogs to solve pitbull fighting...

    1 year ago
    13 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Scott Richer, Owner and operator of Working Like a Dog Training services, CAPPDT Member, Wildlife technologist , And practitioner of the Study of Ethology and behavioral Biology. What do you do for a living Dave ???

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      15 Disagreed
    2. You can't save a breed of dog that was created under the premise of its own abuse !!!!!

      you can protect the dog because of it ? or you can do as you all do and ignore it. Ignoring this only makes the stigma that the dog is known for, redundant. What you aren't understanding is Bad people exist !!!! you can continue believing that the good outweigh the bad as a means to justify it, but it doesn't even come close.

      It was a man made mistake to create dogs for animal abuse. It was a man made mistake to inbreed them for it, It was a man made mistake to over populate them, and it will be a selfish man made mistake to return this dog to the likes of "Just Anyone" like you are all begging the gov't to do. I love pit bulls enough to know that what their owners want, needs a responsible devils advocate.

      My Solution includes removing the ban, Just not the breed specific language.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      11 Disagreed
  119. Mr. Scott Richer is WELL known amongst the Anti BSL advocates/animal lovers/veterinary professionals here. I hope the active moderation in this group continues.

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. they hate on me too.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  120. I'm thinking (worrying) after reading some of these comments, that perhaps some crazy off-the-wall dog-owners ought to be banned, rather than our dogs!!!

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      Bob I see you have a family pet. Do you consider your pet a member of your family? Is your dog well trained and behaved. loved? Now picture a neighbour who you are having a dispute with. Might be over a mutual driveway or a fence. They call and report your dog as a "banned breed". Animal control knocks on your door and tells you to hand over your dog and your only recourse is to obtain a lawyer and fight for your non-offending dogs life in the court system. The "onus" is on you to prove your dog is not one of the banned breeds or "similar" to a banned breed. BSL has been used as a "grudge bill" between neighbours many, many times. In the meantime your pet is taken and put in a "special section" at animal control facilities (if you elect to obtain legal council otherwise your pet is put down within a week)where he/she is all but ignored. If you are lucky it takes about a year plus for your pets case to be heard in a court of law (he/she languishes in that cage with barely any contact). If you have children they are beside themselves. BSL is not a joke. Compassionate non-APATHETIC people are indeed outraged and concerned about current legislation as this sort of thing has happened many times to responsible respectable people in Ontario and elsewhere. I WORRY about people, and especially another dog owner, who is obtuse enough not to understand how horrific BSL is.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. Fran: You have assumed correctly that the picture attached to my comment is of my pet dog --- though I prefer to think of him as my constant companion.

      There is no need to lecture me or tell me horror stories about this issue. I have already noted above that I am opposed to the Breed Ban legislation and that I support this submitted suggestion.

      The existing legislation simply does not properly address the problem of those very few dogs that are dangerous (whatever the breed)--- and it is completely unfair to the pet and owners of dogs that are not dangerous but condemned solely on the basis of their breed.

      In addition to my support for this suggestion, I have also noted that there are probably more problematic crazy off-the-wall irrational pet-owners than there are problematic dogs (of any breed). Some of those folks have come out of the woodwork in this forum. And they give a 'bad name' to those who argue rationally and sanely against the existing legislation.

      I've posted some suggestion to this forum related to how elderly persons can be, and too often are, abused in this province. These suggestions --- about an issue of far greater importance --- simply do not generate the kind of off-the-wall emotional concern, outrage and anguish that this pet issue does.

      Note my previous comment above:

      A response to jbdezdez: I support this suggestion, but foolish extremist comments such as yours are not at all helpful. You stated that "there is no difference between profiling humans or dogs". Actually there is a huge difference between profiling humans and dogs. Various breeds of dogs are bred for specific reasons and characteristics -- and thus can be and should be profiled accordingly.

      People are not bred to produce certain 'types' or characteristics (at least not much yet) so profiling doesn't make sense.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. Bob,I honestly don`t understand how you think this is just a dog issue & there are more important issues.

      Tax$ that could be used to HELP the Elderly are being squandered on this nonsense.

      There are many Elderly people who are living in fear & are distressed over the possibility of having their dogs seized.

      I take a Senior to visit her dog in hiding on a weekly basis.

      She has told me that if the dog is found,seized & killed due to BSL she will die with it.

      She sobs on the way home.

      I see her deteriorating before my eyes.

      She didn`t set out to adopt a 'pit bull'.

      She was given a pup for companionship a couple of years ago.

      That pup grew up to have that "look"

      Is suicide not an important issue?

      Someone asked me if this woman was getting help.

      Help?

      This woman is not mentally ill for contemplating suicide.

      She is distraught over this dog.

      Veterans are being told they can`t live in Ontario due to the look of their dog.

      Veterans!!

      We having a Gov`t telling Veterans where they can live??

      How abt the Disabled who use Service Dogs?

      Is accessibility not an important issue?

      Dog owners have been stripped of the Presumption of innocence by this law.

      Is Equality not an important issue?

      As far as I`m concerned THIS IS the most important issue!

      People need to get over this red herring that the Liberals have used.

      This was never abt dogs.

      How did dogs suddenly become the top issue of the day for the Liberals?

      No one was in a panic abt Husky type dogs killing kids?

      No one suggested a Ban on them??

      The Liberals know EXACTLY why they did this.

      And it had NOTHING to do with dogs but everything to do with taking the focus off their scandals.

      It`s working isn`t it?

      We should be talking about Gas Plants,Ornge,deleted emails etc etc etc.

      We`ll get back to other issues when some of us aren`t 2nd class Citizens.

      I want the same Rights as Kathleen Wynne.

      I`m not a criminal until I commit a criminal act.

      And hell will freeze over before a Politician or Political Party will get away with profiling ME as a thug/criminal who doesn`t have the same Rights as other Ontarians because of the LOOK of my dog.

      We need to turn back the clock to when dogs were dogs.

      Because that`s exactly what they are & we won`t allow the Media or Politicians to designate some of them as dangerous beasts.

      My GrandParents & Great GrandParents owned 'pit bulls' when they were called mutts or Heinz 57.

      We`ve had enough of this nonsense & it had better end this year.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    4. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      Thanks for your response Bob. We seem to agree on a number of things. Especially about elder care. Do you have a link to the suggestions you have on this forum about elder care here? I would like to see them. Having been the care-giver for my father in his last seven years, I am truly interested in what you have put forth. Just not enough time in the days sometimes

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    5. In response to Jamiemoira:

      I did NOT state that this is "just a dog issue" nor did I imply that. Kindly don't attribute your extreme emotional interpretations to me.

      1. I am opposed to the legislation that bans breeds.

      2. It is a very important --- a vital --- issue to many people (and to dogs) for a whole list of valid reasons.

      3. However, there are many more issues in Ontario and the world which are far more important. This does not diminish the importance of the issue about breed banning. This does not mean that this stupid legislation should be accepted or ignored. It's just a statement of reality. Eg: The current situation in Syria is more important. The problem of child abuse is much more important. Global warming is more important. Starvation in some African countries is more important. Forced genital mutilation of women is more important. And in my view elder abuse is a more serious issue.

      4. The breed banning issue is so emotional and distressing for some pet owners that they simply cannot talk or think about it rationally or sensibly, and sometimes it's embarrassing to be on the same side with these people who don't discuss -- they just thrash about verbally.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    6. Fran: In response to your inquiry about elder care. I expect we may have shared experiences as I provided care for my mother in her final years (she lived almost to 102).

      I've made several proposals here that are all related to the horrendous systemic abuse and discrimination my mother experienced at the hands of the agencies and individuals who were/are mandated to provide health care and legal protections for seniors. She was treated as if she were a child with no legal rights to make decisions for herself. It was shameful.

      I would love to provide links here however I don't know how, but these can be found by searching: CCAC, Consent & Capacity Board, Legal Aid Ontario, Substitute Decision Legislation, Elder Abuse, Accountability of Professional Governing Bodies.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  121. How about we all learn the lessons rather than ignore the reason !!!!!

    I want Pit bulls Free. From Abuse that comes directly from a specific Person, a person its been stuck with since its inception. Unfortunately I won't get that with this Bill should it go through. I will get this dog back into the hands of just anyone and they can do with it as they please. You all want to believe that Magically because everyone is so responsible and evil people don't exist, and accidents don't happen that the pit bull will never attack another person? unfortunately they happen every other day in the rest of the world and that is because we have responsible controls. Fighting dogs fight. Pointing dogs point, retrievers retrieve, hounds track, herders herd.

    There is an abuse potential that represents, a weaponized potential that separates them from the rest. With biological reasons. Ignoring these facts will just bring around a need for controls in the future.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    14 Disagreed
    1. All though u have made some good points about animal abuse and that is where the government FAILED their punishing the dog/breed for the AGAIN OWNERS ACTIONS. do you honestly believe pit bulls are born evil? genetics does NOT mean destiny..... SCOTT it is people who encourage this behavior instead of positive reinforcement, training, early socialization with KIDS, the elderly, adults AND other animals...... SCOTT..... you are completely missing the great picture here and are being narrow minded! again it doesnt fn matter if u have a pit bull type dog, a rottweiler, dobbie, husky, GSD or a JRT, a Pomeranian a darn poodle the standard or miniature,., if ya cant train it, dont get it,,,, PERIOD ppl think its cute when a lil dog growls and snaps at ppl or other dogs becuz it has iddy biddy eyes, an iddy biddy nose or mouth but the thing is, is that ppl are to fn lazy to train and disagree with such behavior from small or big dogs and again it boils down to.............. wait for it.......... OWNERS NOT BREEDS....... and irrational and unbalanced dog reflects on the owner not breed..... does that make sense? LOL it should to a rational person that is!!!!

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Born Evil ??? I think its still you missing the point. your misconception of Evil as it pertains to a pit bull biting and fighting something. You may see evil, mean, aggression within the act, I see a biological response to environmental stimuli, and its no different than a pointer pointing at a bird. They are supposed to be able to do those things, they are supposed to function that way. the stalking posture of a collie is supposed to be there, is specific to them, a labs ability to swim, all of it specific to what the animal is, how its shaped provides it access to the tools and skill sets for that function. You seem to think that when the dog does it, its evil, mean, aggressive. I don't !!!! I see the dog responding to environmental stimuli the way its biology requires it too. Where I find the Mean, aggression, Evil....... is in allowing your need/right to have one, to take priority over its safety from its original enemy, especially to attack the original messenger trying to get you all to see that. You only ever prove my point for me by Attacking the person that says differently than your, international "change the image campaign",by Karen Delise"

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      10 Disagreed
    3. Scott - I currently have (4) Border Collies and owned (3) others that have passed away of natural causes. I can tell you that out of 7 Border Collies, I would say 2 were phenomenal on sheep - 3 are average and 2 downright suck (and one of those came specifically from herding lines - bred specifically to herd sheep). Just because a Border Collie was "bred" to herd sheep doesn't mean they can all herd sheep!!!!! I also have a Cattle Dog and a Border Collie/Staffy mix.

      Two of my Border Collies were naturals that required almost NO training - the average ones required a lot of training and the other 2 weren't worth the time and effort required to train them.

      My dogs are also trained in Flyball - again, three were naturals and started racing as soon as they were of legal age, three required two or more years of training and one did it just because I wanted her to. Border Collies are considered to be the most coveted breed for dog sports, but not all Border Collies show the same drive and intensity as others.

      Just because a dog is supposed to inherently possess qualities and attributes for a task or job that they were bred to do, doesn't mean they are going to do it naturally.

      Because some believe that all "Pitbulls" are aggressive and dangerous because "that is what they were bred to be like" doesn't fly with me......sorry......and I am comparing this to your own reference that all dogs show traits and tenancies for what they were bred to do.

      I have met Labs that can't swim or are afraid of water; Retrievers that have no desire to retrieve and sighthounds that have no desire to chase.

      Nature versus nurture.......to me, it is apparent that nurture supersedes nature in a lot of cases.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    4. my *main* issue with this comment is that you seem to think that a law is preventing those who don't care about laws to break it! The only people affected are LAW ABIDING citizens. if I criminal wants a pit bull, a ban will do no difference. All this ban does is prevent good people from taking care of and raising these dogs properly, or rehabilitating them. These dogs are being LEFT in the hands of criminals.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  122. As of September 23, 2013..Riverside, MO repealed it's long standing BSL. From the Cities newletter - "The former ban on owning pit bulls has been revised, and the breed is now allowed within the City limits. The new code prohibits owning animals whose behavior has been deemed dangerous -- reegardless of the specific breed."

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  123. As July 16 2013, Rhode Island passed bill HB5671, the bill to outlaw breed discrimination passes full Senate. What this bill will do is make sure that all responsible citizens have their rights intact, and make municipalities address the real cause of dangerous dogs of any kind, reckless and negligent dog owners.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  124. As of May 28 2013, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed AB110 and officially ushers Nevada into breed neutral status. The bill goes into effect October 1, 2013. AB110 includes a very short section that says “A local authority shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that deems a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on the breed of the dog.”

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  125. As of June 5 2013, Connecticut HB 6311 has been signed into law by the Governor and now becomes the 15th state to outlaw breed discrimination.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  126. Also on June 5 2013, the Council in Osawatomie Kansas has voted to repeal their breed ban after a resident brought the issue to them earlier this year. The resident was targeted under the ban while walking her boxer mix. Unwilling to part with her dog permanently, the resident moved the dog out of the city limits and took the issue to the City Council.

    After the issue of the ban was brought forward, a task force was formed to study the current ordinance to see what changes were needed and ultimately came back with several recommendations. A repeal of the ban, anti-tethering, stronger anti-cruelty provisions and a clearer set of provisions for dealing with dangerous dogs are all part of the changes to the law.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  127. As of April 15 2013, City Council meeting in Wooster Ohio, the council voted unanimously to repeal their 13 year old ban on pit bull type dogs.All members of council concurred and subsequently voted to repeal the breed discriminatory law and, at the same time, approve a strong breed neutral law.

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  128. Italy had a very costly BSL enforcement for 6 years. In September of 2003, Italy placed into effect laws that banned or restricted 92 breeds including not just controversial breeds such as the Rottweiler and Pit Bull, but breeds such as the Corgi and Border Collie. Italy later dropped the deemed dangerous list to 17 breeds, and just this past April, removed the restrictions all together. In light of the new law, Health Undersecretary, Francesca Martini said “This is a historic day because we have established for the first time the responsibility of the owner or the person who is momentarily in charge of the animal.”

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Well it's a good thing I didn't live in Italy with all their breed bans - not one of my dogs would be welcomed there! The scary part is I can see the closed-minded-closed-eyed idiotic liberal party doing the same thing. Their heads are stuck so deep the in the sand, they can't see. If only once they would LISTEN to the multiple experts that speak against BSL and look and SEE what other countries, towns, cities, provinces are doing, they maybe they might have a fighting chance in this next election!!!!!! Come on election day - time to put politicians in place that TRULY want to do what is right and actually listen to and respect what EXPERTS have to say about a situation!

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  129. As of June 9 2008, Holland lifts its breed ban against Pit Bulls after discovering that fifteen years of BSL did not decrease the number of dog bite incidents. After euthanizing many puppies that had Pit Bull appearances, they concluded that physical traits did not pre-determine temperament.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      Scott does NOT get that THIS is wrong and there is an element of society that will NOT tolerate it. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151712099004385&set=vb.643728928994855&type=2&theater

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  130. I could go ON AND ON with the never ending list of towns, cities and entire countries that have retracted their BSL because it DOES-NOT-WORK. Wake up, Ontario!! You want to know what's important to us? Well, we have been telling you since 2004!! LISTEN TO US!!!

    1 year ago
    13 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Job well done Bailey, at least some ppl do their research and shoots their mouths with facts to back it up.... Much respect :)

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  131. Those towns and cities repealed because of the political pressure your lobby gives, the excuses and anti educational promotions you give about the dog to people. "Like they weren't created for bull baiting and dog fighting" "meant for kids" lol

    Yet I'm the crazy one ?????

    Bailey Alison, I just provided 3rd party Non partisan research that says BSL works. Just because it doesn't work for pit bull owners, doesn't mean it doesn't work. It was supposed to not work for you and your angst towards it is a clear sign of it working.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    17 Disagreed
    1. You know SCOTT lol.... if ur not part of the solution ur part of the problem! An other problem is, is that ur facts are wrong, pit bull is NOT a breed for starters, 2 ua re referring the APBT as the fighting dog and FYI the english bull dog was used for bating as well..... LOL 3 APBT were bred for fighting each other NOT humans LOL if the APBT displayed ANY aggression towards humans EVER breeders/handlers would cull/kill them instantly as human aggression was an UNDESIRED trait to possess... 4 SCOTT NO ONE breeds (game) dogs anymore BUT the cruel criminals. What does that tell you? do your research, get educated and ya might not sound like such a degenerate.... GOOD DAY!!! http://www.cesarsway.com/askthevet/dogwellness/Dog-Bites-101-Why-Bites-Happen

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. I don't believe BSL helps communities and I'm not a put bull owner. Scott, our family is currently dogless and has never owned a pit bull but liked most that we met. I follow data on BSL and am concerned about public safety as well as preventing animal abuse and increasing laws and programs to protect the public and animals. I actually look at communities that have good programs and services in place as well as common denominators in dog incidents like bites and attacks. I know for a fact that pit bulls and dogs that look similar are among the most common family pets in North America. While I understand that you're a local dog trainer who uses his animals to kill wildlife, I consider those who have the greater interests and experience of both public safety and animal safety to be true experts on BSL. You have not mentioned what experience you have training or rehabilitating pit bulls so I think those who have such experience and are also concerned about public safety have greater expertise than you (they call BSL ineffective legislation); that means I don't agree with PETA or the original position of the HSUS (the HSUS supported killing all Michael Vick's dogs without proper assessment or rehabilitation. The majority of the dogs were adoptable and were rehabilitated by people who ARE experts on these dogs, not the HSUS, ASPCA or PETA).

      While preventing dog fighting is an important issue I care about, as far as I can tell that was not the purpose of the Liberal government's decision to put BSL in place; it was an attempt to increase public safety. Making all aspects of dog fighting illegal should be supported but is a separate issue. (You could also outlaw ear cropping and tail docking that people use to make their dogs look like fighters.)

      I agree with this statement: "One academic study after another concludes the same thing. In order to affect dog bites, we must focus on education of parents and their children, and dog owners and dog behavior. It's the only way. Focusing on anything else is merely a distraction and leads to the lack of knowledge that causes the problems in the first place."

      A study that was released by "The Veterinary Journal" that studied dog bites in the Netherlands. The study was commissioned by the Dutch government -- and as a result of the study, the Dutch government repealed its 15 year old ban on 'pit bulls' in 2008.

      Study called "Dog bites in The Netherlands: a study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation."

      Conclusion: "Preventative measures must focus on a better understanding of how to handle dogs."

      - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19879172

      I believe we need to have programs and services that make that possible, and BSL does NOT address these things.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  132. 1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  133. here whether ur a fan of his or not this is very informative and correct. I'm a dog trainer/behaviorist and I support this article. http://www.cesarsway.com/askthevet/dogwellness/Dog-Bites-101-Why-Bites-Happen

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  134. A beer bottle was thrown from a car at myself & my 'pit bull' after the Liberals profiled me as a thug & made my dog out to be a beast with the help of the Media.

    Someone in the car yelled "Get that f****** killer out of Ontario.

    That`s what the Liberals have done with this Legislation!

    Can you imagine ANY other group of people in this Province putting up with that kind of legislated abuse due to a stereotype?

    If someone yelled at a Gay person "Get the f*** out of this Province would that be acceptable?

    Would that be an issue?

    Why is it ok to verbally & physically abuse dog owners?

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. I have had the same thing with my Cattle Dog - people have asked me if she is a Pitbull cross, with a horrified look on their faces as if I were walking a sabre toothed tiger on a bungee cord!!! The whole time, she stands looking at them with her tail wagging and me holding her CKC pedigree in my purse in case Animal Control tries to confiscate and kill her!

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. The bill didn't make it okay to hurl beer bottles or assault people. Assault is still a crime. Pit bulls got a reputation for violence due to the fact that they are statistically far more likely than other dogs to bite and inflict injury and death. I think that's where the impetus for the bill came from, rightly or wrongly, the only statistics available seem to indicate the breed is inclined to greater levels of violence. Twice as likely as Rottweilers and ten times more likely than GSDs. But I don't think statistics make people behave like douche-bags. I suspect the person who hurled the beer bottle was a douche-bag looking for an excuse for his douche-baggery. In the same way that people who assault homosexuals are really just violent people looking for an outlet for their bullying and violent behaviour that they feel will be the most accepted within their peer group. Some people just got issues.

      Arguably, saying the behaviour demonstrated by the breed is solely the result of the owners, also tends to profile pit bull owners as thugs. In reality, it could be that pit bulls are just a lot more prone to violence then other dogs. They may give off fewer warning signs and attack with greater ferocity. It might be that the owners have nothing to do with it. I don't blame the parents of serial killers for the crimes of their children. I think bad owners can make for dogs that bite, but I don't think that dogs become killers because you play tug-of-war or let them up on the sofa too often.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      9 Disagreed
    3. @ Phil Terrell

      Would you like to try & back up your statements?

      All of them,any of them?

      "Pit bulls got a reputation for violence due to the fact that they are statistically far more likely than other dogs to bite and inflict injury and death. I think that's where the impetus for the bill came from, rightly or wrongly, the only statistics available seem to indicate the breed is inclined to greater levels of violence. Twice as likely as Rottweilers and ten times more likely than GSDs."

      There are no such statistics.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. So many are experiencing similar events as you describe. Have a friend named Courtney who was walking down the street with her child in a carriage as well as the family dog (who is NOT a "pit bull") but had some similar appearance. Person driving a truck down the street passed by throws a brick at the dog (almost hit the baby) saying "how can you own a dog like that?). Not who was the threat to the child, it was NOT the dog. Targeting and profiling is never a acceptable solution and shame on any elected official that opens that dangerous door. Shame on Premier Wynne who counts on people not discriminating against her, but supports the discrimination of others based on the look of their dog.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  135. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    FOUR of Michael Vicks former abused dogs became certified therapy dogs. This was after they lived in terror, were seriously abused and then spend about a year locked up in small cages, until Vicks court case was completed. The dogs Vick had, especially those went on to became therapy and service dogs were NO more "bred" or "prone" to violence than this "pittie" girl is.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. 4 out of 67 total.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      11 Disagreed
    2. Yes, Scott, 4/67 became therapy dog but the majority minus 3 (I believe) were adopted into family homes and are thriving, and the rest live at Best Friends.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      Along with Ellie (video above) becoming the Hero Dog of 2013 it seems that MORE of Michael Vicks former dogs became certified in therapy and service than I thought. What a great group of people and dogs. Here's their fate five years after Michael Vick. http://www.badrap.org/five-years-later

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  136. This just showed up on my Facebook wall from a Flyball Competitor in the US. Regional MVPs are selected and voted for by other competitors:

    John DXXXXXXXXX

    Congrats to my teammate Deb XXXXX and Achilles for being nominated for Region 15 MVP. In these days of BSL, it is awesome to see a pitbull get such an honor. Achilles came to our team as an 8 week old puppy and it has been my honor to work with him and race with him. I have said many times, We should all love anything the way that boy loves everything. He is truly a great representation of what his breed is capable of when given the chance. Congrats Deb and Achilles, you deserve it!!

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  137. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    PLEASE do not engage Scott Richer. WE all know he is a card carrying member of the BSL Lobby group from the states (though Canadian). He will only bring down the level of intelligent discussion. One can, however vote down his comments. If he keeps up his constant propaganda, then request the monitor to remove him.

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. Card Carrying member of BSL lobby ??? I'm an Ontario business owner, I'm and animal behavior specialist and I see you as the card carrying member of a pit bull lobby (from the states) that would rather have these dogs suffer through the abuse they are known for, just as a means to get what you want. I wonder who will be judging the success or failure of this bill? after the first death of a child? 100 deaths of peoples pets? only after 3 owners get attacked by their own dogs ?? or will it be deemed a success in light of those things, because you finally get to have one???

      Remove the Ban ? Fine, The dog needs the breed specific language for its own protection.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      13 Disagreed
  138. Dawn I've Trained 1000's of Labs, pointers, hounds, Spaniels, and they all do what they are supposed to do, Function they way they are supposed to and yes to varying degrees of talent, they all do!!!. You show me a labradore that doesn't swim? and I'll show you an owner that doesn't encouraged the environment and also actually believes your blame the deed not the breed BS. Those labs swim, Ive tested that theory with many and its a fail for you every time. The ability to do so is attached to their (standard)form. Its a universal fact throughout dog dome that you pro pit bull advocates seem to need to erase/ignore/pretend like it doesn't exist. for no other reason other than to get what you want. You attack me for acknowledging it ??? it's beyond obvious as to why. It gets under your skin that its factual and you have to attack who i am or what i know as a means to deflect the truth behind it.

    Subconsciously you know I'm right and that is what irritates you.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    14 Disagreed
    1. Funny Scott......you hit the nail on the head: "Dawn I've Trained 1000's of Labs, pointers, hounds, Spaniels, and they all do what they are supposed to do,".......KEYWORD - TRAINED. In your own post you clearly state that you TRAINED the dogs to do what they were supposed to do! What do you think dog fighters do??????

      I am friends with the TOP flyball trainers in North America, if not the world; I am personal friends with some of the top animal behaviorist in Ontario, if not Canada; and I am personal friends with pretty much top trainers in obedience, detection work, French Ring, Dock Dogs, Goose control.......so please don't imply the rest of us are a bunch of inexperienced, unknowing novice dog owners.

      And no, you don't get under my skin.......in actuality, I kind of get a laugh at reading your posts!

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. I only ever need to train them to do it for me, They do it for themselves naturally. its about honing skill, I don't have to teach what they all ready know, Like a new hound that joins the pack, I don't have to teach it to hunt, or a 6 week old Setter pointing at feathers. they already know how, and the ability to do it is attached to their FORM.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      10 Disagreed
    3. Just for the record Scott Richer is not a real dog trainer. He is taking a 2 year hiatus from his real job to go back to school because he couldn’t handle the stress. In the meantime he is passing himself off as a dog trainer part time, which is extremely dangerous for his clients. Here is a screenshot of a thread on his own 'Dog trainer' page where he states all of the above himself. His LinkedIn profile also lies and says he’s been a dog trainer for 5 years. He is not the ‘Professional’ he claims to be. He is a troll that likes to try to get a rise out of people.

      https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153299527385453&set=a.10152204646665453.915747.601565452&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn1%2F64518_10153299527385453_812820541_n.jpg&size=475%2C496

      Scott routinely joins Anti-BSL groups to post inflammatory comments. Not to ‘educate the public’, but to stir up trouble. This has been going on for years. It is a shame that his selfish need to get a rise out of others has upset so many good caring people in the past. To make things worse he is a megalomaniac/narcissist with delusions of grandeur and believes he single handedly killed Bill 16. Maybe McGuinty should get a tin foil hat to save himself from Scott’s mind control. There is no reasoning with crazy.

      If you want to get back at him. Ignore him. This will upset him much more than trying to use rational arguments and statistical evidence.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    4. ...Funny indeed Dawn. Thanks for adding some chuckles to this discussion. We haven't stopped laughing in this household since we read your post: "... French Ring, Dock Dogs, Goose control......." That's tops. Who says we don't have sense of humour eh? Carry on.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    5. @ Bob - since my comment was direct to Scott and not any of the garbage you have been spewing, and since your last input made a reference to porn (which obviously was removed by the moderator), perhaps you can keep your snide, unrelated, unproductive comments to yourself. That would be doing us all a favour.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    6. Yes Dawn.

      I know the porn comment / joke was removed by the Moderators (but I bet / hope it caused a few chuckles there). I asked the Moderators to keep a closer eye on this discussion because of the kind of irrational personalized attacks "spewed" here (great word 'spewed') that have accomplished nothing but drag this worthwhile and important issue down into the gutter which just ruins credibility for the effort to get rid of this legislation.

      I'm sure that if dogs could read, they'd be ashamed of some of their owners here and if they could train or discipline their owners, some of the participants in this discussion would be 'sitting' and 'staying' quietly and not allowed to be doing any 'goose controlling' --- Gawd that breaks me up.

      I told Jack, my wheaten, that he needs to learn some 'goose control' ... a very bad habit he has .... and he hasn't stopped wagging his tail.

      Bob

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    7. And --- after scanning through the postings left here now, it looks like the Moderators have removed the nasty unnecessary personalized crap. Thank you to the moderators.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  139. Dawn Young, in Nature and nurture, both contribute. to give one more than the other is based on your opinion, not fact or science. If both contribute than both are equal and to say different is to provide your bias to the equation. Nature and nurture is 50/50 and one never trumps the other.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    15 Disagreed
    1. Scott: Just because both nature and nurture contribute to how a creature, whether human or canine, develops, it is wrong and uninformed to assume or claim that therefore they must contribute 50/50 overall or in specific instances. Sometimes these are at odds with each other, and indeed one or the other will trump depending on the circumstances.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Environment=Circumstances

      Nature is the constant

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  140. Scott, so you have taken thousands of Labs and tested their swimming, thousands of pointers and tested their pointing, thousands of hounds and tested their scenting, thousands of Spaniels and tested birding? Were these all purebreds or were they your best guess?

    Yet, you tell your friends that you're just doing this as a two year escape from government politics?

    Oh, and have you taken thousands of "pit bulls" and tested them to see if they fight? This is what you're saying, right?

    That a) you can identify breed (even though scientists say it's not possible) and b) you've tested these breeds (all purebred, by the way) to confirm that 100% of each of those breeds do what the breed is supposed to do, again even though the scientists clearly state that there is far more variance in behaviour within a breed than there is across breeds.

    I just want to get that straight. That is what you're saying, Scott?

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  141. And Scott, just for your info, not a single reputable scientist out there will tell you that nature vs nurture is 50/50 and that one never trumps the other.

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. 1000s in total and yes for use and testing of ability for their premise. I'm a hunter and therefore have a lot in common with dogs,

      All breeds function the way their breed specifics dictate yes, and yes i have tested this with every dog I've ever encountered and yes it is sound in principal and practice, behaviours specific to breed, are specific because of the purpose, and all of their forms are specific to that purpose. When you say you can't identify breed ...? You are only half right. although breed may be difficult from time to time, its not impossible and the function fits the form, so at the very least you can minimize to group. predictable, and easy to do if you understand the principals behind why. Chico bandido just for your information, Anti BSL specialists that work for or are associated with NCRC aren't scientists. They are spinsters. If you had a career in Animal behavioral sciences you would see this a clearly as I do.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      14 Disagreed
    2. You can breed for physical traits not behaviour. Just like with humans a dog's 'DNA' does not determine whether or not he will behave like his parents. I have a husky. If I attached him to a sled he wouldn't know what to do and would look at me like I had two heads.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. I believe you have NOTHING in common with dogs Scott. Dogs are loving, friendly, companionable, and willing to learn. I doubt you have ANY of these traits. (although this will probably be removed I have to say it.)

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  142. Using all of the dog bite statistics from the Center for Disease Control (USA), from the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program, and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (USA), as well as from the individual municipal bite reporting programs (both city and SPCA), it is estimated that 99.6% of all dogs, REGARDLESS OF BREED, will never be involved in a biting incident in their entire lives. That's 996 out of every 1,000 dogs. Since this statistic includes "pit bulls", how is that possible? If the JOB, the NATURE, the INEVITABLE HERITABILITY of "pit bulls" is to bite, how is that over 99% of them never do, for their entire lives?

    (Disclaimer: this is assuming that you can identify pit bulls).

    1 year ago
    15 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. 1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      14 Disagreed
    2. Its about the dogs proclivity for those behaviors, and the attraction to (violent, immoral, and combative sports) because of it. It doesn't matter that 99% don't, its about the seriousness when 1% does, and the varying degree's of collateral damage that follows because of it. If you want the problems of over population for combative sporting dogs that the southern states has then by all means you are going to need to prepare for the worst. No other dog attacks and kills full grown people including their owners on a semi regular basis. No other dog has the same reasons why they would. You can go on and add the excuse that its misidentified, or not really a pit bull all you want. once or twice that could be probable, 1000x's it becomes less likely.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      10 Disagreed
    3. Autopsy reports on dog bite related fatalities from various breeds do not support your statement that pitbull attacks are more damaging than attacks by other dogs.

      http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/do-certain-types-of-dogs-inflict-injuries-unlike-other-types-of-dogs

      With so few dog bite related fatalities in Canada (51 in the last 49 years. An average of one a year Canada wide) how can your statement possibly be true? There has only been one dog bite related fatality involving a bully breed. If pitbulls 'attack and kill full grown people including their owners on a semi regular basis' in Canada then why are they not being reported to anyone other than you Scott?

      http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/FDA%20Canada%20-%20Copy%20for%20website%20-%20Thru%20Aug%202012.pdf

      I know you are going to respond by trying to dismiss these sources of information stating they are inaccurate and not credible sources based solely on the argument of 'because I said so'. That is not a valid argument.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  143. I'm an Ontario resident and voter. I originally supported BSL. I was shocked and horrified after I read the transcripts from the hearings and learned that the government did NOT look at how this legislation has been unsuccessful at protecting the public in other places. This legislation is being repealed elsewhere and new laws being put in place that prevent BSL. If the government does not repeal BSL here in Ontario then they are either not aware or don't care about successful ways to really make communities safer and better. BSL is a regressive, ineffective law and an embarrassment; it should not be legal anywhere in Ontario or Canada.

    1 year ago
    16 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. I`m really glad to read this Chris.I wondered if people who once supported the Ban would take the time to read the actual transcripts.

      Thanks for taking the time.That gives me hope that others have done the same.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  144. I am concerned about public safety as well as demonstrating that companion animals are part of families and communities and are not disposable. I know people who raise therapy and police dogs. Very few dogs in a litter go on to be suitable for the purpose they were bred for. Just because someone has a dog that looks a certain way does not mean that dog is mean or vicious. That would be like saying all people who have a certain physical appearance behave a certain way and are a public danger; that is discriminatory. Research shows "Pit bull" type dogs and other mixed breeds are extremely popular family dogs in many communities around the world. If they were inherently dangerous there would be many more issues. We need laws that make it illegal to participate in dog fighting or being irresponsible dog owners; we need assistance in Ontario communities to put programs and services in place to make this possible if we want to educate and enforce to achieve positive results. Downloading ineffective laws like BSL onto municipalities is bad for taxpayers and communities.

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  145. Are you the same Scott Richer who used to organize weight pull events and allowed unmuzzled pit bulls to compete? I guess pit bulls are no threat to people or other dogs as long as the owners pay an entrance fee correct?

    Are you the same Scott Richer who professes to be a dog trainer yet one of your own hunting hounds took off and did not respond when you called him? Didn't that same dog go missing for days?

    If you are the same, if pit bulls are so vicious/unpredictable, why was it OK to allow them to compete in your events? Sounds very hypocritical to me. You insert yourself into these discussions accusing pit bulls and their owners of everything under the sun yet you yourself could not control your own hunting dog. If you are not that same Scott Richer, please disregard

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Yep same guy, It was a Cane Corso however, I do hunt with my dogs because that is what they do, One was hit by a car on a hunt because accidents happen, if you feel the need to poke at my loss as a means of selling the idea that i am not who i am? then by all means continue.

      A dog working was the idea to the weight pull as to introduce the idea to dog owners that were interested. Volunteer community work, and educational experience more so than a competition. And if a pit bull were there competing it would have had too wear a muzzle. But there wasn't. Funny how second hand information with a hint of possible condemnation can be used to attempt to defame someone's name, yet only end up selling the idea of the social LOW's that the dogs advocates can stoop too.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      9 Disagreed
  146. personal attacks in misinterpretations is all any of you are willing to use in defense of this subject matter and its because of that you are selling my ideas for me.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    11 Disagreed
    1. It is not a personal attack to question your credentials when you are using these supposed credentials and 'professional experience' as a basis for your arguments. It is not a personal attack when you state on this forum that you are a trainer and post the name of your 'company' for others to post messages from your own page in your own words to prove this is not true. Stop lying and people won't call you out on it. All the comments were pertinent and 'on topic' replies to posts you made.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. The problem acar51 is not the questioning of credentials / experience etc as long as one sticks to truth and facts. The problem here has been the vindictiveness and name-calling by some posters --- which I think the Moderators have cleaned out now.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. bobmetcalfe001 I couldn't agree more! Truth and facts should be all that are required. Although it can be hard to keep a cool head when you are passionate about a topic and feel an injustice has been committed, name calling does not win an argument. Debate and personal opinions from both sides should be allowed (and preferably backed up with statistics to prevent responses based on nothing but emotion). Including rebutals. Making up statistics and lying also do not help the cause and is equally as bad. You have my wholehearted support in voicing your opinion that vindictiveness should not be tolerated.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. It is a personal attack, as a means to discredit what i am saying and that is all that it is. Unfortunately for you I am everything i claim to be. And everything I claim is that everything you claim is bias, from bias individuals, agencies, and subcultures intent on getting what it is you want rather than consider for an instant the dog might need some of what you are wanting to remove.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      10 Disagreed
  147. Angie, Do you honestly believe that the entirety of the pit bull owning population will be so responsible that these dogs will no longer be targeted for animal abuse ?

    Or that they will never have a mishap with their biological functions as Catch dogs?

    Can you honestly say that Another Child won't get hurt in the process of this Change the image campaign?

    Can you honestly say dog racism exists when all dogs were selectively bred for their purposes??

