Caveat

DEFENDER RADIO INTERVIEW WITH DR KAREN OVERALL AND MONTREAL SPCA

My friend Michael at Furbearers.com interviewed Dr Karen Overall and Montréal SPCA in June, when that city's descent into inhumanity began

You can listen at this link.

Enjoy!

THIS IS WHAT A TRUE EXPERT HAS TO SAY ABOUT BSL, BREEDS AND BEHAVIOUR

For your interest, I am posting the affidavit by Dr Karen Overall from the case against Denver by Dias et al.

Dr Overall is an accomplished person on many fronts but her expertise in canine behaviour and genetics is unparalleled.  She also writes in a compelling and clear manner, so is fun to read.

It's unfortunate that  most lawmakers who target dogs and their owners appear to know absolutely nothing about them.   They don't understand what breed means, how behaviour is conditioned, what is and is not heritable and so much more.  Everyone can't know everything, but that's what experts are for - to inform legislators so they don't inadvertently become a bigger threat to public safety than the bugaboos they purport to control.

As MPP Cheri di Novo (Parkdale-High Park) said the other day when we were at Queen's Park, BSL is like climate change.  Over 99% of all experts agree that climate change is real, and that we can do something to arrest it.  Over 99% of all experts agree that BSL is a complete failure and that there are better ways to create a culture of responsibility.  But media and others, including dishonest legislators, can always find someone, somewhere who will tell them what they want to hear, justifying their confirmation bias and making it look as though they are 'listening to both sides'.  With BSL, there is no other side, it's a loser no matter how you look at it.

These people are playing with other people's lives and should all be ashamed of themselves for trying to get ahead by inflicting tyranny on innocent people.

Anyway, enjoy the affidavit, it's a thing of beauty.

Dr Karen Overall on BSL

AMSTAFF CLUB OF CANADA RELEASES REGISTRATION NUMBERS FOR QUEBEC!

Our friends at the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Canada have prepared a note for media and other interested parties around the situation in Montreal showing CKC registration numbers for their breed as well as Staffordshire Bull terriers in the province of Quebec. 

It has been prepared in English and French.

Enjoy!

 

ON BEING YOUR OWN WORST ENEMY

 

This guest post is by Jody Robson, a long-time supporter of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, an experienced owner of many breeds and shapes, a successful dog walker and someone who is well informed about BSL and the tragic consequences of its implementation.

****

So while states and cities all over the U.S.A. are repealing their breed specific legislation and/or creating laws that prohibit the discrimination of breed specific laws, Quebec will follow in the footsteps of Ontario and implement laws that will do nothing to improve public safety.

I wish people would get their heads out of their asses and get off the "pit bull" bandwagon.

Most people who say they own a "pit bull" do not in fact own any such thing. Most people with short haired, muscular, block-headed dogs, have mutts. I know, I know, it's a hard reality to accept. Everyone who has a fake "pit bull" thrives on some sort of warped need to say they own a "pit bull". But unless you have a registered, papered, purebred American Pit Bull Terrier, and most people do not, then you do not have a "pit bull".

There are dozens of dogs that if they were bred would create dogs that look what the average Joe "thinks" is a "pit bull", literally dozens.

Under these laws dogs are identified by said average Joes and because of these average Joes, dogs are taken from their homes based solely on their appearance and they are either rehomed or killed. Either way, lives are destroyed and innocent ones are ended because of fear, ignorance and blatant discrimination.

I walk dozens of dogs every week. Of those dogs I would say 90% of them have behaviour issues that could lead to serious harm to either a dog, person or other animal. None of those dogs are so called "pit bulls".

The facts have been laid out for everyone; the government, the public, everyone. Yet, everyone believes all the hype, the propaganda, the fear mongering. It's truly unbelievable. It has been proven over and over again that bites have gone up since Ontario's ban on so called "pit bulls". I guess as long as no one is bitten by a "pit bull", bites are okay? However, since most of the people who think they own "pit bulls" and the average Joes who are identifying dogs as "pit bulls", have absolutely no idea what they are talking about...all of this "pit bull" BS is just BS.

