Pittbull ban passed, quesiton for existing owners

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Ginnette, Already left Cali for El Paso, TX when the Brady bill got passed. I chose to move rather than let them take my rights from me. Too bad, cus its really a great place. Born and raised.
As far as Ottowa goes, I have an Uncle up there somewhere I havent seen in 15 years, and hes always bugging me to come up and stay. I love the snow, and the cold. (Go figure). I would still have to get my Girl across the border, and all that. Would most likely hurt people if they tried to take her. Im sorta "possessive" of what I concider to be mine.
Toshi.......Really nice dog
Mykee.....I see yer from CDA? Perhaps the list up there is labs #1, and I dont deny that they are biters, Ive seen them bite, and do quite alot of damage. What I said was that the last list that "I saw" (stateside) put german shepherds as #1 for bites, and severe bites.
Rick

[havenbounce]

The guy I mentioned that owns the 16 foot boa is a trucker and travels over the border all the time. He brings his rottie and spanial over the border all the time. On his long halls he brings his snake too.
Would love to see the face on someone if they ever searched his rig!
Ginnette
Like snow...you must have never lived in it for a season!ha! yuck!

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Actually Ginnette, I was stationed in Alaska for 2 years in the army.
Though, it may be different when doing it "Long Term". There I have no experience.
Still, the pictures I saw of his home showed it to be a beautiful place.
Sorry for deviating from the original subject everyone.
Rick

[mykee]

Sledder, I'm not playing the "who's breed is better" game, because having read your threads on the topic, you are just as adamant about your breed as I am about mine. This thread is about pitts, and I just happen to own labs. Nothing against your breed as long as they stay muzzled and away from me, my dogs and my family. No personal offense to you.
I will not post again on this topic.

[tHeGiNo]

Hey guys, this was just faxed to my work by OVMA (Ontario Veterinary Medical Association) and I thought I would post it here. Here it goes:

The Province has now passed the Legislation banning pit bulls from Ontario. The legislation will not come into effect until it receives Royal Assent. In the meantime, here are answers to some common questions about the impact of the legislation.

Q. What will pit bull owners have to do to comply with the Act?

Pit bulls owned by Ontario residents when the Bill comes into force, or born in Ontario within 90 days of the Bill coming into force, will be considered "restricted" pit bulls. While pet owners do not have to give up their "restricted" dogs, it is anticipation that regulations will be enacted requiring these dogs to be spayed/neutered, leashed and muzzled when in a public place.

Q. I read that it is the dog owner's responsibility to prove a dog is not a pit bull. Is that true?

Bill 132 originally specified that the onus be on the dog owner to prove that the dog is not a pit bull for any aspect of the legislation, including the breed ban. However, the final wording of the Bill places the onus on the dog owner to prove that the dog is not a pit bull only in situations where a dog that is alleged to be a pit bull (as defined in the legislation) has attacked or menaced a person or domestic animal. For purposes of the breed ban, it will be up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dog is a pit bull.

Q. According to the legislation, a document signed by a veterinary indicating that a dog is a pit bull "within the meaning of the Act" will be considered to be proof that the dog is a pit bull. Could vaccination certificates or other medical records be used for this purpose?

A vaccination certificate or other medical record is not intended to set out whether a dog is a pit bull for the purposed of the legislation, and should not be used for that purpose. However, this is new legislation and the question has not yet been considered by the Provincial Court. It is possible that the presiding judge may decide such a document can be used as evidence that a dog is a pit bull. The uncertainty will only be settled when a decision of the Provincial Court is reviewed and ruled upon by a higher court.

Q. Can I change the dog breed reference in medical records and on vaccination certificates?

You can change the breed reference, as long as you do not falsify the record. Any change in the dog's medical record must be noted in the record (e.g. you must indicate both the old and new breed designation).

Q. Could I be required to hand medical records over to local law enforcement officers?

You must provide a copy of your records if served with a warrant or subpoena. Otherwise, your records are confidential and should not be made available to a third party.

[tHeGiNo]

The legislation will not come into effect until it receives Royal Assent.

Just wanted to clear up exactly what this means, while it is still fresh in my head from law class. Basically, the steps to enacting a legislation goes as follows:

1. First Reading: After the draft is legislated, a 'first reading' takes place, upon which the bill is introduced and given the first reading. Background information and the purpose of the bill is discussed.

2. Second Reading: the principle behind the bill is debated. The minister may make a speech to open the debate, and each member can only make one speech. The bill at this point may be referred to committee for revision and further examination.

3. Third Reading: The debate is restricted fo the contents of the bill, and no amendments can be moved.

4. Voting: a vote is held. Should the vote pass, it it sent to the Lieutenant-Governor for royal assent, which basically is a symbolic gesture of the final stage final stage of the legislative process by which a bill becomes law.

So as unfortunate as it is, the idea of a ban is now a reality.