    Mix breed dogs in the topic of discussion is conjecture without acknowledging what the standards are in pure breeds)

    An honest person couldn't say those things, be interesting as to what you have to say

    or does the dogs phylogenetic purpose contribute to when they do

    Keep the Breed specific Language and add the other dogs that are targeted and selectively bred for the same.

    The only word in DOLA that needs to be changed is "BAN" Offer an ownership restriction/allowance, for those breeds, for certain people. Remove criminal ownership of dogs all together.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    9 Disagreed
  148. You want what is in the best interests of the dogs yet want to destroy them on the off chance someone chooses to abuse them instead of pushing for tougher consequences for the abusers? That is a flawed mentality. Lets all stop having children because there are paedophiles out there. The government should stop printing money because someone might try to steal it from others. Lets stop producing things like hammers and axes because someone might use them as weapons. Any rational person will not agree to that kind of over reactive knee jerk 'solution'. There is a better way to handle the situation. You would fit in great with PETA. Kill all pets so that they don't have to suffer living with humans. It's better for them in the long run :S (yes I am being sarcastic here).

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Off chance ??? DOLA has some pretty good punishment already in place, your need to not enforce that law plays its part too. and yes in the best interest of the dog, after 200 yrs of breed specific abuse, I feel that the dog is subject to having breed specific controls.

      Also a Ban through Attrition would work regardless as its a ban over time. Everyone got to keep the dogs they had here, they just needed to Fix them, Not Breed them. It was the pit bull owners defiance and unwillingness to follow the law that fueled Ontario's need to pts illegal dogs, and here you are defending, and wanting to reward their defiance?? Yes from your perspective this law was killing dogs, that were needlessly, illegally and irresponsibly produced by pit bull owners, and then dispersed as a means to not get caught.... Pit bull owners have been doing that, placing the dogs life directly at risk, because they don't agree with the law.... As if the pit bull doesn't already have a long enough history attached to such people ????

      Comparisons to inanimate objects or humans are although emotional and well intentioned it doesn't account for the animals sentient being and the ability to think for itself. It doesn't account for the dogs selected succession and documented breeding practices, and its a ludicrous notion that you can compare.

      Humans were never selectively bred for purpose, ALL dogs were. those purposes or functions are separated by group and each breed belongs to a certain group.

      letting a breed die out by not breeding, is much more merciful than an existence of breed specific abuse.

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/justice/alabama-dog-fight-ring/index.html

      They are 367% specific to dog fighting rings, maybe before you all release this dog back into the general public you should all chew on that one fact a little bit. It might change the taste of your entire argument !!!

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      9 Disagreed
    2. just as flawed as providing free access to the general public without considering the abuse potentials they represent, or the consequences for the dog you are advocating for....

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      8 Disagreed
  149. Isn't it time to start directing your comments to the Liberal Party and Kathleen Wynne instead of wasting your time on Scott Richer? Its not about Scott Richer. You've based your comments on science & fact. Richer bases his comments on myth, misinformation and fear mongering. Never the twain shall meet. Focus on the real issue here, which is the repeal of Breed Specific Legislation in Ontario. He is only one vote in favour of the Liberals in the next election, while we are thousands of votes against.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  150. Given all the chatter about breed traits, I thought this would be a good article to share:

    http://animalfarmfoundation.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/a-closer-look-at-all-dogs-are-individuals-infographic/

    "For example, did you know that despite looking alike on the outside, even pure breed dogs from the same litter do not share identical DNA? Even in the case of cloned pets – animals that are genetically identical – their personalities and behavior still vary. That’s because the behavior of all dogs (pure breed and mixed breed) is influenced by many outside factors such as training, environment, management, and socialization, in addition to their genetics and breeding. There is no guarantee that a dog will act in a specific way simply based on how it looks or because of its breed.

    Think of it like this: do human siblings have the exact same personalities? Even though they come from the same family, siblings still have different DNA and varying experiences which contribute to their individual health and personalities. Even identical twins – similar to cloned animals since they have identical DNA – will have personality differences due to outside influences and experiences. We’re all individuals.

    It’s the same with dogs! From their unique DNA to varying external influences, all dogs are individuals (even when they do conform to breed related traits). We can’t predict their future behavior based solely on looks or breed."

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Very informative post and link Dawn. Here is another along the same lines that delves into whether or not breed can be used as an accurate predictor of a dog's behaviour or personality traits. It's a long read, but was very interesting.

      http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/154426276_The%20Relevance%20of%20Breed%20in%20Selecting%20a%20Companion%20Dog.pdf

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. What amazes me is that every country and organization around the world recognize and publicize medical research, reports and studies from different health organizations, doctors, etc, yet our Ontario government won't recognize research, reports and studies from doctors, experts and specialists in the animal world!

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  151. deflect, ignore, refuse to answer, whenever the faults of the pro pit bull lobby are called into question...!!!!! This is all relavent to the topic of discussion,

    PM Kathleen Wynne

    These dogs are specific to illegal and immoral sports and people, for no other reason than the abilities that we as humans gave them. They carry with them a stigma of violence because of this, a situational failure rate because of this, and have a long documented history of animal abuse because of this.

    A Sub culture of people have flooded this topic as a means to misinform, misdirect, you and your party as to the nature of the pit bull terrier. They will tell you that they are loving loyal affectionate pets that belong with their families, and for the most part they are correct. However because of the historical abuse it IS subjected to the dog is in need of controls. The dog is in need of controls because their owners refuse to think the dog needs them. I do not envy the decisions you are going to have to make on this issue. As i see it you are darned if you do and darned if you don't, however Common ground would be an acknowledgement that the dog be allowed back conditionally, and with restrictions. Should you grant "free license" to whomever wants one, this will all need to be revisited after a catastrophic failure. Be it a child or other innocent life that pay the price for someones need to have a dog like this.

    I love dogs, and if an abusive history goes unchecked an abusive future will be inevitable. I would like that to not be the case, however its a problem we created for ourselves. I saw BSL as penance for over 2 centuries of abuse. I was glad that it was installed because it restricted and stifled the dogs original issue, Pit bull Owners.

    If you are to lift the ban on Pit bulls Great !!! I only ask you maintain the breed specific language as a means to offer this dog a reprieve from "Just anyone" they aren't and never have been a dog for "just anyone."

    Just anyone got this dog into this mess to begin with.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    14 Disagreed
    1. presidents have own pit bulls. Do you think they fought them? what about Helen Keller? I bet she lost a lot of money because people would tell her her dog lost! The most decorated dog in war history was a stray pit bull that saved many lives(look up Sgt Stubby). Pit bulls have been therapy dogs, helped police and fire fighters, stray pit bulls have saved lives and some the lives of their owners(people with medical conditions that most likely fought them for drug money-sarcasm) so all these people are criminals? by your logic they/we are. by your logic anyone that has or does own a pit bull is a criminal. I'll have you know I'm a 26 year old female. I have never been charged or arrested, I am not a drunk or drug addict. I am an intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate person. why should I not be allowed to own a pit bull?

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  152. @ Slava you keep asking for facts and statistics etc etc number of registered dogs etc.

    The fact is, is that most of these so called deaths or serious injury from dogs whether it be pit bulls or rottweilers or any other breed are usually not registered. There is also another fact that the reason why you see and hear about more pitbulls causing massive harm is because of them being more popular now through out the years since the late 80's and through to present. Before that rotties were a major problem in the news as they were used for dog fighting as well and dobermans as guard dogs being popular back then. The simple fact lays with the problem that there are to many illegal breeders and puppy mills for pitbulls and irresponsible people that purchase them. Hence the rarity of statistics on registered dogs etc Hence the fight for tougher laws against the human and not the breed of dog.If pet owners were made to go through training etc and face tougher penalties for unregistered pets unvaccinated pets there would be less issues and threats to humans getting attacked plain and simple.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  153. The Liberals need to listen to Professionals/Experts

    There is not a single credible Organization that supports BSL.

    OVMA

    2005 Testimony

    http://bit.ly/OxmCPF

    2012 Testimony

    http://bit.ly/LRs9jd

    Open Letter

    http://bit.ly/MgMmEP

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  154. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    This video just about says it ALL.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  155. I think this idea has been beaten to death. Going in circles now.

    As soon as the liberals are defeated we can vote on new legislation.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
  156. Premier Wynne;

    I am a veterinary technician. I have been a technician for over 20 years now (graduated in 1991 from a 3 year program at an Ontario college). I have worked in the veterinary field, FULL TIME, for over 20 years now as well. I have been to several behaviour courses, and of course, I have seen THOUSANDS of dogs. 6 of my years of employment were employed FULL TIME at a Humane Society that got over 12 000 animals a year in intake. I now work at a large, high volume animal hospital.

    I can tell you, from experience, (and LOTS of it!) that I have seen two "pit bulls" that I have been afraid of in over 20 years. TWO. I have been bitten, by three other dogs in my career. Two small dogs, and another mix of hound/husky.

    When I am at work and a "pit bull" or some sort of mix comes in, I am glad to see these dogs. They are one of the most sound temperaments around. They are tail wagging, self socializing, trusting, gentle and readable dogs and I am not afraid of them, nor have I ever been. My first dog ever, was a "pit bull". I never intended to own this breed of dog, nor was there the stigma attached 20 years ago. He just fell into my hands so to speak, and after placing an IV catheter in him, by MYSELF one late night at work, our fates were sealed. I didn't pay any special attention to his breed. He was just a dog. They are ALL just DOGS.

    There are several other breeds out there, that I am leery of. There is one very popular breed in particular, that I will muzzle 90% of the time when I have to treat them, but I can assure you from my experience, it's NOT the "pit bulls" or "pit bull" mixed type dogs that we so often see.

    I'm tired of this ban. It doesn't make sense to anyone in the veterinary field. Half of the staff members I work with own, rescue and advocate for these "pit bull" types of dogs, and you could walk into almost any veterinary clinic in Ontario and the staff would testify to this. I am CONFIDENT in stating this.

    Is it not time for you and your government to own up to it's mistake? Is it not time to make it right? Time for BAD owners, to be responsible? No matter WHAT the breed? Is it not time to really try to make Ontario a safer place by putting the onus on the owners?

    Ontario is tired of this ban, and getting tired of media hype and sensationalism. The government and the media prey on the uneducated to "make a buck" and to "win a vote" and it's disgusting.

    Through the power of social media (and make no mistake, it IS powerful) we will educate. We will inform. We will band together. And we will VOTE.

    A quote from a very powerful article I read recently (http://www.semissourian.com/blogs/1452/entry/53192/). "That thunder you hear in the distance is a very real army of Pit Bull advocates that are fed up with the promotion of stupidity and the continued sanctions being placed against a dog because it is easier than addressing the human monster."

    Premier Wynne.... Hear the thunder.

    1 year ago
    12 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Excellent comment!

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. http://www.fox4now.com/news/local/Two-women-attacked-by-pit-bull-in-Buckingham-one-shares-story--219505621.html

      To deny the aggression exists after being forced to kill a dog, maybe that is the duty of a vet tech?? maybe its the rationale or lack there of that they need to think they aren't, or that these things don't actually happen or that it isn't a pit bull doing it.... Having pit bull people threaten a PM with the shear number of voters that they have? My Personal experience is that they biologically respond this way, in the right environments with the right stimuli, at the whim of the dog and nobody else.

      http://readingeagle.com/mobile/article.aspx?id=405648

      I highly doubt a little dog could do this to a vet tech.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      13 Disagreed
    3. I`ve been saying this for ever.The only way to end BSL is to get rid of Politicians who enact it/support it & to not elect BSL supporters in the first place.

      Don`t assume nominated Candidates do not support BSL if they are with other Parties.Ask them.

      Also make it clear to ALL Party Leaders to vet their Candidates.

      I for one would not support ANY BSL supporter.I don`t care what Party.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  157. The advocates of this breed, including this person have hard lessons to learn. Much like this person who believed you can't blame a breed for the deed it was bred for, they all of a sudden don't believe it after it kills their baby. Too little, too late. When you add a variable like this to your equation I hope you can see the lies, deceit, and misdirection from a subculture (Army)of people that refuse to believe things like this happen with dogs like pit bulls. Returning this dog to the general public that wish these combative sporting dogs to be family dogs ? Will come with the failure rates associated with them. If these people change their minds after the fact of this law passing it will be too late. We Ontario citizens will be left defending our animals, children, and our own person in the streets, much like the people in the states where this army has created laws against breed specific legislation, These attacks that become national news become more frequent when an ease of access is granted. They do not become less frequent. This is why if you do release the pit bull from BSL, that the breed specific language should remain.

    Not just any dog can amputate a limb from full grown adults.

    http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/10/03/gatineau-man-could-lose-arm-to-pitbull-attack

    PM Wynne, You can't release this dog from BSL without acknowledging that you will be seeing more of this, Not less.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    13 Disagreed
    1. Scott you are getting beyond ridiculous and you are a sheep, your following the media and your own insecurities about "pit bulls" = dogs, your inability to factually point out truths and reason about the incidences and attacks on ppl... you keep pointing out that these dogs have killed full grown adults, for crying out loud give it a rest all ready you keep talking about the ONE and same incidence over and over again. LAY IT TO REST!! Do you not know that MANY other breeds have done the same thing? Do you not ask yourself what these ppl did to provoke a bite or attack? NO bcuz that would meant hat your theory/beliefs are chattered and bogus... Genetics does NOT mean DESTINY for these dogs, as for any other breeds... I own an American Bully here google it, she is 18inched tall 75lbs of guarding instinct with territorial behaviors JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BREED... if u were so educated on dog behavior and psychology you would KNOW that ALL breeds of dogs are ANIMAL first, then dog then breed then their name... NEVER breed first and You are trying to humanize them and add to their DNA when in fact they are a damn domesticated ANIMAL not some ticking time bomb, killing machine... Get a grip and give ur head a shake and get REAL FACTS ABOUT DOG PSYCHOLOGY for once in ur life. I have been a dog trainer/behaviorist for 28yrs and I have yet met a dog that was "true" to it's breed traits UNLESS they were trained or reinforced or nurtured or encouraged. They did how ever possess SOME breed traits but again if u were educated on training, you would know that u can modify behavior as well as condition ur dog to ANY situation. NOW the real debate here is not breeds/pit bulls but how can we ensure ppl get educated on dog psychology, how to approach dogs, how to behave around dogs and IMO it SHOULD be part of ALL school curriculum all over this province as dogs are animals after all. do we not teach them how to behave at zoos?, daycare? school? aunty's house or grandma's house? Well then,..,,.,, we also try to teach our children that racism, bigotry and judgment is wrong... Dont you? last few quotes to end my comment, #1- you think pit bulls are mean and aggressive? tell me again how you've owned one! #2- I own a pit bull type dog, its a life style. I'm on a mission to fight bad reputations and stereotypes, I am an advocate, I stand up for their breed, It's a privilege. #3- last but certainly not least; Judging a breed solely on it's looks, doesn't define who they are, IT DEFINES WHO YOU ARE!!!

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. So very well said Nattie!!!!! Now, I think it is time we simply ignore the Troll.........I don't believe he is commenting on the cause, I believe he is a Troll looking for a reaction. Nobody can recite the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over, utilizing the same articles and stories over and over and over and over and over, unless he truly has no idea about what is talking about or he is a Troll.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  158. Why do some people & Liberals only have compassion/empathy for victims of short haired mutts?

    Anyone know?

    Many children killed by Husky type dogs in Canada & not a peep.

    No children killed by targeted Breeds & "SS" mutts.

    http://bit.ly/ZngodQ

    1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. we've had BSL since 2005, that is why.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      12 Disagreed
    2. @ Nattie,

      Guess some people don`t realize there were no children killed by targeted Breeds or "SS" mutts before 2005 pre BSL either.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. Well lets take a quick look at the last year's worth of dog attacks in Calgary seeing as how adopting Calgary's model is what you all are after.......

      http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/08/13/owners-of-pair-of-pit-bulls-charged-after-vicious-attack-on-another-dog-in-calgarys-coach-hill

      http://www.thesudburystar.com/2013/10/04/men-slink-away-after-their-dogs-savage-little-girl-in-northwest-calgary-greenspace

      http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/11/calgary-pitbull-attacks-dog-owners-face-charges-stephen-jaquish_n_2459383.html

      Following the media ??? which means to you that it isn't real and doesn't happen as frequent as "the media" says it does?? Does the media report all car accidents ?? or just the most serious ones ? Does that analogy explain why pit bulls are heard about more than other dogs??? or do you still think the media has bias against the dog?? One of those options are rational, the other is not.

      Jamiemoira, Many children killed by huskies because this is CANADA, if it weren't for the husky the NW would still be unknown territory. We don't have a need for fighting dogs like the southern states do,(hunting feral pigs) we have cold, snow, Ice, and lots of land. Pit bulls only like one of those things, Huskies love all of it. Children are also the highest % of dog bite victims, and working dogs like huskies aren't necessarily nice family dogs. People have created the illusion that they are that they are (the Walt disney snow dogs affect) ....... Much like the pit bull, and upon failure they are left asking questions why ??? The Answer never changes... Because they didn't acknowledge the dogs working functions. That is a commonality between the breeds, because an entire subculture of well intentioned, close minded people are educating otherwise.

      Calling me a Bigot, or Racist because i have a solid understanding of what The history of dog is, how and why it is the way it is, and for knowing that the selective succession of the K9 kingdom negates your entire argument of discrimination ?? WOW !!!!

      So just to bring this into perspective, If i were to get a Brittney Spaniel assuming its going to point at birds... I'm a Racist ??

      If i get a lab and assume its going to want to go swimming, I'm a bigot ?

      If I needed a herding dog for sheep and got a Border collie or Aussy Cattle dog....... that would make me a discriminative, hate mongering, Racist bigot ????

      because apparently saying pit bulls fight by your interpretations, Make me so. ??? This is what you are saying correct?

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      11 Disagreed
    4. http://globalnews.ca/news/177500/toronto-dog-bites-fell-after-pit-bull-ban/

      You sure about that, or is that a fact that someone told you to believe ???

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      6 Disagreed
    5. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      Unlike fatalities it is very difficult to get actual numbers of dog bites in Ontario as even after the recommendations from fatal dog attacks; the recommendations to Ontario were ignored. Neither inquiry called for "breed bans" but both inquires called for a bite register which was ignored by the governing Liberals BOTH TIMES. Best way to TRY and find out is through Public Health as IF a bite breaks skin; it has to be reported for health reasons. This article was written just after the "Global" news report (of which I was interviewed by Global on the PREMISE Toronto Police were coming out with information on dog attacks. When I did my research the POLICE never had such information. I believe Global was fed the information, as the AG's office was just taking to much heat over the breed ban.) So as "this" article asks "Where's the data that shows pit bull ban working?". http://www.thestar.com/life/2011/11/25/van_veen_wheres_the_data_that_shows_pit_bull_ban_is_working.html

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    6. Now that globalnews article finally gives some useful stats, even though it reports bites, not serious injury as I wanted. Still, it shows that a) different breeds have different risks with pit bulls exactly twice more likely to bite somebody than, say, German Shepherd and b) Public safety predictably improved as the most dangerous dogs were removed/muzzled.