Everyone needs to pull their heads out of their asses. Stop calling your dogs "pit bulls", stop believing every dog with short hair you see is a "pit bull" and for dog's sake stop believing the media and government who are thriving off the term "pit bull"!!!!

We are going backwards while the rest of the world goes forward. While the rest of the world is realizing BSL isn't working, while they work on laws which target responsible ownership of all dogs, regardless of breed, we continue to implement and maintain laws that target a specific "look", not the behaviour of each individual animal, but a look. That seems pretty idiotic and dangerous to me.

On another note, the unicorn I met the other day told me I should really consider asking the fairies out for a drink on Friday. I think I might.

 

ET TU, PQ?

 

Someone in a Facebook group I follow (the "Pit Bull" Co-Op) raised an excellent point. How is it that Quebec plans to ban "pit bulls" as quickly as possible? The province of Quebec recently passed a law stating that animals such as dogs are sentient beings.

They will ban sentient beings because of qualities they can't change, their physical characteristics? Talk about cognitive dissonance. 

We all agree it's not the dogs, it's the owners who are being marginalized.  Dogs don't have civil rights, probably because they can't read or give informed consent. They are just the tool in the toolbox, right?   The way in. 

It's about targeting the perceived 'other': the gangsta, the dealah, the punk, the thug, or, if you prefer your bigotry straight up, the black, the brown, the young, the poor. "Those people" as city official Bob Fitzgerald said in Aurora CO to media, weren't welcome in Aurora if they were trying to escape Denver's ban.*

There are no data to support the rather whimsical view that physical characteristics are a predictor of behaviour.  In fact, researchers who study this kind of thing are finding more evidence all the time that breed is also not a reliable predictor of behaviour.  Neither breed nor shape would be able to predict a behavioural pathology, which is what people who fear "pit bulls" are talking about.

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) could be funny, I suppose, from the right angle.  It is definitely the stuff of theatre and one day, we will hopefully all look back, shake our collective heads and wonder what the hell was going on in our legislative offices in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.  Right now, though,  it's obscene, unsupportable and alien to anyone who believes in a democratic society.  The beauty of targeting a tiny minority - and according to kennel club registrations, the three breeds usually named are among the rarest in Canada - is that most people will not care. They certainly don't care about "pit bulls" (whatever they are supposed to be - the definition seems rather, er, fluid, to say the least) because of a long-running propaganda campaign by a complicit media structure desperate for audience share.

They don't care about punks and thugs either because if you aren't doing anything wrong, well, you know how it goes, except that BSL allows the state to target people in the absence of any wrongdoing. It allows the state to walk into your house, stop you on the street, search your car, seize your property, all without a warrant, simply because you own a dog.

Any dog.

Think about that for a second. 

If you doubt what I'm telling you, take a couple of minutes to read the current version of a once-useful but now destructive law, Ontario's Dog Owners' Liability Act.  Think outside the "pit bull" and you'll see what I mean.

_____ 

* Council Woman Molly Markert was even more fun:

"Oh, you bet if I could, I would ban the owners, too," said Markert. "By banning the dogs, we lose the violent behavior that comes with the owners."

Markert said, for her, the bottom line is that breed bans make people feel safer.

"It's not about a fact, it's about a feeling," said Markert.

Well, at least she's honest.

More here, from a good page : Majority Project, put together by Animal Farm.

This old blog of mine from 2008 discusses the folly that is Aurora's "pit bull" ban:  Aurora Colorado Must be High

ONTARIO: LAST REFUGE FOR FLOGGERS & HANGERS

"Hey Buddy, is this the way to Ontario?  We hear our kind is welcome there."

 

In his book, The Woodcutter, Reginald Hill describes a Victorian prison that has retained its forbidding exterior while totally modernizing its operations and interior. Keeping the grimy facade satisfies the 'floggers and hangers'.

Ontario's self-styled Liberal (please) government hangs on to the most ill-conceived, un-Canadian, pandering piece of legislation since WWII the way a Scottie grips a bad guy's ass. 

Meet the new Preem, same as the old Preem.  This is not surprising, since she has been in government since 2003.  Optimists among us had hoped that someone new with no investment in Ontario's dog ownership ban would be able to let it go gracefully.  