[havenbounce]

Very true but there's still that very slim chance that Lieutenant Governor Honourable James K. Bartleman will not make it official. It has happened before. (yes very rarelly)
"Commencement

3. This Act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor." From (6) Subsection 20 (12) of the Act is amended by adding "or the Dog Owners' Liability Act"

So wright to him...it won't hurt and it's better than doing nothing except for complaining about it.
From Bill 132

Onus of proof, pit bulls

(10) If it is alleged in any proceeding under this section that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog.



Identification of pit bull

19. (1) A document purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario stating that a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act is receivable in evidence in a prosecution for an offence under this Act as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a pit bull for the purposes of this Act, without proof of the signature and without proof that the signatory is a member of the College.

Immunity

(2) No action or other proceeding may be instituted against a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario for providing, in good faith, a document described in subsection (1).

Onus of proof

(3) For greater certainty, this section does not remove the onus on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.[/B]

Ginnette

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Im far from being a law student or even being up to par on legal terminology, so on that note........

Q. I read that it is the dog owner's responsibility to prove a dog is not a pit bull. Is that true?

Bill 132 originally specified that the onus be on the dog owner to prove that the dog is not a pit bull for any aspect of the legislation, including the breed ban. However, the final wording of the Bill places the onus on the dog owner to prove that the dog is not a pit bull only in situations where a dog that is alleged to be a pit bull (as defined in the legislation) has attacked or menaced a person or domestic animal. For purposes of the breed ban, it will be up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dog is a pit bull.

Am I wrong in reading that as long as your dog does not "attack, or menace a person, or domestic animal" than no proving of anything should be required?
People who have raised there pitts properly should have no worries then. except for the discomfort (both human, and dog) of having to be muzzled. I can think of some people who deserve to be muzzled more than dogs.. LOL
Rick

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Another note.
If our society hadnt become so "humane" then a simple cure for those who fight pitts and are convicted of it would be to stick them in a cage with one of those Tosa Inu's like toshi shows on page 7, and see how well they do
Im 100% "eye for an eye."
those who rape, should be raped, those who viciously mame, should be viciously mamed, etc. That would be a cure for a lot of bad things in our world, even if it is a little Barberic
Rick

[havenbounce]

All you need is for someone to complain about your dog and that's cause enough for them to procceed. So not only does your dog have to be well behaved you have to get along with everybody so as not to have some hatefull twitt seaking revenge call and file a complaint.
From what I've been reading the crown only needs to follow this as their guideline to say it is a pitbul "a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics
that are substantially similar to those of
dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); (“pitbull”)"
Where as the owner has to prove it is not.

It's a bad law plain and simple.

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Probably shouldnt say this, BUT,
the hateful twitt could disappear also. HA HA
Just kidding.
Yer right, does not sound like a well planned out law. includes too many variables, and generalizations
Rick

[Rainbow]

I would have to agree that this law is really very simply plain stupidity on the parts of Michael Bryant and McGuinty, neither one of them would know there *** form their face's when it comes to animals. I absolutly believe that this is not the end because banning one species will not help the problem that so obviously exsists these people who own the agressive dogs will just move on to another breed, and it is a worry to everyone because who knows which breed or for that matter which species of animal is next!!, and as for the lab and pitbull comparison I've seen going on I have to add a comment neither of these dogs are worse then the other believe it or not they can do the same amount of damage. I personally own a Lab, a Pitbull and a Rottweiler who have all went through puppy kindergarden and so on and have all past there good citizen test's and I am the first one to amit that out of all three my baby who is the lab would be the first one to bite you!! Besides the point labs and goldens are the number 1 biters but the real reason you never hear about them is because they are service dogs, therefore no matter the damage they'll be one of the last breeds to every be focused on. I see that everyone here is very passionate about the particular animals and I am very glad to see that because that is the only way we will be able to protect them in the end!!!

[tHeGiNo]

You're all right, this law was rushed, very sloppy and very disorganized.

Am I wrong in reading that as long as your dog does not "attack, or menace a person, or domestic animal" than no proving of anything should be required?

Your not wrong, but the problem here is that word 'menace.' As suggested, all it takes is a small complaint against your dog - be it, it pee'd on a lawn, barked too loud at night, looked at someone wrong - and there goes your dog.

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

This is a shame. Alot of law enforcement agencies recomend dogs for protection against property, etc. However, if or when these dogs do this, they are put down half the time, owner fined some exorbitant fee, and the dog was doing is the same thing a father or mother would do if there child was in danger.
Dogs are loyal, and I believe they see us as "their" property, and will protect it at all costs.
Is this really so different than people?
Again, seems as though this law was rushed through so some "POLITICIAN" can gain political favour.
Rick

[havenbounce]

Rick you hit it right on the head. It has nothing to do with dogs!
Ginnette