      The bottom line for me - the legislation was justified and it works. It would be interesting to see serious injury statistics though.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      6 Disagreed
    7. I had resolved not to respond to any further pit bashing posts however I feel it is important to clear the air regarding the inaccurate information posted. This post is for anyone else reading and is not directed to the original poster.

      Lets take a closer look at those articles from attacks in Calgary in the last year.

      #1 Dog on dog attack. All dogs unleashed in inappropriate locations (the front door of the victim's how was open and her own dog went outside offleash as well without the owner stopping it). This was not a fatality for the dog involved and no human was bitten. Owners were heavily fined and will now be tracked appropriately as the Calgary model actually does this. The owners also offered voluntarily to pay for the vet bills of the other dog. This is unfortunate but has been dealt with appropriately. Justice was served. If this were any other type of breed it likely would not have even made the local news.

      #2 Funny how the poster posted a bastardized version of the article that does not list the breed yet fail to post the original article posted 2 days prior which clearly states the dogs were NOT pitbulls. It's clear the article is a stolen stripped down version from the one I am posting as it even has the exact same title. This was very deceitful of the poster. If he does as much research as he claims then he would know this.

      http://www.torontosun.com/2013/10/04/men-slink-away-after-their-dogs-savage-little-girl-in-northwest-calgary-greenspace

      #3 Again cherry picking the articles to post. There were many articles on this incident which gave the full story. This is probably why he didn't link to those ones and instead searched for one that only gave a small bit of information. That must have taken quite a bit of searching. In this case the the pitbulls were on leash and under control until they were attacked by the other offleash dogs that had run away from their owners (clearly not under control). The other dogs had left the dog park, going onto the sidewalk outside of the park and then attacked the pitbulls. The pitbulls were simply defending themselves.

      So in essence taking a whole YEARS worth of data in Calgary (as per the original comment) this is all he was able to find. 1) A fight between dogs where one dog was injured but not killed (while all were offleash while not in a designated off leash area), 2) another where the pitbulls were the victims and only defended themselves, and 3) another attack that didn't even involve a pitbull. Great research! This explains a lot about the original poster.

      To get an accurate reflection of whether a law is effective you should look at the numbers overall, not at specific infractions. Otherwise you may very well target the exceptions to the rule. The poster has not made his case that the Calgary model is ineffective. In fact if anything he has helped show that it is.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    8. @slava You are being intentionally misled again. The data in the globalnews article used TAS (Toronto animal services) data which require notifications if dogs are in media, not Toronto public health numbers (all bites to humans that have been reported). If anything at all, this just shows that when a pitbull bites (or someone says it was a pitbull) that it is more often reported in the media. It is impossible for the number of bites to humans to be more than the number of bites to humans and other animals combined. That is just common sense. So you know right off the bat that the data used in the article is not complete/accurate. That is the reference made in the post from Fran. That the data for Toronto is confusing because how can you have more bites to humans than there were to humans AND dogs combined.

      You just stated that you are using this one sole article to base your opinion that 'the legislation was justified and it works'. Sometimes you have to look below the surface and at how the numbers were compiled. Here is an article that explains exactly why the globalnews one is flawed aside from the point stated above that there is no way it can be accurate if you look at the number of reported bites to humans. http://caveat.typepad.com/blog/2011/11/global-tv-spreads-mythology-toronto-star-gets-it-right.html

      I hope that you are sincere when you say you have no bias and want to find out the truth. Though I am starting to suspect this is not the case when you have dismissed all of the links sent by previous posters and latched onto the one link with statistics that showed pitbulls in a bad light (even if it was inaccurate) and then immediately respond with 'Eureka this proves BSL works'. If you are unbiased and looking for the truth my hope is that you will review the information I have provided and at the very least agree that the data in the link you used to form your opinion is incorrect.

      This is how pitbulls got into this mess to begin with. Media misreporting the facts and vilifying the dogs. As per your own statement you just fell for it. Another point goes to sensationalized reporting. I can only hope (perhaps in vain since this has not been the case in the past) that the liberals look at ALL the data provided

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  159. Although I disagree completely with Scottricher and his arguments / positions, I have to admire the way he has hung in here despite the venom directed at him personally. Another post was deleted just now because of the name-calling.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
    1. bobmetcalfe001 He isn't hanging in 'in spite of' the venom, he is here to push for it. This is why he routinely stalks Anti-BSL pages and groups to picks fights on them. He likes the attention. Although I'm glad I missed the deleted comment, I can bet he was laughing and high-fiving himself.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. I do have to say the moderator is doing a great job though. Unbiased peacekeeping, which is hard when a topic is so heated.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  160. I am against this ban and have commented to that effect, but really people, the name calling doesn't help your/our cause whatsoever. Its won't thing to counter on opinions but both sides of this debate needs to stop making personal attacks or nothing of anyones efforts are going to be taken seriously. We're supposed to be grown mature voting adults...act it

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  161. A warning for Tourists

    http://dogcare.dailypuppy.com/list-dogs-banned-ontario-government-4034.html

    If you can`t prove your dog isn`t a Breed ('pit bull') that doesn`t exist,you should keep out.

    Ontario is no longer Yours to Discover,it`s yours to fear.

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrier12012012

      Registered breed since 1898, if you do the math you will find out that it has been a registered breed for 115yrs, and any dog fitting the form of a "pit bull type" fits the function. Catch dog/gripping dog/fighting dog. All of a sudden your "doesn't exist" looks a little bit like BS. Most likely because it is.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      9 Disagreed
    2. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier, yes, these are pure-breeds. The pit bull, not a breed, a description.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. It's even worse than that jamiemoira. Even if you can prove your dog is a pure pred of a different breed, technically because of how the law is worded you would still have to prove that that breed is not 'significantly similar' to a pitbull. Otherwise it is still legally a Pitbull under the law's definition of a Pitbull. Your other breed has now 'become' a Pitbull. There is no definition of what significantly similar means so it is subjective and dependant on who is making the decision at that time and place.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. @acar51 Yup you`re right.It`s far worse than most people know.No exemption for other Pure Breeds that might fall under "SS".I believe (but can`t find) I read a statement by the OVMA that as many as 20 other Pure Breeds could be caught up under "SS"

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    5. "Pit bull" is a term used to describe Catch dogs

      "Lurcher" is a Term used to describe Sight hounds

      "herders" is a term used to describe Herding dogs

      "Hounds" is a term that encompasses all breeds of hound

      The term Pit bull encompasses many breeds that fall under the function of catch dogs, Formed by purpose. On purpose, just like the rest of them.

      Interestingly enough as a side fact, All the breeds of hound ? are specifically shaped via the design of their purpose. (Beagles and Bassets = Rabbits) (fox and coonhounds)= obvious, Blood hounds= people) Forms fitting their function. Its a universal truth throughout the animal kingdom.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  162. We at Planet Dog allow ALL breads in our store and grooming spa and are 100% in support of ENDING the breed ban!!

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  163. Please combine all of the end BSL ideas together into this one with nearly 800 votes ...

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  164. Can we now move on? Instead of waisting your time on Scott Richer, concentrate your efforts on more constructive criticism of the Liberal government. Concentrate on sharing your comments with Premier Wynne. That's what this website is for. I agree with the comment above made by brazin.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. This web site is about the sharing of ideas and knowledge, rather than an attept to stiffle progress, and censor opposition. So Thanks to this web site, I can finally voice my professional opinion without having my freedom of speech, violated by lesser minds.

      Your idea is based around a set of erroneous principals that state such ludicrous notions like

      1) dog discrimination is real, and if you judge a dog by its breed you are racist. (Even though it has been the principle of their evolution through man throughout its existence)

      2) That these dogs are taken from their homes and families (when this ban was through attrition and everyone got to keep the ones they had)

      (Someone must be confused as to the american principles of BSL and the Canadian version, understandable seeing as how your information on how BSL doesn't work comes from a pro pit bull interest group from the USA)

      3)providing evidence supporting this bill from the very interest group whose mission statement includes stopping dog racism.....?

      4)that the current law is killing your dogs, (even though technically pit bull owners shouldn't be breeding them, forcing the province to put them down. (identifying a criminal mentality that is attached to the dog)

      And its because of those principal and your various positions within the interests of the interest group that you have all provided another opportunity to fail the dog completely, by creating a law where the most abused dog in human history can be re released back into the general public where you will ask that the owners be responsible for them???? You will do this without considering the abuse potential the dog represents, you will do this without acknowledging the risk potentials they represent, and you will allow this because you want one? you want people to breed them, love them, own them and have them around your children..... And not consider the possibility of a failure rate associated world wide with these dogs..... because it would be racist and discriminatory to do so...??? And with that I see this bill FAILING miserably, and in the most ugly way possible. Just look at Edmonton who removed their BSL in March, last month a lady used her pit bull as a weapon, and a kid got chewed on 5 days ago, the first 2 pit bull incidents since they installed it 5 yrs ago.... Oh and they are still looking for the owners because they ran away left a 10 yr old bloody on the ground to save the pit bull and themselves.

      Responsible becomes subjective when those claiming it aren't considering the other possibilities, angles, or approaches. It has to be an all out release, it can't be breed specific, without ever acknowledging that because of what we as the human race did to them is the reasoning as to why they require such attention. That in itself is enough for PM Wynne to question the entire subtext of your argument, its origins, authors, and the numerous interests groups that push for such ridiculousness. If you truly were interested in finding common ground for he pit bulls best interest you wouldn't be so interested in censoring me.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      11 Disagreed
  165. http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/10/04/men-slink-away-after-their-dogs-savage-little-girl-in-northwest-calgary-greenspace

    Sorry that other one was Calgary AB Not Edmonton AB, pretty sad either way when you are wanting to follow them.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    9 Disagreed
    1. in the process of this you are selling the idea that the other doesn't exist, and doesn't exist because you can't acknowledge they exist. That is where the problem with your argument lays. Not with the good that you depend on, Its with the bad you ignore.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      9 Disagreed
    1. Thank you Fran for standing up for our dogs. They are our family members. It is hard listening to people that know so not little and yet think they know everything. You are very inspiring! Everyone should watch that video.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. emotional plea's, plucking at the heartstrings of the misinformed albeit well intentioned pit bull owning populous, all the while ignoring the actual issue.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      11 Disagreed
  166. By: Kristopher Irizarry, PhD Assistant Professor,Bioinformatics, Genetics,

    Genomics, Western University

    The term “pit bull characteristics” and “all three bully breeds” are used as descriptions of the dogs that the breed-specific laws would apply to. However, I’m not sure what a “pit bull characteristic” is because the term pit bull does not refer to any specific breed of dog. It is ironic that legislation containing the words “breed” and “specific” define “the specific breed” as a nebulous group of three or more distinct breeds along with any other dog that might be mixed with those breeds. It is my professional opinion that this group of dogs must be the most genetically diverse dog breed on the planet. I find it paradoxical that the consensus medical and genetic view is that even one single letter difference between two people’s DNA can result in dramatic differences in behavior, susceptibility to disease and risk of adverse drug reactions, but, when it comes to man’s best friend, the exact opposite argument is made.I think these attempts to “protect society” from dangerous dogs are flawed because the inherent assumption in these laws is that anatomical and morphological characteristics in dogs correlate with certain behaviors. The genetic program that results in a large thick skull,like that of a Labrador Retriever, is not the same genetic program that builds the brain. The former regulates genes that control the cellular differentiation and anatomical patterning of cartilage, muscle and bone. The latter regulates completely different processes including the highly ordered growth of millions of different neurons that migrate and interconnect to form neuronal circuits that communicate the biochemical language of the brain. I believe that breed specific legislation targets nothing more than a small subset of morphological characteristics of dogs and does not address behavior at all.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. specific to dogs that are specific to illegal and immoral sports and people..... Specific, dogs fitting the description of pit bulls (form and the function of a catch dog (biting and holding prey). With an understanding like mine i see no issue in catagorizing catch dogs because they all function the same way, for the same reasons. They share the same form, they share the same function.

      Brittney Sp, All the breeds of Setter, GSP, GWP, English pointer, Munstenlander, (pointing gundogs) all share similar forms for the same function.

      Lurchers, Grey hounds, Stag hounds, wolfhounds, all sharing a form from sharing the same function (sight hounds)

      Chessy, black/yellow/choc labs, duck tollers, Golden retrievers, All share similar forms from sharing the same function. (Retrievers)

      American pit bull Terriers, Cane Corso, Presa Canario, Am bully, Ca da bou, all share similar forms from sharing the same function.

      (Catch dogs/gripping dogs/fighting dogs)

      You can apply the same principle to all the groups, its application is sound, and because its sound, because it fits within the study of animal behavioral biology, the documented phylogeny of k9 evolution, because its backed by the 4 principals to the study of ethology, and because you choose to ignore those facts I find your entire argument self serving and flawed at best. Personality has no bearing on biological function. NONE. They are all loving and loyal creatures, with individual spirits and individual personalities. (specific to species not breed) Breed specifics (traits separating breeds) dictate the purpose they were bred for.

      Function

      Causation

      Environment

      Phylogeny

      basing your entire argument on Environment like you do is the basis for the dogs failure.

      The dogs function? (predator - eyes set at the front of skull)

      Causation (how it evolved, why it evolved this way and the physiological result of its evolution

      phylogeny - traits associated by its order, species, family.

      you want to acknowledge the emotional rather than the logical and its because of that you won't end up helping the dog at all, Only helping yourselves.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      9 Disagreed
  167. In the 70's they blamed the doberman, in the 80's they blamed the German Shepherd, in the 90's they blamed the Rottweiler, and now they blame the "Pit Bull", when will they blame the humans? Cesar Millan

    AND SO SO TRUE HUMANS NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE THINGS THEY DO TO ANIMALS.... animals love us SO MUCH that they do ANYTHING that we ask of them.... NO dog is born with special powers, ex: lock jaw, super physical powers and no puppy is born aggressive/killer/mean, it ALWAYS humans who make them mean/weapons/killers/aggressive and it is time for humans to pay for what they have done whether by creating or training.... but dont blame any breed for man has done. We need stricter and harsher punishments for mans cruel ways....

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  168. You cannot ban a breed of dog just because the media says it's dangerous. That's like locking away a specific race of human beings for the same reason. It's discrimination. The fact that we're talking about a different animal doesn't justify it. It's racism for dogs and nothing more than media hype... the media is WELL known for instilling fear is the public ex; flu shots, cuz their free, cuz flu season is coming PFFT unless u have a compromised immune system flu shots make u sick, the 911 in 2001 pfft staged and rigged so Bush could justify his wanting to go to war for greed/money. So you see the media will embellish/force feed YOU into fear they will repeat words like in this instant "pit bull" the next time u watch the news listen carefully on how many times they repeat the specific topic/word... the last time i watched the news was about the pit bulls and how dangerous they are and the news anchor said aren't they? or pit bulls are extremely strong,,, power of suggestion much? and they said the word pit bull about 15 times in a 1-1/2 min segment hmmmm OK there!!!!

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Really??? were human beings ever selectively bred for purpose ?? is that really what you are claiming as being comparable too ?? If dogs were subjected to a natural selection then your argument would make sense and yes that would be discriminatory..... But they weren't !!!! EVER. Start there and start over, everything you claim from this point on is based on that erroneous understanding that it is discrimination. When factually its NOT.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      9 Disagreed
  169. Any breed of dog can be used to be a "catch dog/gripping dogs/fighting dogs/retrievers" and the like.... wth do u think GSD are trained for in police work force? lmao catch dog/gripping dogs... Golden retrievers, huskies and labs are known to be SEVERE bitters/nippers/mouthing as puppies u HAVE to train it OUT of them so Mr know it all (fudge all) Scottrisher ur arguments is WRONG in EVERY sense again seriously go to a library, google, Wikipedia, cesar millan, leerburg and learn about dog behavior/psychology not breeds but all dogs.... you'd be surprised as to what u MAY learn. DOGS of ALL breeds all share a similar DNA to the wolf which makes DOGS K9's first than breed........ shake my damn head (smdh)

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  170. I will say ONE LAST thing to you Scottricher and than I am done as u are hopeless and impossible to get through about dog psychology and dog behavior... There are a lot of misinformed people when it comes to Pit Bulls. These people buy into the media hype and believe what they’ve heard instead of doing the research for themselves. Well today, here are some cold, hard facts regarding this wonderful breed. With debunking some of the myths and highlighting some of the Pit Bull’s high points, people might begin to understand and appreciate this gentle and loyal breed. First, “Pit bull” is a generic term. Generally, this term gets thrown around when describing several dogs with similar characteristics in the terrier family. Throughout this article the reference to “Pit Bulls” will include the American Staffordshire Terrier, The American Pit Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Ok, let’s get down to the myths and facts.

    Myth one-Pit Bulls have locking jaws

    Fact: There is absolutely no evidence of any kind of jaw locking or clamping down and not releasing. Pit Bulls have the same kind of jaws and teeth as other dogs. According to Dr. Lerh Brisbin of the University of Georgia, There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of “locking mechanism” unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier.

    Myth two-Pit bulls don’t feel pain

    Fact: Pit Bulls feel pain just like any other living creature. These dogs are “people pleasers” and have it ingrained in them to finish a task no matter the level of discomfort or pain.

    Myth-Pit Bulls have more bite pressure per square inch (PSI) than any other breed.

    Fact: This is absolutely false. Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic conducted a study between three different dog breeds and the results were shocking. A Rottweiler, German Shepard and a Pit Bull were all subjects of this test and surprisingly the Pit Bull had the LOWEST bite pressure per square inch. There’s varying factors in determining bite pressure mainly because the bite pressure is determined by the situation the dog is in at the time. According to Dr. Lerh Brisbine, of the University of Georgia, no studies exist to accurately measure the bite pressure of different dog breeds. Considering people can’t command a dog to bite down as hard as they can at any given time, some tests are inconclusive.

    Myth-Pit Bulls turn on their owners

    Fact: Dogs don’t perform behaviors or act out for no reason. Generally there are a few factors that contribute to a dog, of any breed, acting out. Lack of socialization, improper training and sometimes, even disease. These factors could be brewing for a long time and have just gone unnoticed by the master. Once again, this is true of any dog breed, not just Pit Bulls.

    Myth-Pit Bulls attack more people than any other breed

    Fact: As stated at the beginning of the article, “Pit Bull” is a generic term. Most people can’t even pick out a Pit Bull from other dog breeds with similar features. Also, there’s no cut and dry way to track bite records accurately. So it’s very common to get a Pit bull confused with an American Bulldog, or a number of other breeds.