Alas, Ms Wynne (a member of a once marginalized minority herself - she's a lesbian) not only refuses to acknowledge her government's grave mistake, but is supporting the legislation for reasons that are right out of the Peta playbook. (It was probably the only source she could find that is a real, live looney-bin and not just a website out in the boondocks of cyberspace.)

On the one hand, "pit bulls" are supposedly the most abused dogs out there (they aren't, but you knew that).  The thinking is that we must exterminate them in order to protect them.   I shudder to think what their cure for child abuse would be.

On the other, a couple of people had been savagely abused by "pit bulls" so action was required.  Now, in case you thought they had a similar solution to that problem, rest easy-ish.  Again, it's "pit bulls" who must go. 

Sticky wicket for "pit bull" owners, eh, because enforcement of longstanding legislation doesn't seem to be an option.  To stamp out crime, remove the victims. I must admit there is a certain elegance to it.  Trouble is, the ones who are abusing "pit bulls" (other than the ones who spread lies through media) are the people who enact and cling to this type of legislation.

But cheer up, Charlie, there is hope on the horizon!  In the US, new Bills are being brought forward almost daily to make breed/shape-specific legislation illegal at the State level.  And they are passing.  Towns and cities are rejecting BSL out of hand or repealing it.  More and more places are becoming enlightened.  Check out Stop BSL for updates and lots of other useful information.

Sure, there are pockets of corruption (h/t Bronwen) out there, but it's pretty much over, thanks to a lot of dedicated people all over this continent (and others).   We are winning. We are the good guys, after all, so we are supposed to win (#happily_ever_after).

Ontario may soon be the last jurisdiction of any note to cling to its legislated bigotry.  BSL gives permission to hate for superficial reasons.  It is enacted to supposedly target 'dealers' and 'gang-bangers', terms which are just dog whistles for young men who are poor or new to the country.  BSL is only supported by those who either know nothing about it or directly benefit from it. The true evil of it is that it panders to those who just have to hate something or someone and don't care much whom or what it is.

It's an embarrassment to real Canadians to have had such a law even considered, never mind enacted, especially in the face of overwhelming opposition by every expert out there and tens of thousands of citizens.  

It must go and so must those who passed it and continue to support it.

Remember when an election is finally announced to

VOTE AS IF YOUR FRIEND'S LIFE DEPENDS ON IT

It's the least you can do.

 I see that Brent at KC Dog Blog is also in a positive frame of mind this week.

 

 

TIME FOR THE HSUS TO HIT THE SHOWERS

Suggested Listening While Reading

Interpret that as you will.

Thanks to the efforts of another blogger, we have seen the testimony in the Wilkes County, North Carolina dog-killing by representatives of the Humane Society of the United States.  The dogs were seized from a Mr Faron, who couldn't afford the ransom to get his dogs back, including puppies that were born in the hoosegow.  He pleaded guilty to 14 counts of dog-fighting, something which was legal in North Carolina until 1997.

A hearing was held to determine the fate of the dogs seized in the case and the puppies born in custody.  The representatives of the HSUS testified on February 16, 2009.

First up was Amanda Harrington, former office manager, anti-tethering activist, and member of an animal welfare advisory board.  She is now the North Carolina State Director for the HSUS and, like most HSUS spokepeople, seems to know very little about dog behaviour or dog breeding.

MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: They [Best Friends] are offering to assist. That is their language that they used. That means it would still be the county's responsibility. And in their own words, it costs about $190,000 per dog to rehabilitate them.

THE COURT: $190,000 to rehabilitate a dog?

MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That's what Best Friends says?

MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: Yes.

Wow, I guess a lot of people owe me a lot of money for all the dogs I've adopted that needed rehabilitation training.  We all know that 8-week-old puppies need a lot of rehab.  Way to scare the rubes, Amanda, using big numbers like that.  Did they all touch their wallets when you dropped that bombshell?  This kind of begs the question, though:  How much does it cost to rehab somebody from the Dr Phil show, if it costs almost 200 grand to rehab a dog?

 

Then we get into the fun part, where HSUS people, as usual, show that they really know their stuff.