    Myth-Pit Bulls are not good for anything except fighting

    Fact: This is absolutely, positively false. It’s sad to say that this breed of dog was specifically chosen for fighting purposes. With that said, these dogs have evolved over years and have become one of the most “people friendly” breeds out there. Back when dog fighting was prominent, dogs were trained to be loyal to their master; therefore, they had no aggression towards people. That’s why, in some cases, when scenes are shown of dog fighting busts, a lot of the times the dogs are wagging their tail and happy. Pit Bulls crave attention from people. In addition, these dogs have proven very valuable in today’s society. According to the Pit Bull Rescue Central website, these dogs have fulfilled important roles for 160 years or more. During the nineteenth century Pit Bulls were known as “nanny dogs” trusted to watch over the children while their parents worked the fields. Another fact is during the twentieth century, the Pit Bull was chosen for it’s bravery and loyalty to represent America on posters pertaining to WWII. Pit Bulls also assist law enforcement officers as bomb detection dogs, therapy dogs visiting hospitals and senior centers and even search and rescue operations.

    With all these myths debunked, there is plenty of material available on their long history of service. Some of our greatest leaders and teachers had this breed as a pet. Helen Keller, Thomas Edison, Theodore Roosevelt and Fred Astaire, just to name a few.

    In closing, there’s one more valuable piece of information to pass on. According to the Pit Bull Rescue Central website, the American Temperament Testing Society holds evaluations across the country to different dog breeds and gives a passing score for the entire breed based on the percentage of passed over failed within total number of the particular breed tested. As of December 2008, the Pit bull accumulated a score of 85.5 percent. To give you a comparison of this score versus other dogs the Collie, which is revered for it’s obedience only scored 79.4 percent. The Golden Retriever, America’s favorite dog only scored 84.6percent. So the Pit bull came out better than both of these beloved breeds. This is yet one more piece of evidence pointing to a Pit bull being a wonderful family pet.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  171. Hey Scott Richer, you want examples of why children are more prone to being attacked by dogs?

    Here you go. And by the way, this demonstrates how important education is, from day one.

    Children need to be taught from a young age that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable for any dog breed. Even the Mastiff was showing signs of having trouble carrying the child's weight. Lucky for these irresponsible parents, these dogs were very tolerant...for now. But what happens when they hurt and they tell the child in no uncertain terms that they aren't game for this behaviour? The dog will pay the ultimate price. And all dogs must be taught how to behave around children. If the child is doing something they don't like they must be taught to walk away. This applies to every dog breed. Education is key. Tolerance must be taught...apparently we should start with people like you Scott Richer.

    And here are some examples of tolerant "Nanny dogs":

    - a Bull Dog, often mistaken for a Pit Bull which is another reason BSL is so dangerous

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  172. Oh! And Scott Richer, you'll like this video of a vicious Pit Bull attack on a baby girl.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. and take notice on dog body language b4 u think this dog is gonna eventually bite the baby, the dog's head is lower than the baby's and ears back and tail position is medium to low meaning relaxed this dog is in complete submission to this child so again learn about dog body language from head to toe on a dog a dog any dog.... class dismissed

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  173. Cesar Millan's view of BSL and Pit Bulls. But obviously people like Scott Richer and Liberal Politicians have FAR more experience with dogs than Cesar (sarcasm for those who can't recognize it).

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  174. Ceasar understands how confused you all are, how your love for these dogs clouds your judgement, rationale, and senses of reason. He gets mistranslated quite a bit, he's been used and abused by his own people because of the things he says and when kept truthful and simple, he can explain how you've misinterpreted him over and over to suit your needs.

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/531686_349251495174524_1685436396_n.jpg

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    10 Disagreed
    1. wow you use a picture with a supposed quote from someone as proof of what they actually said????? Anyone can put a picture of someone and write in text. This is very basic computer knowledge. how about you look up actual video comments from Ceasar Millan, and possibly listen to him... All his interviews on the subject show clearly that he, being an expert in the field of dog training and obedience. Does not believe breed specific legislation works. And that is what this whole discussion is about does it work, or is it just wasting tax payer dollars, killing innocent dogs?

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Who is Killing Dogs Craig Harris ??? This Ban (In Ontario Canada) was done through attrition (Time) Everyone got to keep the dogs they had here, they just had to fix them, stop breeding them, and muzzle when in public. If dogs produced after 2005 are being put to sleep for being deemed illegal ? Who is responsible for putting them in that situation ?? The law ? or the people illegally producing them ??

      As for Ceasar Milan and actual Video.......? OK

      Even he can't save the dog from its genetics, He can Maintain it, as most other professional handlers can....... but in the hands of "just any" dog owner these dogs are EXTREMELY problematic.

      I have no issues translating the things Ceasar says. You all have an issue translating what he says to fit your interests, and needs. This is just ONE MORE example of that. Did you need another example ??? OK

      Victoria Stillwell on dogs with Neurological aggressions attached, and how her take on this, Contradicts her Position on pit bull terrier types.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
  175. children need to be kept away from fighting dogs as a means to minimize those failures that add to the dogs stigma. marketing and advertising combative sport dogs as family dogs is incredibly problematic for the dog.

    How it is you think you can justify placing the dog with the highest DBRF % in human history hands down, next to the #1 victim of dog attacks as a means to solve this dogs problems is beyond the understanding of every rational bone in my body. Especially when them attacking children is a major concern almost everywhere they are !!!! Ludicrous is all that is.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    10 Disagreed
  176. As a professional dog trainer and one that has years of experience working with predominantly working class breeds including staffies, bullies and pits, I can tell you that without media sensationalism, the government wouldn't have ever needed to feel like they needed to react in such a knee jerk way. Of all the countries that have implemented breed specific bans, not one will tell you they ever say a decrease in dog bites. A breed ban is a "quick and easy" government fix that the general population see as them actually "doing something" when in fact they have done squat.

    Stop punishing the wrong end of the leash. Start punishing the irresponsible dog owners who have been to lazy or arrogant to bother with proper training, socialization or simply basic manners. Start with them. But then again, it's much easier to point fingers to the one that can't fight back than it is to actually take a real stand.

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. he sure is deferentially enjoying pointing his finger at everyone owning pit bulls, the good and the bad owner but he must remember that while he is pointing a finger at us there is ALWAYS 3 pointing back at him....

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  177. I worked for the last year or so as an animal care attendant at a vet clinic that also offered boarding services. One of my main duties was to look after all the dogs we had in at any given time. I've seen insane Vizlas, I've dealt with American Bulldogs that humped and pulled and ate leashes, and the only dog that ever tried to bite me was a tiny (yet utterly vicious) miniature poodle cross. The only dog I've had try to attack another dog was a little Pomeranian mix. The one pure American Staffordshire Terrier I had the pleasure of meeting was a big baby who would literally make crying noises until you went and cuddled with him. All of the other mixed dogs I encountered at that job who would be classified as "pit bull type" due to their appearances have been absolute joys to work with, no fuss, no muss. It bothers me that under the current law, these beautiful, wonderful dogs are demonized, and yet nothing is done about the REAL problem dogs. Dog aggression is not a matter of looks. Please stop the madness!

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  178. Regardless how anyone feels about a particular breed of dog, as a Certified Dog Behaviour Consultant, working in Ontario, with owners of dogs with problem behaviours I can assure you several things.

    1 - Most media has focused on Animal Control numbers, not Public Health. If you want to know about injuries, then we need to realized that injuries from dogs have not been helped. If we want our children safe, we need to re-assess the effectiveness. If it is not working, scrap it and look into why that might be.

    2 - Perhaps BSL fails because if falls for the trap of breed vs owner. There are people out there that are bad breeders (of many breeds). There are no laws that address proper behavioural care of puppies. You can get a 6 week old puppy, bred from aggressive parents, without adequate vet care or socialization. Most laws end up focusing on drainage systems instead of socialization and proper puppy raising.

    3 - As long as we fail to see the bigger issue and talk about dangerous DOGS and what causes them, we will have an unnecessary safety issue.

    4 - A large portion of the pet industry is unregulated. Pet store clerks toss advice out like candy. Pet trainers are unregulated. You can be a convicted animal abuser and be a behaviourist. MIKE VICK could call himself a behaviourist.

    As long as we ignore all the industry problems and don't look at peer reviewed research regarding what triggers aggression - as long as we are sidelined by the scapegoat of breed, children will be in danger.

    Scrap BSL because you care for safety. Other industries are scared that better pet laws will impact agriculture. Let's address that, fix pet care laws and move on with safer communities.

    Let's not forget mandatory enforcement of the laws we have. If we don't enforce leash laws, letting dogs run amok, then that is about failure to enforce laws.

    Far bigger problem. BSL takes away from the real issues.

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Well said. I hope Wynne will listen to the truth and start looking at the bigger picture here. Sad to think she would continue to ignore the truth and grasp for straws to support her party's grave error in judgment.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  179. Parting comment

    'Euthanize' BSL supporters @ the Polls with your vote & make sure you don`t help elect one.

    Politicians & others have declared War on dogs.

    Don`t sit on the fence if you want to have a dog in your life in the future.

    Now's the time to speak up & voice your opposition to BSL.

    Silence condones this War on dogs.

    Haters always have to have something to hate and it`s now dogs.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  180. Taking the words "pit bull" right out of the equation, people have to keep in mind that by passing breed specific legislation, the government arbitrarily decided that a certain type of dog was deemed to be dangerous to the public, based on appearance alone - not behaviour, totally ignoring expert opinions on the matter. The legislators arbitrarily decided that if you have a dog with certain physical characteristics, enforcement officers can come into your home, without benefit of search warrant and without a complaint or proof of aggressive behaviour, and take your dog to be incarcerated pending court action, or euthanized - totally contrary to our charter of rights. And that the onus of proof lies with the dog owner to prove their animal does not fall within the loosely worded definition of "pit bull", again contrary to any other piece of legislation where the burden of proof falls on the prosecution - as it should. This section in the legislation could be changed at any time to include any other type of animal. It should never have been passed and it needs to go.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. totally false, this may be the case with American BSL, But not here in Ontario Canada, search warrants and probable cause is still needed in all forms of law enforcement and DOLA is no different. To say it isn't this way, is a false and uneducated comment.

      Intentionally Breaking a law because you don't agree with it, or because you are ignorant to it, Justifies probable cause. The Fault will and does still lay with the owner.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      12 Disagreed
    2. Scott...Are you familiar with the term Exigent Circumstances? Picture this. You have a nasty vindictive neighbour. They call animal control anonymously and report your dog just attacked someone. False of course. AC arrive and due to exigent circumstances, seize the dog. No warrant required. This term has been grossly abused as well. Why? All AC have to do is state they genuinely believed the dog posed an imminent threat even though the dog is in it's fenced backyard sleeping on the patio. Then there was the case in Brampton. AC came to the home to renew a dog license, saw Brittany, deemed her to be a pit bull and seized her without a warrant. Read. http://www.bramptonguardian.com/news-story/3071562-dogs-freed-ruled-not-pitbulls-video/

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. I`d be curious to know if a warrant has EVER been used/shown to an owner to seize a dog under DOLA or has A/C just seized the dog?

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. Scott. This is exactly why BSL is so wrong and dangerous. Many dogs have the general appearance of pit bulls but don't have an ounce of pit in them. My neighbour's dog looks like a pit but in fact is a Boxer/Lab cross. Heck...Even Animal Control can't tell the difference between a pure bred Lab and pit bull. AC tried to seize the dog without a warrant. Husband chased him out and told him not to return without a warrant. AC came back and charged them under DOLA owning a restricted dog. Sadly, under BSL, the onus is placed on the owner to prove their dog isn't a pit bull. This couple had to hire a lawyer and appear in court........ http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/breedbanslabradormistake.htm

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  181. Watch out for this dangerous Pit Bull:

    http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/23673292/pitbull

    Scott Richer, my very first dog was a Golden Retriever. We didn't have him all his life so missed the initial puppy months. He was VERY protective of me and my dad had to beat him off the paperboy when he grabbed him by the throat. My dad wasn't aware that the paper boy had bullied me and the dog saw him do it. This was a Golden Retriever who was overprotective and vicious. He was also dog aggressive. A GOLDEN RETRIEVER, not a Pit Bull. Any breed can be aggressive in the right situation, not just Pit Bulls. You obviously didn't watch the videos of Pit Bulls who were excellent babysitters.

    And perhaps you should do your research on Cesar Millan...the ONLY breed of dog that has ever bit him severely enough to require a trip to the ER was a GOLDEN LAB! And he adopted the dog and rehabilitated her. She has a permanent home with his pack. Maybe if you actually did some real research and had some common sense you'd see the reality of BSL...it doesn't work.

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2006-0427-200041/index.htm

      Nothing new to me Chantel, see it every other day. It comes from people breeding dogs without comprehending what the hell they are doing. Attached Neurologically to the dog and The above research explains why things like aggression can be linked through genetics.

      Take the conclusion to this research and add the implications of selectively breeding for them, then inbreeding for them, then again for their bite inhibition traits and pain thresholds, and you have the above topic of conversation. Pit bulls!!! This research can be located for everyone to read at the Canadian Research council. Aggression is inheritable through genetic material, By DVM Linda Vandenburg. NOT ME. whats true for golden retrievers is true for pit bulls.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      10 Disagreed
    2. Always Add "for you" after you say that BSL doesn't work. Then you will be correct for once.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      7 Disagreed
  182. one of my favorite comments ever on this B.S.L... "Never thought Canada is so race obsessed - you're a multi-cultural society, meant to be quite a tolerant, peace-loving nation. A vet in Australia recently called BSL "Apartheid for dogs and Nazism" - so true. And a political party involved in seizing and killing living beings based on race/ breed can NEVER call itself liberal - it's a right-wing, ultra-conservative, primitive thing, very World War 2 thing to do. It's NOT liberal AT ALL".... I as a proud Canadian and Ontarian, am disgusted by this appalling law. The so called "liberal" government is truly anything but liberal. Things need to change if they ever want to get my vote again...

    1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Maybe for those of you that perceive dogs as humans, unfortunately for your argument they are legally defined as live stock, property.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      8 Disagreed
  183. For Premier Wynne and everyone else here: There are a number of social media groups we invite everyone to join. There is likely a group based near you, or there are provincial groups as well. Join some, join all! We are banding together and keeping each other informed.

    FACEBOOK: The Ontario "Pit Bull" Co-op, "Pit Bull" Co-op Group- Ottawa Chapter, Ottawa End BSL, "Pit Bull" Co-op (Toronto Chapter), Dog Legislation Council of Canada, Hershey Anti BSL Group, BSL Alternatives, Changing Laws for Paws

    TWITTER: @OntarioPitBull, @OttawaEndBSL, @MacBarksBack, @SaveOntarioDogs, @PtboPitBull(Peterborough Co-op Chapter), @pitbulladvocate, @_CLFP, and of course, @Kathleen_Wynne

    Please, look up a group or two, and get in the loop. As we ALL know, there is strength in numbers, and these groups are dedicated to educate and inform.

    Hear the thunder....

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. All of these groups will welcome you PM Wynne, They're numbers will help you gain the votes, hint hint, wink wink, know what i mean ? Hear the thunder of misinformation, misdirection, and the source of the issue, that when identified they respond with personal offense, censorship, Freedom of speech violations, (Randy Hillier supported) including the above groups that refuse to rationalize the message, the consequences, the risk potentials, the abuse potentials, All as a means to get what they want, rather than give the dog what it needs.

      These groups are willing to educate the mass populous of people that fighting dogs need to be around children, who base their argument and understanding on discrimination.

      All because of their love for selectively bred predators that are legally defined as livestock and property.

      With a Supreme Court decision supporting BSL.

      With those facts at hand and the subtle threats for votes and yet a complete misunderstanding of the issue. I can't see how you could possibly support this.

      But having fallen victim to political maneuvers before Nothing surprises me. Its Sad when people vote Conservative for dogs when the can't see how environmental sector suffers because of it !!

      This is just one more sign that outside interest groups rule over our Government. Seems to be a growing trend with Conservatives.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      15 Disagreed
    2. For everyone's information, Mr. Richer is not in any of the above groups, nor will he be. Anyone else is welcome to join, opposing views or not. Everyone welcomes rational discussion.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  184. Housing, Healthcare, Employer Accountability and Reducing Emissions should all be higher priority than this subject.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    8 Disagreed
    1. Amy this issue is connected to all those issues.Your Employees(the Liberals) have used a red herring to distract the Public from their scandals & they are wasting OUR tax $ on this nonsense.

      Money better spent on Housing,Healthcare,reducing emissions,Education,Children,Seniors,LTC,Families with Autistic children etc,etc,etc

      It just goes to show that they are fiscally irresponsible, incompetent,won`t admit to a mistake & won`t correct it.

      They aren`t a new Gov`t with a new Leader,they are the same old Gov`t we had under McGuinty.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. Feel free to vote or start a new idea for those issues instead of discrediting issues that others strongly believe in.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. Last time I checked the list of submissions, the topics you mentioned are there. Did you happen to notice the submission to increase the speed limit on highways ranked #1 for a time? I truly hope you posted on that site that Housing, Healthcare, Employer Accountability and Reducing Emissions should all be higher priority than how fast cars can go on highways?

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  185. Premier Wynne, I do not presume to tell you what to do, but I do beg for a fair and just, unbiased assessment from experts with credentials, because everyone has an opinion. Part of the problem are the “self proclaimed experts” the ones that think they know everything because they’ve watched a couple videos on Youtube or heard horror stories on the news about the vicious pit bull. Those opinions aren’t because they’ve had first hand knowledge, worked with or actually raised or attempted to train a bully type dog. Talk to the people that know...The Canadian Humane Society, Canadian Kennel Club, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, Vet Technicians, rescue shelter workers that have experience with bully breeds. Maybe Mr Hillier should have you over for dinner one night to meet his beautiful bullys. I ask.. are we justified in bringing yet another breed of animal to the brink of extinction because selfish, uneducated humans train abuse and misuse these dogs for their own monetary gain? Are we fighting fire with fire trying to ban these dogs? because the only one getting burned ARE these innocent dogs. When there are no more bully type breeds and they become extinct...what then? Will we ban the doberman or the rottweiler?? This is a human problem, not a pit bull problem. Clearly some humans shouldn’t own bully type dogs, and those are the kinds of laws that responsible bully families are begging for. Not an unjustified breed ban A JUSTIFIED BAD OWNER BAN!!! Stricter laws and larger penalties for law breakers, severe punishment or jail time for puppy mill breeders and dog fighting rings. We want protection not only for our human children but for our fur babies also. Bully Lovers aren’t just pit bull lovers, we are animal lovers and no animal should be treated the way this breed has been treated....it’s inhumane!!!

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Dog owners who own mixed breed dogs which fall within a 'physical type' should not be treated in this manner either.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  186. This is a really good blog if you`re new to this Fight against BSL & want to find out what`s gone on the last 8 years.

    http://www.chicobandido.com/

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  187. Here is what happened with Bill 16

    http://www.chicobandido.com/2012/05/bill16-clause/

    This is the Bill that the Liberals have refused to call for 3rd & final Reading.

    Here`s the Petition calling on the Premier to

    recall that Bill now called Bill 112

    http://www.randyhilliermpp.com/bill16

    If you haven`t already signed it please do so.

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  188. 1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  189. A qualified opinion for Premier Wynne...

    http://www.ckc.ca/en/portals/0/pdf/other/E.NCAC.statement.pdf

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Another qualified opinion for Premier Wynne..

      http://www.ovma.org/pdf/oepnletter_bill16_may12.pdf

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Another qualified opinion by the CVMA for Premier Wynne...

      http://www.canadianveterinarians.net/documents/breed-specific-legislation-considerations-for-evaluating-its-effectiveness-and-recommendations-for-alternatives

      Read the summary if you don`t wish to read all of it.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. Another qualified opinion by the AVMA for Premier Wynne...

      https://www.avma.org/public/Pages/Why-Breed-Specific-Legislation-is-not-the-Answer.aspx

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. 1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    5. Here are many qualified opinions including the CDC for Premier Wynne...

      http://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/the-lack-of-professional-support/

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  190. The city of Calgary has implemented and enforced dangerous dog legislation and has consequently reduced dog bites by 70%. It is also important to note that the animal control program pays for itself through fees generated from licensing, adoption and impounding fees.

    http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Bylaws-by-topic/Dogs.aspx

    http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bites-in-canada/

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      Who would vote DOWN North America's most successful animal control program? 70% decrease in dog bites; a program that PAYS for itself; a program that has build and funds a low cost spay/neuter clinic for seniors and those with low income AND then goes into schools and TEACHES young children not to discriminate but instead teaches young children how to properly interact with dogs and a program LIKE THAT gets voted down? Nothing can or will ever be 100% perfect due to the "human" condition. The Calgary program and model is about as close to perfect as it gets. It is really rather sad governments can't ban stupidity.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  191. Can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. Is there any point that has not been made already --- several times.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. we will keep repeating ourselves till the ignorant get it or get out. PERIOD

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Have you been in this fight since 2004 Bob? If so what do you suggest we do(serious question) other than what we are doing?I don`t argue the issue because there aren`t 2 sides to this issue.I agree that there`s need to argue but we must make it clear to the Liberals that this issue is not going away.

      If your point is to not argue with a certain Poster I would agree with that.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. Typo.I meant to say I agree there`s NO need to argue.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  192. "It's not the breed, it's the human behind the dog." -@Cesar Millan

    http://www.cesarsway.com/the-scoop/dog-news/Mr-Millan-Goes-to-Washington

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Its both, the owner that requires a fighting dog, and the fighting dog that does what it does.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      9 Disagreed
    2. Are you saying Helen Keller required a fighting dog? She was deaf and blind. All her hands and fingertips felt was the warm body of a loyal loving canine companion. How about Michael J Fox? Mary Tyler Moore? Her dog senses when her blood sugar is low. Linda Blair? Jon Stewart? Leornardo Dicaprio? Maggie Q? Ken Howard? Just to name a few. Yep. All gangsters who require a fighting dog.

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  193. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2013/10/04/21175456.html

    http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/11/25/young-calgary-girl-rushed-to-hospital-after-pitbull-bites-her-face

    http://globalnews.ca/news/777921/family-upset-after-new-neighbours-dogs-attack-pet/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/brad-pattison/calgary-dog-attack_b_2411455.html

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/woman-sent-to-hospital-in-calgary-dog-attack-1.1372711

    http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/child-recovers-from-dog-attack-1.1116046

    http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/593182/calgary-claims-dog-attacked-twice-by-same-pitbull/

    You May think that placing responsibility back into the hands of the owner will somehow magically stop these dogs from behaving this way.

    Unfortunately for the pit bull, you will never save the dog from itself. There is a biological and Ethological reason these dogs do these things as often as they do. And it isn't media bias !!!!

    For those of you Wanting to adopt the Calgary Model, it would be best if you didn't lie.

    Calgary has had a 40% rise in serious dog attacks / dangerous dog attacks/ over the last 5 yrs.

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Calgarians+unleash+torrent+bite+reports/8411084/story.html

    Pushing other people in front of a bus to save a pit bull

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    6 Disagreed
  194. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    Scott it seems you need to react to virtually every post put up in this forum. Sigh. Despite a slight rise in dog bites that break skin(the city of Calgary's growth has been astounding) Calgary's aggressive dog incidents remain much lower than most major cities and it is not unusual for yearly averages to fluctuate somewhat over a couple of years; especially when the number of bites decreased substantially the years before. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Documents/Animal-Services/Animal-statistics/Reports%20of%20Dog%20Aggression%20Over%20Time.pdf

    As far as media bias. When accused of being bias, a producer at CBC decided to find out for himself if CANADIAN media had developed a bias in reporting about so called "pit bulls" as opposed to "other" dogs. The answer was YES. http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Local+Shows/British+Columbia/ID/2274188927/

    I guess YOU think it good that Toronto or Ontario as a whole makes NO real attempt to keep proper records on dog bites? In the two fatal dog attack inquiries in Ontario, recommendations were very similar (neither fatalities from banned breeds). Both inquiries requested the province establish a centralized database regarding dog bites and other programs Calgary already has instituted. IGNORED and then IGNORED AGAIN. Recommendations to one of the inquests regarding a fatal dog attack is below.

    http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/courtneyinquest.html

    Many here believe; instead of legislating people and children to discriminate, children should be taught early in school how to properly interact and approach dogs. When Calgary instituted a educational program to teach children about dog safety, dog bites decreased. The more the program was promoted in schools, the more dogs bites fell. Education IS the KEY to dog safety and responsible dog ownership; NOT the random seizing and killing of people's family pets because they "LOOK" a certain way.

    Sadly, I get there will always be an "element of society" who prefers discrimination over education and believes because of a few ALL people should be regulated AND controlled for the sake of "public safety". I personally believe the minority of irresponsible people should be the ones who pay for THEIR actions or inactions; NOT society or the public as a whole.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. You Calling 40% a slight rise in 5 yrs a slight rise ?? if it continues to rise would you continue calling it a success ???

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
  195. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    Calgary's educational program on dog safety. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/School-and-educational-programs/School-educational-programs.aspx

    Calgary's volunteer animal socialization program. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Volunteering/Paws-pal.aspx

    Calgary's No cost spay/neuter program. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Animal-Services/No-cost-spay-neuter-program.aspx

    Calgary's REWARD program that promotes responsible dog ownership. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Animal-Services/I-heart-my-pet-program.aspx

    Calgary's statement on responsible dog ownership and their responsible dog owners by-laws. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Animal-Services/Animal-Services.aspx

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  196. It never ceases to amaze me that Compassion for dog bite victims always seems to be shape specific by those with an agenda or an axe to grind.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-bylaw-head-seeing-more-family-dog-bites-1.1133877

    We need fair laws that will help reduce all dog bites not just some dog bites.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  197. 1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. I'm sure Scott R will try and discredit the statements made by the heads of the OVMA and other educated, experienced members of the animal community.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  198. PIT BULL ATTACKS TV HOST

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. The unfortunate part about this video is the title.....I bet when people saw that posted to youtube, it probably got hundreds of views because of the title alone.

      Despite what some of the naysayers and trolls will argue, this is what your average pitbull is like......an average dog! They are not vicious killers. In this story, here is a dog up for adoption in what is probably a stressful, unfamiliar environment, being handled by complete strangers, and what is she doing - kissing, with her tail wagging looking for love!

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  199. When the other end of the spectrum looks like this ??? selling the idea that the majority is anyway other than this is a moot point. Loved them like kids, owner chewed on like a toy, eaten in front of her remaining eye.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334412/Linda-Henry-dog-attack-Woman-lost-arms-eye-ear-calls-tougher-control-breed.html

    Chihuahua's can't do things like this,

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
  200. I am having to show this as to gain an ENTIRE percpective that the people with the lovey dovey video's won't show the PM. Out of Fear of what these facts dictate !!!!

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    6 Disagreed
    1. 1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  201. I have known dogs, of several breeds, that were very dangerous as a result of how they were treated by people. One (a german shepherd mix) attacked my wheaten causing considerable damage. So you don't need to convince me that they exist.

    On the other hand I was badly bitten by my grandmother's dog when I was three (still have the scar on my face). The dog was normally extraordinarily gentle. My behaviour set her off and she was defending herself. She was not at fault. Nor me. The adults in the family were to blame for not properly supervising a little child and/or not training me how to be around old dogs who are sleeping.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  202. Fran there`s a certain Poster who`s getting his jollies from reactive people.You know there isn`t any credible Expert who supports BSL.

    Can`t & won`t tell you what to do but...think BK...same thing here.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  203. Ceasar is a type of salad. CESAR is a television personality. Is that clear?

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  204. why did you remove my video posts about how it is the human that uses this dogs as weapons, that was the human that sicked the pit bulls on other humans? pfft double standard, his is violent and misleading mine was educational...

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Moderator

      It's not the content of the video, but of your comment.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
  205. An example of how forgiving these dogs can be:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1458313137726165

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. No one is questioning the dogs ability to bounce back from the abuse we provide it........... My point is their need for all these second chances because of your need to ignore the reasoning as to why they need them. Targeted for abuse because of what the breed is !!!!!

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
  206. Just one of MANY examples of someone in Ontario charged under DOLA & having to PROVE their innocence.

    Good luck if you don`t have the money to fight.

    http://brindlestick.blogspot.ca/2011/01/bowser-rottweilerboxer-cross-is-safe-in.html

    Only in Ontario would you be charged with the 'crime' of simply owning a dog & wanting to do the right thing...neuter it.

    Talk about crazy.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. This is exactly why this law needs to be abolished!!! And shame on the Vet clinic for calling AC on a mixed breed dog that shows no proof of his lineage. And this is exactly why overbearing, over opinionated trolls really need to be moderated!

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. He was actually charged with owning a dog that behaved in a threatening manner, for which he plead guilty too..... The dog ???

      Same form and very apparently when looked at without your bias attached.....Same function.

      BTW Blogs aren't exactly an expression of fact, they provide the writer the ability to provide an opinion, self interests, and bias.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      6 Disagreed
    3. Jamie. I posted this link above but will post it here too in case it's missed. Pure bred Lab identified as pit bull and almost seized without a warrant..... http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/breedbanslabradormistake.htm

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. @Angie That case with the Pure Bred Lab is what prompted me to take my dog(Lab like) to my Municipality & ask for a letter stating she was NOT a 'pit bull'. They were unable to state that because of the X after Lab. Who`s her Daddy? I don`t know.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  207. My Lawyer told me this case exemplifies why they included 'pit bull terrier' in the law & why they won`t EXEMPT ANY mix breed dog up front by providing any kind of official documentation no matter what it looks like.

    I proved that conclusively by taking a black mutt that looks Lab like in to be photographed.

    The letter states basically that they are unable to determine her Breed & therefore can`t exempt her as a 'pit bull'

    Simply did that to prove a point.NO ONE knows what dogs fall under this vague Legislation except for the 3 named Breeds.

    ANY mix breed dog of unknown genetic lineage NO matter what it looks like could potentially be captured under that term.

    There are also NO exemptions in the law for any other Pure Breed dogs that have no genetic link to the 3 named Breeds.They can be captured under 'substantially similar'

    I would say the only dogs that are safe in Ontario are registered (unnamed in the law) Pure Breeds that couldn`t possibly be captured under 'substantially similar' such as a Golden Retriever,Beagle etc

    Is it any wonder people live in fear of walking their dogs in Ontario?

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Your conjecture complicates a very uncomplicated set of facts. Intentionally of course.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      7 Disagreed
  208. Using mixed breed dogs in the topic of looks and behavior is whats called "Conjecture", Especially so when you refuse to acknowledge what these facts dictate in pure breed dogs.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    6 Disagreed
  209. For those of you who haven`t seen this...a great Interview with Geneticist Dr Kristopher Irizzary

    It starts at ~40 mins and at ~67 mins he talks abt 5-6 genes determining the shape of a dog`s head.

    Quite an interesting listen.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pit-bulletin-legal-news/2012/07/04/canine-genetics-with-geneticist-dr-kristopher-irizzary

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. FANTASTIC interview!!! I recommend all of you BSL supporters start listening at 62:20 - Dr. Irizzary talks about those that say that all Pitbulls are vicious: "It's a falicy and it's ignorance and it's really hard to combat ignorance because they don't need to provide any data to support it. They don't need to provide any basis for their opinion; they just say it over and over. If you come at it from the objective scientific part, I'm limited to say things based on evidence and that I could point to information to say this is why I believe this or these 15 studies prove it. So it's kind of unfair in a way that they say that, but I would ask them what data do they have to prove it, other than the sentence they are saying".

      He talks about the "wash effect" in genes and how out of 50 dogs bred for a job, only one or two will make the grade. Ironically enough, he basically said the same thing I said days ago, not every dog will do what it was bred to do and used the example of Pointers and Retrievers - "not all Pointers point and not all Retrievers retrieve."

      Go ahead naysayers........tell DOCTOR Irizzary he is wrong and doesn't know what he is talking about!!!!! I'd love to make sure he hears your comments too! After all, he only has a Doctorate in Genetics - how could he possibly know what he is talking about!!!!!

      Sorry, but I base my opinions, feelings, statements, etc. on TRUE expert opinion and research and not on glorified, fear mongering news stories! Nor do I give any validity to dog bite stats from the US 10 years ago!

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Here's Dr. Irizzary's credentials before anyone tries to discredit him and say it was made up by the anti-BSL groups: http://www.westernu.edu/stp/bios.php?bio=kirizarry

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  210. I've submitted a proposal that Ontario adopt an 'Animal Rights Code' which would apply to livestock and pets. Please support this suggestion.

    Thanks

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Bob - can you post the link so I don't have to scroll through all the suggestions.....

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  211. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    Firstly I want to thank the monitors for quickly removing the last response I made, but question why a certain individual is allowed his comments; to the point where he virtually "hijacks" the comment section.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. I agree Fran - and I asked the same thing and my comment was removed!! His comments are rude, condescending and bordering on belligerent, yet none of his are moderated? In one comment above, he accused someone of intentionally providing misinformation - that is rude and condescending, yet it is still posted?

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Moderator

      Most of the comments in this thread are borderline "rude and condescending." The ones that are still around are the ones closer to 'normal.'

      People should not that their passion tends to get the better of them and perceive certain responses as personal when in fact they are responses to the content of the comment.

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  212. Bob - can you post the link so I don't have to scroll through all the suggestions.....

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Dawn: Of course -- that's a lot easier than searching for it. It didn't occur to me. I've posted two that might of interest to you:

      Animal Rights Code:

      http://commonground.ideascale.com/a/dtd/An-Animal-Rights-Code/24892-25935

      Our Relationship with Pets - Ownership or Guardianship?

      http://commonground.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Our-Relationship-with-Pets-Ownership-or-Guardianship/24887-25935

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  213. first things first DOGS DO NOT RATIONALIZE but WE DO AND Proof is in the pudding, it is ALWAYS the human training their dogs as weapons... AND it is these ppl that need to be banned from owning ANY dog not the other way around....

    listen carefully how the narrator even knows these facts and list goes on and on, again it is ALWAYS the owner, but I bet some will find a reason why that officer got attacked or why the dog attacked... but the truth of the matter is, is you just cant get through to everyone so we need to ignore the ignorant and educate the ones that want to be educated :) good night everyone

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Everyone's inability to answer my obvious questions should be a clear sign that you cannot educate people when they don't like the lesson, An education in dog racism, isn't an education worth having. What it will do is perpetuate OLD problems like over population, increased dog fighting activity, increase in severe attacks, and victims looking for compensation in courtrooms with people that won't show, can't pay, or run before getting caught as a means to save their pit bull from the consequences, promoting irresponsible ownership in lieu of protecting communities.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      8 Disagreed
    2. These videos show exactly why BSL DOESN'T work!!! BSL targets ALL Pitbull type dogs, regardless of their temperament, where the law should be targeting owners like both of these women!!!!! I bet the woman in the 2nd video will think twice about sending her dog to attack someone else again now that she got jail time and a fine. This is exactly the type of punishment/law we need in place - one that holds the owner responsible for the actions of their animals!!

      If I commanded my dogs to "attack", the most they would do is jump on someone and lick them to death!!! They are not familiar with that word or command and would have no idea what I wanted them to do.

      Killing innocent dogs with good, stable, temperaments is not the answer - punishing those that use dogs (any dog) to harm others is what is going to reduce dog bites - NOT BSL.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. And IMO, those "humans" are acting more like "wild animals" than the dogs are!!!! Again, goes to show, you are a product of your environment!

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  214. There are many issues with BSL, and I think most, if not all, are addressed here. It’s my opinion that the legislation creates many more problems than it tries to solve.

    Education is the key to reducing dog-related issues; teaching humans how to interact properly with dogs is the best way to reduce occurrences.

    For example: "patting a dog on the head" isn’t the proper way to “pet”, all dogs feel dominated by this action. How do you feel when someone pats you on the head?

    Most dog attacks are an escalation of defensive reactions, for example; a child unknowingly “dominates” a dog by patting it on the head, even a familiar dog, the dog warns its dislike by growling, the child continues patting not knowing the dominance issue or that growling is a warning (no one educated the child), the dog nips, the child hits back, the dog retaliates, the incident escalates …

    BSL has no affect, in fact, it’s a drain on our resources, and has created other issues like de-socialization (which can increase incidents).

    As a voter in Ontario, I’d much rather see our money pulled to enforce BSL and spent on educating the population on how to interact with dogs, specifically our children. This is how we can reduce dog-related issues.

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  215. I look back at all the posts and I see absolutely no questions from you Scott? What Questions ? I think you have made your point very clear. I think you’ve come on here to bully all the people that have an opposing opinion, I’m surprised the moderator has continued to let you post. WE all get that you think this ban is awesome for the pitbull and you think it’s saving the community. Those of us that have a different opinion are tired of defending our right to that opinion from people like you. You have offered to show me your credentials yet I see none on here, I’m sure everyone would like to see them. Show us your Masters Degree in Bioinformatics, Genetics, Geonomics,… Ok how about your Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine….I’d even settle for a Bachelor of Science or a College Diploma for Vet Technician. Until then I think your theories are nothing more than baseless, uneducated opinions and no matter how we try there is just no avoiding them, because you bully everyone with them. You have no actual scientific proof that you’re opinions are right, yet you ignore all the documented scientific and expert opinions that contradict you….I see this as bullying and trying to get a rise out of people who are passionate about their bully family members and their right to own and love them. You see some of us think we can do more for these beautiful dogs than banning them and ignoring the abuse and stigmatism that these dogs go through every day. If you see an animal being abused is it not our jobs as humans to help these animals? Should we as a province ignore the abuse, call it a ban and make it everyone else’s problem that doesn’t have a ban on bully breeds…makes no sense!!! INHUMANE is what it is!!

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. AMEN my friend well said I support ur msg. God bless YOU... :D

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  216. Scott fits the classic definition of an internet troll. He has no scientific based facts to contribute, all his rhetoric is simple opinion. He quotes no reputable studies.Yet he knows what buttons to push with people who truly care about the injustices done to their dogs. I suggest you all make your comments without reference to Scott, shun him, works for Mennonites.

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. I agree Dirk - I have been trying not to feed the troll. IMO, it is in everyone's best interest to ignore him. If you actually add scientific proof (as someone did above with the interview on genetics), he doesn't respond or comment - because he can't. He can't dispute science and those with Doctorate's. Don't feed the troll and the troll will starve to death!

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. Every time you reference 'that guy' you just give him another excuse to post more of the same, over and over like a broken record. Its his trademark to troll websites, Twitter and FB and push people's buttons. Sadly, there are people who take the bait perhaps because they don't know who he is. Can we stop engaging him now? Some people just don't know when to quit.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  217. Question #1 - Is this dog specific to dog fighting ?

    Question #2 - does that provide reason for specific controls?

    Question #3 - Will placing the dog with the highest DBRF % in all of human history, next to the number one victim of dog bites in (children under 13yrs) increase the number of situational failures ? or will it decrease it?

    Question #4 - how will providing free access to the general public provide the dog a reprieve from the historical abuse its known for?

    Obvious questions with obvious answers that throughout this entire topic of discussion you have avoided at all costs... On purpose as a means to deflect the reality it provides. More Access means more failures, bittersweet educations based on dog racism, and nanny dog belief structures, and complete ignorance to the phylogenetic reasons the dog has too preform the duties of a fighting dog/gripping dog/ catch dog.

    Providing the dog access to the general public under these premise's, contribute to its well known issues of Over population, over breeding, killing and attacking kids, owners, neighbors, dogs, cats, various forms of livestock. all of which the animal was selectively bred to preform. Bringing about a need for Breed specific controls in the future.

    Answer the questions or continue ignoring them, up to you, I've proved my standpoint, and i didn't need to create a research council to create my own facts. You all have and that is why you stumble when faced with it.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Answer to ALL your Questions - NO, let me say that this site has EVERYTHING you need to know about the "Bully" breeds past history, present, myths, origin and todays use for the breed. Seriously read this and it will answer ALL of your questions!! AND there should be NO MORE doubts, and if there is than....... http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/truth-about-pit-bulls

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  218. I would not take into account any information from a self proclaimed "professional" or entertain false facts. The evidence is in studies from creditable sources such as the OVA, OSPCA, THS and the list goes on. I do not believe that dogs that fall into the category of "pit bulls" are born aggressive and should be banned. This is absurd! Unfortunately ignorance has painted an evil image of these dogs and the uneducated has been lead to believe this. There needs to be more awareness and education for the public and children on how to behave and respect dogs of all breeds. We as humans are responsible for the domestication of dogs we need to be responsible for where we are today. Banning breeds does not keep people safe.

    This ban has cost tax payers of Ontario and continues to do so. These resources can be used elsewhere. Why as a tax payer do I have to be denied the same rights as any other dog owner if I own a "pit bull"? Dogs of all breeds can bite and kill. And the argument that "pit bulls" inflict more damage or have "lock jaw" has never been proven. Below are just a few stories of dogs of all breeds that have killed or severely injured. Including a fatal jack russsle attacking. Should we ban all dogs then based on theses stories? NO! Accountability and education. Lets keep the focus on what outcome we want to achieve. Justice and equality for all breeds. These links are not strictly in Canada, a dog is a dog no matter is geography.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003849/Boy-3-left-horrific-facial-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/146782/woman_mauled_to_death_by

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/german-shepherd-savages-girls-face-1936977

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102683/Our-worst-nightmare-Newborn-baby-mauled-death-husky-used-family-dog-sled-business.html

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/06/08/mother_of_baby_killed_by_husky_charged_with_manslaughter.html?app=noRedirect

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1285099

    http://www.cybc.com.cy/en/index.php/cyprus-news/item/2951-1

    http://m.topix.com/forum/city/brooklyn-ny/TCNTCN0CEUQ10A2PA

    http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/09/harry-harper-inquest-docile-pet-dogs-bite-killed-baby-boy-asleep-in-his-cot-3590392/

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Myth - Lock Jaw - jaw does not physically lock, they do not want to let go (bite inhibition for which they were selected, and inbred for. Making this Myth more of a half truth.

      And again you've failed to answer the question, and again its on purpose.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  219. Nattie This guy here says you are brainwashed into believing such nonsense

    Were they bred to be human aggressive ? This guy says yep and he did this to make them better fighters.

    Bred for game and fighting prowess ? Yep sure thing.

    Bred and inbred for bite inhibition and increased pain thresholds ? Yep he did that too.

    He produced 25,000 of them by 1936, and was also the lead dog fighter of his era, This book he wrote was basically him boasting about not only how good his dogs are at fighting, but the documented reasoning as to why they are. Colby pit bulls are the forerunning pit bull of today, as they are Gotti pits, Razors edge pits, etc...... Everything you claim to be a myth about the pit bull, This person here did intentionally. To ignore that these dogs attack people and continue with a belief that they are misidentified, or not human aggressive ??? Thats all you!!!! I accept that about them not only because of the frequency in which it happens, the methods to which it happens, and the collateral damage that follows. More so because it makes phylogenetic sense that these dogs would be so good at fighting and biting, Due to they way they evolved through people like this. You can continue denying the viability and probability of it being this way for a reason, by quoting whomever within your interest group ??? Won't matter because this documented history is factual and its evidence towards the rationale of specific controls.

    Q#1, Yes they are specific to the illegal, immoral, unethical, sports of animal abuse and they always have been.

    Q#2 - Yes that provides reasons for specific legislation

    Q#3 - An educational stance that they are for children will come with an increased failure rate than what it currently is......Near 0. And the cost of those failures usually outweigh the dogs worth.

    Q#4 - Open and free access to such an animal will perpetuate the dogs original issues of over population, piss poor ownership, increases in dog fighting activity and culture, And the world reknowned set of collateral damages that could all be curbed by your acknowledgement of these obvious answers.

    https://vitaminsforpitbulls.com/colby-pit-bullhistory/

    Unfortunately you wish them to be anything but what they are. In failing to acknowledge what these dogs are, you in turn fail the dog.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  220. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    Other dogs Mr. Richer would like to see restricted ownership of includes; Presa Canarios; Fila Brasiliarios; Cane Corsos; Cada Beus; Tosa Inuls; True American Bullys; American Bull Dogs; American Bullys; Kangals; Akbashs; Anatolian Shepherds; Shar peis; Chow Chows; Patterdale terriers; Police and Military purpose K9's; Beaucerons; Malinios; German Sheppards; Dutch Shepherds; Canaan Dogs; Dobermans; Rottweilers; Belgian Shepherds; Belgian Terverons; Bouvier des Flanders; Mastiff all breeds; Hunting Breeds, of combative Functions, (AKA) Catch dogs, Working Dogs; Karelian Bear Dogs; Akitas; Yellow black mouth Curs; Mountain Curs, Thai Ridgebacks; Rhodesian Ridge backs; Dogo Argintinos; South African Borboels; Irish Wolfhounds; Scottish Deerhounds; Greyhounds including Variety of Lurchers; Running Foxs and Coon hounds and Siberian Huskys.

    (I am surprised the list does not include the Labourer Retriever as it has been the number three biter in the greater Toronto Area for the last 10 years running).

    Just want to say that when I have wanted MY dogs to "LET GO" of a toy or food or ANYTHING for that matter over the past 25 years, I simply have said "DROP IT". Situation immediately solved.

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Does a Labrador retriever function like a Catch dog ???? Restricted with a license, isn't a ban. Its a means to offer protection to the next dog that would be acquired by a criminal mentalities, for criminal purposes. All of a sudden your "they'll go and find another breed to abuse" argument suddenly holds no water. A license for the breed you want, is a better option than a public free for all...... Better for everyone including the animal.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      4 Disagreed
    2. Fran, why include Dobes? Everybody knows they are all lovers. LOL

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  221. Labs also just happen to be the most popular dog on the planet, most populated breed on the planet, (registered and unregistered) and all of that stems from their useful purposes.....both in field and in home.

    I've only found one useful/lawful purpose for catch dogs, (where their functions can operate in a positive manner) But Ontario doesn't have a feral pig problem. What Ontario does have is a people problem, and thanks to the DLCC, NCRC, that people problem has only gotten worse. Educating people the way you have been for the last 20yrs has provided the pit bull more access to kids, more failures because of it, and a stronger stigma than it was 20 yrs ago. Through a Failure to acknowledge fact, and a need to comprehend the issue through the eyes love sick owners, and a erroneous understanding of prejudice.

    Accepting the facts as they are would help the pit bull, Changing its image won't.

    The dog only ever needed someone to accept the facts as they are and deal with the issue, avoiding it, ignoring it, changing it, aren't options worth exploring, yet throughout its all any of you are willing to do. That and attack me personally for the information I've given.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    5 Disagreed
    1. We don't have a feral pig problem, we have a feral Liberal problem. Too many Liberals at the trough. But we'll take care of that in the next election.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  222. "Dr. Kristopher Irizarry explains the basic genetics of the dog, and how the genes that control appearance are completely separate from those that involve behavior. Breed Specific legislation thus lacks any legitimate scientific basis."

    http://radio.pblnn.com/shows/interviews/151-dr-kristopher-irizarry-genetics-interview-july-3-2012

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. that is a stretch jamiemoira, as the research only suggests they are seperate only, not that the other doesn't exist. Translating things beyond your scope into a necessary fact is what makes it a stretch, Its easy enough to spot once you read the material.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
  223. Dirk, they are lovers with a weaponization potential, due to their abilities in security work.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. Scott, then please do enlightened me on your theory solely on this ONE question.!! LOL why is it that in the 80's they blamed the doberman, in the 90's they blamed the rottweiler and now they blame the pit bull? And don't just tell me about the pit bull. Tell me about ALL of them and why... LOL ;)

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  224. they all suffer from the same affliction.....!!! a tough dog, brings about a tough image, and the dogs design for security/combat/ got better over time.

    Dogs with weaponization potential, and increased abuse potentials got better over time,

    Dobermans are good security dogs, as are Rotti, as are pit bulls, All of them suffer through piss poor ownership, because of what they are, all of them have a purpose that is attractive to Cowards, criminals, and well intentioned, yet misinformed people like you.

    There is no Theory of MINE here !!!! just facts and principles of ethology, and behavioral biology.

    Sir Charles Darwin's Variation within a species set forth the principles towards my facts, and standpoint. Basing my outcome on actual science rather than the opinion of bias people and research councils.

    4 principals to the study of Ethology

    Function

    Causation

    Environment

    phylogeny

    YOU all base your theories on Environment without the slightest consideration for the other 3, All i have stated here is that all four contribute. And ACTUAL scientists like Niko Tinnenburgen, Konrad Lorenz, Dimitry Balyeve, all followed the science that Charles Darwin Created,

    In response to the facts this science dictates, you have regurgitated a specific response by Cesar Milan, that is specific to the anti bsl movement by suggesting other dogs have gone through the same things as pit bulls have, simply not the case.

    They blamed them because they were partaking in the protective/offensive/scary behaviors of protection dogs, handled by cowards in need of them. ALL of them. The design got better over time.

    Different dogs, same affliction, and your continued ignorance towards the cause of it.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  225. Interesting Testimony here by Dr Kris Irizarry on Visual identification.

    Please watch this Ms Wynne

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Remember Dr Irizarry is a Geneticist.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  226. PHD in conjecture....... An Anti BSL expert using his position and "research" for a specific purpose. His flaws are within his methodology, written within the research.

    Science is rarely if never conducted with a preconceived conclusion, (like Dr Irizarry) only ever preconcieved notions. (it is or isn't)

    This along with Every other form of research that the NCRC has "approved" eg ATTS, all stem from pre concieved conclusions that pit bulls are not what everyone else says they are. You use these things and form them to your needs, rather than a thorough translation of whats said. I've explained this 2 times already, Sir Charles Darwin created this science, genetics and behavior, to step outside of that as a means to create your own facts is your intent. Mine is to include all avenues as to gain a complete understanding. And not one formed by the Bias of a pit bull owner, who just so happens to be a geneticist. Whom Karen Delise Co founder of the NCRC, funded to preform this research.

    Don't bite the hand that feeds, Here is a Canadian Geneticist that explains this trend of selective science being used to support preconceived conclusions, and how it is the ultimate death of facts and evidence.

    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/panther-lounge/2012/07/selective-science-and-the-death-of-evidence/

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
    1. Scott - what are your credentials, besides dog walker extraordinaire?

      Seriously, you are referring to someone with bonefide credentials as conjecture? Seriously, your comments challenging someone with a PHD truly shows who you really are. I really hope that whomever is reading this valid, legitimate issue in the Liberal government takes your comments and dismisses everything you have to say as rubbish........and your last comment above should solidify that for them!!!

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. Now Scott you are not only insulting OUR intelligence but the professionals as well??? Your so quick to discredit EVERYONE yet you have NEVER showed your own credentials!! I have also noticed that you talk in circles and try to use capacious sentences and voluminous words in attempts to influence us and that again are in circles and pointless. Until you have owned ANY large breeds (is why you speak of all of them being dangerous is bcuz of your fear and ignorance for them)you will always live in ignorant bliss, and YES we are simple people that dont have a university degree in English literature but we do have EXPERIENCE and you will NEVER know more than what the books and internet is telling you bcuz you do NOT have experience, bonded, loved and raised dogs. It is very apparent that you are not a dog lover not to mention you can find ANYTHING you want on the internet, keep what suits YOU and discard what is not convenient to your purpose and that my friend makes you bias, as you like to call us. And your condescending comments haven't affected me bcuz I am quite confident and secure in my career as a dog behaviorist/psychologist and trainer. ONE LAST thing from me to you, CANINE EDUCATION; The moral of MY story, in MY teachings to humans is “Think and communicate like a dog”! They are incapable of speaking human, therefore, it is our responsibility to learn the primal canine way. PERIOD AND GOOD DAY!! :D

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. I'm not questioning his credentials, I'm questioning his methodology. Much like ATTS the flaws are written within the methodology, Authored on the website or within the research.

      Volunteered dogs, of trained and socialized backgrounds, pre screened for aggression, and if found it goes unrecorded into the conclusion database.

      yet they apply a by breed grading system for temperament ??

      I suppose this issue is very similar to many things and the most compatible analogy i can think of would be the argument on whether or not GMO's are bad or good. If you believe the research that Monsanto provides towards the topic at hand they are good.. where as independent Japanese scientists (not paid by Monsanto) would beg to differ..

      It boils down to who gains the most by positive results.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  227. ???? Are you saying that Dr Suzuki is wrong about how people are forming answers they like through research they create ?? Dr Suzuki has 50 yrs experience with forming scientific research in genetics.... what makes you so qualified to discredit him ??

    Dog walker extraordinaire ???? I'll take that as the insult it was intended as, Unfortunately for you my expertise isn't singled towards any one animal, I have worked with various forms of wild and domestic animal, preforming research and physical work with both, for intergovernmental ministries, departments, and organizations. Bears (all three NA species), wolves, wild horses, dogs(feral and domestic), waterfowl, Mustilids, Cervids, Ungulates and I have been lucky in doing so because of my education and experience in behavioral biology, Ethology, and wildlife technology. This provides me my understanding of the topic at hand. Also providing me the insight to see the errors in your argument, the research you present as factual, and the belief structures that stem from it.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  228. BTW - Conjecture = guess work / Anyone's best guess / A belief based on gut feeling, and incomplete information.

    form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
  229. http://www.scribd.com/doc/12764693/Testimony-on-pit-bulls-by-drPLBorchelt

    Although Dr Peter and I don't share the same vision on BSL, we share the same opinion on the dog.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
  230. IT IS UTTERLY POINTLESS MY PIT BULL LOVER FRIENDS. Pointless to even try with this person. I agree that we need to focus on the main problem and that is freeing our family pets and stop the murdering... :) Let's stick TOGETHER and fight the GOOD fight TOGETHER.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  231. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    Premier Wynne;

    I am attaching a news video from a protest held 4 years ago outside of Queens Park when after, according to a news report, Premier McGuinty said "there is no interest in reopening the "pit bull" ban".

    Again FOUR years later your OWN "common ground" website shows there IS indeed lots of "interest" in removing the breed ban and thus instituting breed "neutral" legislation.

    Do you deny Liberal MPP's received in 2010 alone more than 20,000 individual emails apiece on this "issue"(as emails were sent and documented)?

    Mr. McGuinty also said in the news video your party got "the best advice it could" but LEFT OUT the BEST ADVICE was AGAINST putting a ban in the first place (look up "A Concise Summary of Bill 132)!

    For many thousands of Ontarians the ban truly is and will continue to remain an "election issue" and for reason. As a gay person YOU must remember how terrible the stereotypes on gays were on one time? Surely the name "Anita Bryant" MEANS something to you. Your MPP's of colour known there will always be somewhat of a "element of society" that continues to fear monger and discriminate based on sexual preference, colour, race, religion and sadly today - even on a dogs appearance.

    Ontarians have hope, since Michael Bryant and Dalton are gone; Liberal party members (no NDP or PC's voted for the breed ban)will indeed REMOVE the "breed specific" portion of the Dog Owners Liability Act. The act can truly stand on it's own without profiling certain types or breeds of dogs; thus turning thousands of respectable and responsible Ontario dog owners into 3rd class citizens.

    PLEASE put an end to the current unjust, prejudicial, draconian piece of legislation known as DOLA which has in it "reverse onus" thus taking away "presumption of innocence" for so many Ontario dog owners with short haired mutts.

    1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  232. Again with the prejudice,

    Gun legislation in Canada was formed and legislated under the premise that its a privilege, not a right.

    The ownership of fighting dogs, and dogs with the greatest abuse potentials should be legislated and I've clearly explained why, The resentment/dissent/ personal attacks/and requests for censorship, should be a clear indication of how problematic it is to give these people what they want.

    They see Liberals discriminating against dogs and will vote conservative because of it.

    Yet they can't see how Conservatives discriminate against the rights of everyone and specifically First Nations people of this country. Both on a Provincial and federal Scale (Harris, Harper)

    All because of a devotion/infatuation to being close minded about this one issue.

    Premier Wynne they won't vote for you anyway, because people like Dalton, you, me, most other rational people discriminate against dogs...????

    That is the rationale we are left negotiating with.

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    5 Disagreed
    1. As per usual, you are ignoring the fact that its a choice, and with that choice comes a need for more responsibility. Hand gun owners are discriminated and segragated from other regular gun owners because of the choice they made in purchasing a hand gun. There is a specific kind of license hand gun owners need to have in order to possess and use hand guns. This is due to the abuse potentials that exist with easily concealable weapons that are deemed more dangerous than others. This topic is no different in the regard that dogs, hand guns, long guns and the ownership of all of them come with a need for regulations, restriction, and responsible guidelines. These things in Canada are privileges, Not a right!!

      A privilege can be removed if abused, or if presented with an abuse potential. That is why pit bulls above all else are legislated, Its not discriminative, its proactive. Fighting dogs that fight presents its own issues, educating people that they are for kids??, adds to those issues, it doesn't alleviate anything for the dog.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      5 Disagreed
  233. Although these studies were done in the US, I found one of the study paragraphs very insightful and very relevant to what we are experiencing here in Ontario:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 1979–1998

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study in 2000 on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979–1998. The report concluded that relying on media coverage of dog-bite-related fatalities presents a biased view of the dogs involved. They stated that media reports are likely to only cover about 74% of the actual incidents and that dog attacks involving certain breeds may be more likely to receive media coverage. They also reported that since breed identification is difficult and subjective, attacks may be more likely to be "ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

    TROLLS NEED NOT REPLY....info and weblink is provided - argue with them!

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Wikipedia speaks for itself.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022

      "CONCLUSIONS:

      Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites."

      Quote unquote

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
  234. I would not waste my time on convincing or responding to bias misinformed posts. To have someone claim that they are a "professional" "dog trainer" and/or dog lover then have such a prejudicial opinion on large dogs that fall into a manufactured name to classify a dog is like having a prejudice or racist doctor.

    Let's stay focused and keep posting facts and evidence that BSL does not work. I hope that when Premier Wynne reads the posts and takes into consideration the facts that she can sees past self inflated eco's and the bs that is spewed. We are not doing the innocent dogs justice by wasting our time on condescending arrogance.

    Lets stay positive and prove BSL is wrong.

    This time around let's hear from real professionals and see real statistics. Mr. McGuinty's family had a "pit bull".

    Lets own up to this mistake and make it right!

    END BSL!!!

    http://bulliesinneed.fivepixelmedia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4589&sid=7787228012597c3134d409041f8ca4be

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Bias and misinformed seems to be subjective per reader and relative in all other ways, shape and form.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      4 Disagreed
  235. "Pit bulls" or d

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  236. "Pit bulls" or dogs that fit this category based in appearance are not the problem. There are so many breeds the fit the current legislature. Lets hold the humans responsible, not the dog and/or breed. One of the links is an example how banning a dog based on its appearance can be costly on the owner and the tax payers. The current legislation is guilty till proven innocent.

    You can be a convicted murderer or a pediphile and still live life. If you own a "pit bull" or a dog of similar characteristics its an instant death sentence. The dogs breed is not the only thing being judge but also the owner. It's unfair!

    Ms. Wynn I would ask that you surround your self with "pit bulls" and make your own observation on this beautiful misrepresented breed. They will melt your hearts and show you that the negative image is just misguided and over exaggerated.

    At the time the Liberals were under pressure from the general public. At the time a knee jerking decision was made without profession and expert testimony. That was then. This is now. We can not hold you responsible for the leaders before you but we can look to you for leadership and guidance for the present and the future. Do the right thing and exhaust all options, testimonies, expert opinion and all statistics and repeal the bann.

    Public safety is in everyone best interest however the ban is not doing the public any justice or protecting them. Discrimination is nasty. Being discriminated based in your dog or your dogs appearance is wrong. Lets make a better Ontario and have equal rights for all. The pictures below are two dogs the were wrongfully mis identified as "pit bulls". Link provided.

    http://m.bramptonguardian.com/news-story/3071562-dogs-freed-ruled-not-pitbulls-video/

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  237. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    There will always be a few that spread fear. Why? I guess because they can. I applaud those who do not spread fear nor buy into it. The following video are of REAL families and REAL children with their family pets. Many like the vast majority who comment on this board. They are male, females, artists, teachers, professionals, business owners, care workers, doctors, lawyers, civil servants and THE like. While they and their beloved pets don't make the "news" they all exist in the Millions. Neither the people nor their pets should have to pay for something not done. Sadly there will always be "yahoos" out there. Let's keep THEM to a minimum by insuring THEY be held responsible for their actions and of those in their care. We want laws that target and punish irresponsible people PERIOD not the families in this video.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  238. Before I leave, I just wanted to thank the Liberal Party of Ontario for creating and mediating this website. Had it not been for this website, the conservative mentalities would still be censoring my idea's, and freedom of speech, because that is what conservatives need to do in order to be understood. Censor/Muzzle/Discredit all opposition, and documentation that discredits what it is they want.

    (On any subject like Wind Energy, Education, ENVIRONMENT, Employment, resources, Economics, etc.)

    This website will provide the opportunity for us to engage the public properly and thoroughly enough to do what it has done here. Provide insight into all avenues of Every topic (Much more important than this one)!!!

    As a statement of encouragement, I would ask that you do not fret over the loss of votes because of this topic, as the federal conservatives have set the bar pretty high for anyone to want to vote that way.

    Thank you Premier Wynne, and thank you liberal party of Ontario.

    Sincerely

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    3 Disagreed
    1. Two words...GAS PLANTS. The End. Goodbye Liberal Party. Sincerely a Liberal minded person.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  239. 1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Au contrair Shane, this is a lot of words saying absolutely nothing. These changes have not been implemented but they make for good publicity. I could site you a number of examples i.e. there is already an emergency number people can report animal abuse through Crime Stoppers, its called Tattle Tails; training agents to investigate puppy and kitten mills? Does that mean the present agents are not qualified? That's what OSPCA should have been doing all along. We need OSPCA to carry out the mandate to protect animals. What we don't need is the present management and Board of Directors whose only goal is to raise money. Do you know that the CEO of OSPCA makes over $220,000 annually and knows absolutely nothing about animals? The Liberals will need to do a whole lot more to help with the horrific animal welfare situation then they are doing before they will ever get my vote or the vote of most animal lovers in Ontario.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  240. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    Throwing money at the SPCA is not the answer Shane but the press release sure "looks" good. Nice that this has showed the Libs people do care about our four legged creatures though. 102 animals in Newmarket were put down by the SPCA a couple of years back due to a fungus (later discovered not to exist). Were it not for people going to the press, the Newmarket SPCA would have killed ALL the animals they had in Newmarket (and just in time for the SPCA office renovations). As usual no REAL thought behind this "incentive". People's pets are still being seized for doing nothing and people in Ontario still have to live in fear for them. The advocates who outed Marineland are being sued by Marineland for fighting for the animals and disclosing what went on. Cheri is right, laws have to change. Past experience has shown the high paid executives GIVEN their positions at the SPCA, need monitoring. Were it not for a number of true animal advocates the Newmarket SPCA executives would have gotten away with killing all the animals in Newmarket by hiding it under the rug and the truth about the FUNGAS not existing would never have been investigated or made public. Personally I would rather see a chunk of the money go to rescues and organizations like the Toronto Human Society as THEY are the ones who make a REAL difference. Here is a tribute to the 102 in Newmarket.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Excellent points. The video will give you an idea of how much you can trust the Board of Directors who swore there was a "virulent strain of ringworm" which didn't exist. At the time he promised transparency and accountability too. Frank Klees tabled a Resolution in 2010 to separate the charitable branch of OSPCA from the investigative branch in order to keep OSPCA accountable. The Liberals voted it down.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. Exactly Fran. That statement means nothing to me. Had it included harsher penalties, long jail time and OSPCA oversight, I may be doing a happy dance.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  241. beautiful voice singing for a sickening situation, listen to the lyrics carefully... thank you

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you - you've made this world a better place!

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  242. Yes, Premier Wynne and OLP, don't fret over losing my vote. I am only one active and engaged citizen. I only hold two university degrees. I am only one Millennial graduate with a great job in my field in spite of a flailing economy. It's not my one vote you have to worry about; it's the people I'm telling about this injustice. It's my wide-reaching network of friends and family, and their friends and their families.

    I have voted Liberal in every election since my 18th birthday. Losing my one vote may not count for much, but as long as this disgraceful legislation still stands, you can count on not seeing an X next to your candidate on any ballot I have the honour of casting.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. This is one of the best comments I`ve read.The EndBSL Army is growing as more & more come on board.Individual votes won`t matter to them until they do.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  243. John Gerretsen won't be running in the next election! woot! woot! Another one bites the dust!

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  244. It is kind of sad that people care more about dogs than political and social issues.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    9 Disagreed
    1. This IS a Political & social issue.

      Sham of Democracy..Refusal to call a Tri Party Bill for 3rd & Final Reading.

      http://www.randyhilliermpp.com/bill112

      Millions have been stripped of the Presumption of Innocence...a Right guaranteed by the Charter.

      http://www.charterofrights.ca/en/02_00_01

      Citizens subjected to warrantless Entry & Search & Seizure

      Tourists & Immigrants denied entry into Ontario due to a Stereotype & Myths.

      The Disabled with certain Service Dogs denied entry.

      Violation of their Rights to accessibility.

      More Tax $ wasted that should be going to Education/Health/Seniors etc

      What`s sad is that so many were obviously taken in by the Liberal`s use of a Red Herring...'pit bull'

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. What are you talking about? What can be more social than taking away someone's dog? What can be more political than refusing to honour citizens' civil rights? This issue is very much a social AND political issue.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. What an ignorant statement. This issue is most definitely BOTH a political AND social one.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  245. This "backdoor 11th hour" legislation is yet another perfect example of how government continues to bully taxpaying/voting citizens without taking any responsibility! Perhaps those that yield the almighty power have yet again not taken the time to fully educate themselves about BSL and profiling...

    Obviously it was easier to create BSL than dealing with the immoral, illegal (and other adjectives that I won't include here) actions of those who own/in control of 'something that resembles, acts like, smells like a PitBull'. I've owned many of these types of dogs and I've never experienced any issues - maybe because I took the time to understand how devoted dogs are. I've been attacked by a King Doberman and the owner was held responsible. Why should BSL be used to offset pathetic excuses who exploit/abuse any breed not be held personally responsible? It's easier to just prohibit. For anyone whose not familiar with the dedication of extreme abuse I invite you to read The Lost Dogs - you might have heard of something in the news about the Michael Vicks illegal dog fighting. Those animals "lived" extreme lives under his establishment yet defied all odds to become global advocates for "pitbull type" dogs by demonstrating the inexplicable will for compassion/strength/love/acceptance. Shame on our governement, society, lack of education, fear, etc that permits BSL! Randy Hillier has been a driving force for eliminating BSL since it passed. As for the transparency of the OSPCA; they are getting an influx of our $$$ - don't we have a right to know how it's being spent? OH yes, I forgot that's not how government works! As a tax paying citizen, I'm fed up with the crooks - what about you? I think that McGuinty needs to be stripped of any pension, sit in public inquiries so we can demand answers, the party should be fined (amongst other penalties), introduce law that will strip anyone of illegal abuse of power of any 'perks' - just to name a few. It's pretty pathetic that we as taxpayers don't have the ability to force an election. Weed out the crooks and hold our ELECTED OFFICIALS accountable...

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Don't forget about Cheri DiNovo, MPP! Bill 16 was a Tri-Party Members Bill brought forward by Cheri DiNovo, Randy Hillier and Kim Craitor.

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  246. If you are so fed up with crooks, why are you supporting the Conservative party????????? With two handfull's of conservative party members fighting to stay out of prison, from their habits in spending tax payer dollars, investigations in election fraud, hindering our charter of rights, and negating Canadian law in resource extraction, and discrimination of FN PEOPLE of this country ?????

    The mindset of pit bull people has never been rational, mostly from the inability to rationalize that these dogs are specific to the illegal, immoral, sports of animal abuse. But also from their inability to rationalize the consequences in their Anti BSL wants. Discrimination isn't applicable to property or livestock, yet your understanding of it being applicable leaves you voting conservative ???? It says a lot about a government body when they take a stance that its wrong to discriminate against dogs in Law, But its acceptable when conservative government discriminates against native people with their "Economic restructuring" legislative Bills,

    "resource extraction" and "resource allocation"

    False sense of reasoning on your part but please go ahead and vote conservative for your anti discriminatory dog laws.......????? I pay taxes too, And I have no issues paying to complete the ban through attrition that has been placed on a dog created by pit bull owners for its own abuse.... Live and let die was the goal, And it is much more merciful than a continued existence of abuse.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    6 Disagreed
    1. I believe this is a wonderful vehicle for us citizens to respectfully discuss items near and dear to our hearts, so please don't ever feel intimidated/bullied/ashamed to start/participate/report discussions, every voice has the right to be heard.

      I agree in the spirit of this resource, please don't mistake my option of "Thumbs Up".

      I believe that every person has the right to their opinion; therefor thank you for yours.

      Given the forum and the spirit of this valuable resource, Thank you Thank you Thank you.

      I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to not only read my post but feel so profoundly moved that you made assumptions about me as a person, an animal advocate, community supporter, political supporter, human & animal rights advocate, and taxpaying woman enough to comment.

      I'm motivated to learn/share/discuss any topic, respectfully.

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  247. Stay focused people supporthersheysbill.com

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  248. The Liberal Party won't get my vote until BSL is history. The party are nothing but dog killers.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. The Liberal Party will never get my vote ever again. If the Lib's are capable once, what's to stop them pulling this again in the future?

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  249. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    Fact is that media is starting to realize the harm done when hyping only certain dog attacks and is moving to correct it. Now our politicians need to do same. GOOD stories of the millions of responsible dog owners ARE getting out there. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/hero-pit-bulls-help-disprove-180500630.html

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. They`re individuals just like people & it shouldn`t take a Rocket Scientist to figure that out.How much longer will it take the Liberals to admit they made a "mistake" & correct it?

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  250. Remember the Liberals have also made a sham of Democracy by refusing to call a Bill with Tri-Party support (which passed 1st,2nd Reading & Committee) for 3rd Reading.

    The Liberal MINORITY Gov`t is in fact a de facto MAJORITY.

    No one can control them as long as they are in Power.

    They need at least a 4 yr time out.

    http://www.randyhilliermpp.com/bill112

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. For those of you voting conservative because of discriminatory dog laws. You will inturn be voting for a government who discriminates against an entire race of PEOPLE.

      Last time round Jamiemoira, they all supported it because they all believed your anti educational understanding of it. All it took was a little bit of logic, followed by reason, facts and evidence. to have one party remove their support of it. Removed for a reason because of the failure, risk, and abuse potentials it represents for the public (outside of your > 5% of the dog owning population. You have been unable to provide reason or rationale towards your argument, towards your choice in government, towards your understanding of discrimination. Irrational thought processes created things like dogs for fighting, Fighting dogs for kids, Nanny dogs, Dog racism. And its irrational to want to reward such irrational behavior.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
  251. This law was rushed in to appeal a tough on issues by the liberals and had they done thir homework they would have seen these laws have done nothing but kill thousands of dogs who never did anything wrong All a logical person had to do was look at the USA and their failures in the BSL. Did nothing but cause these morons to go out and find the next toughest looking dog on the street. and nothing stopped dog attacks in fact they got worse due to the fact Pit bulls do not have the strongest Bite Rottweiler's scored higher on the National geographic test. Also I blame the media anytime there is a dog bite and its a mix its always a pitbull. All these things created a perfect storm and Premier Wynne you want my vote you better distance yourself from Dalton. he should have been worrying more about spending and less on BSL. This is a great way for you to start

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  252. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

    Wish people would stop getting provincial and federal governments confused. Also wish people would understand there are more than 2 parties in Ontario. If one will no longer vote Liberal (until they correct draconian legislation) does not mean they will vote only for the conservative party.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  253. I just heard again today about a couple who moved back to Ontario from Nova Scotia to work and be with family. They were not here and settled into their new home for more that two weeks, when the received a visit from Animal Control. Someone had reported about their new neighbor's two dogs. The dogs had done nothing, their only crime was that their owners had put them on leash and walked them around the neighbourhood for everyone to see. Oh, and they were "Pit Bulls". They were given two choices, take them back out of the Province immediately, or euthanize them. Moving back out of Ontario was not an option, and they were forced to euthanize their much loved and well behaved family pets, and try to explain to their kids why their pets had to be killed. It breaks my heart to hear stories like theirs. No one should have to make that choice based simply on the appearance of their dog. Tell me why is it not considered discrimination, to judge based upon race, breed, appearance?

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Are they going to the Media about this?Doesn`t help to remain silent.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  254. sd

    Instead of banning dogs I would impose bigger penalties for those dog owners whose dogs attacks people. Or allow the citizens who afraid of dogs to legally protect themselves. Banning never resolves any problem in my opinion.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  255. or to own a dog that is currently restricted if you were willing to attend training courses - that would ensure you could handle the dog and safety measures *then anyone who was truly committed to owning this dog for the right reason would be willing to jump the hurdles*

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. They should simply LEAVE dog owners alone!All this HAVING to go to dog classes is nonsense.I`ve owned dogs my entire life,have never gone to class & I am a responsible good owner.

      If dogs get picked up running loose 2x then put conditions on owners otherwise leave us alone!

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. Fran Coughlin Idea Submitter

      That should be said for ANY dog murpsar. There are currently 75 different breeds of dogs restricted and/or banned in North America. Italy was up to 98 before it removed it's breed ban and currently Denmark wants to add another 13 breeds because the 12 breeds currently banned has NOT made a difference in dog bites. HELLO? Did you know the number one biter in the GTA for the last ten years has been the German Sheppard? Two the Parson Jack Russell and Number three has been the Labourer Retriever! How many media reports have you READ about them? ASPCA has said that IF media is NOT interested in reporting dog bites unless they can label a offending dog "pit bull" type. In the GTA this does NOT mean the banned breeds bite more, it JUST means THEY get media attention. OH and if you think there jaws or bites are different from other dogs around the same size PLEASE look up "Dog bite competition-German Sheppard-Rottie-Pit Bull". Guess which type of dog came in LAST on both professional tests given? Hint? Wasn't the Sheppard OR the Rottie.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  256. All this BSL nonsense has done is turn good owners into angry owners.I used to try & get License #1.I no longer license & probably never will again unless we have a program like Calgary.

    My license fee was probably paying for the bullets to shoot dogs that were picked up!

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. This whole story has made my blood BOIL!!

      I have six dogs, one of which is a rescue Border Collie who is dog aggressive IF another dog approaches him in a threatening or challenging manner. Do I let him offleash in public places - NEVER......do I keep him in control, ALWAYS.......do I warn other dog owners who feel it is their God-given right to let their dog run around off leash - ALWAYS!!!! All dogs, regardless of breed and temperament should always be on-leash in public spaces - you cannot control a dog or a situation when they are 20 feet away, possibly challenging another dog!

      The Pug owner not only needs to be charged with animal abuse and cruelty for killing the LEASHED DOG, but should also be charged for not having his dog on a leash AND endangering public safety!!!! HIS dog was off-leash - his dog likely approached a leashed dog and someone could have been hurt trying to break up a dog fight!

      I don't care that the Pug was "attacked" (still yet to be proven which dog was the aggressor) by a "Pitbull" - that is irrelevant - it could have been a Jack Russel, Poodle, Husky, Lab, Golden or any other breed of dog that bit the Pug - the point is, that Pug never should have been allowed to run at large!!!

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  257. here is a site that explains the different types of pit breeds, why, when, where, and how it is up to the dog OWNERS on how good we are to our dogs and how good we want our dogs to be.... enjoy!!!