THE COURT: why is this the so-called humane thing to do?

MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: To euthanize?

THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

       

AARRRGGHHH!!!  I can't take it anymore! Make it stop!  It isn't frickin' euthanasia when you are destroying healthy animals.  It's killing.  Face it HSUS/Peta/Shelter euphemizers, that's what you are doing - in record numbers.

But wait, there's more:

MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: For the dogs themselves, I think, because of the way that they were bred. I think it is an unrealistic expectation for us to ask these dogs that have been bred generations for fighting to become regular pets. And it's an even bigger thing to ask people to take on that responsibility and the county to take on both the financial burden and the liability.

You know, we could be a couple years down the road and one of these dogs could do something, and I think it ultimately could come back on the county of Wilkes.

Ooh, I bet they touched their wallets that time.  The old 'hit 'em with liability' trick, eh?  You know that liability is the one thing that keeps government lackeys up at night, don't you?

There's an HSUS double-whammy here because what this bird is really saying is that nobody should try to place a dog into a new home through a city facility.  Because, you know, a few years might pass and the dog might 'do something' and the city will be left wearing a barrel and suspenders, I tell you what.

Quelle cruche de merde.  Yes, you heard me, merde.  I'm surprised the judge didn't call it as he obviously saw it.  He was probably trying to appear objective while being slimed with a bucketful of vintage HSUS being hurled in his general direction by these witnesses.

Next up is former animal control officer Chris Schindler (oh, the irony) who wants to make it clear that he knows dogs:

THE COURT: Sir, did you want to add something?

MR. CHRIS SCHINDLER: I'm Chris Schindler. I'm the Deputy Manager, Animal Fighting Law Enforcement, Humane Society of the United States.

Swoon -  Not only a Deputy [manager], but a Law Enforcement Deputy [manager].  A regular Dudley Fiddlin' DoRight in the flesh.

There's just a slight problem, though.  The HSUS is not a law enforcement agency, is not a government agency of any kind, has no mandate to represent anyone but its own twisted sistership which, being dazed and confused, supports the animal liberation agenda.

But I digress.  Here's the part that really shows everybody what the HSUS is all about:

Your Honor, basically agree with all the things that everyone else has said. These dogs have been bred for generations upon generations for a single purpose of animal fighting; the puppies included.

They all have been bred to display those traits of gameness and these things that dog fighters look for. People don't come from all over the world to obtain dogs from Ed Faron because, you know, they are just a regular pit bull.

Pick me!  I have some questions, Your Honor!  Pick me!

1. Does Schindler believe that dogs can be bred for animal fighting?
2. Does he believe that young puppies, barely old enough to leave the nest, are dangerous?
3. Does he believe that every dog in every litter displays the same personality traits?
4. Does he know what he means by 'regular 'pit bull''?
5. Does he know that people come from all over the world to buy a lot of purebred dogs from long-time breeders, regardless of whether they are Chihuahuas, Beagles or American Pit Bull terriers?

Answers 1 - 3 are 'yes'.  Answers 4 & 5 are 'no'.

There's more, not as much as I'd hoped, but enough to show that the HSUS people will never change.

They do not believe that each dog is an individual.  They don't understand anything about dogs, breeds or breeding (I know, duh).  They want to kill all the 'pit bulls'.  They think that a dog-aggressive canine is dangerous, when in fact, many dogs don't get along with their own kind and make terrific pets.  I've had a few of those - gasp! adopted from humane societies - and never had any problems.

Oh, and just for Donna and the gang, here's the grand finale from Deputy Chris:

"...I mean, these dogs, they are not on the same level. You know, people speak about the Michael Vick dogs. Those dogs have not even been rehabilitated."

(Brief Pause.)
(Proceeding concluded at 10:52 a.m.)

Yesbiscuit! has more.

ILLINOIS DOG OWNERS DERAIL THE HSUS

Congratulations To Illinois And Chicago Dog Owners

Dedication Stopped HSUS Freight Train

But Watch Out For Senators Cutting Deals

 

by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

[email protected]

 

This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards107.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=30

 

Activism by dog owners stopped the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) freight train in Illinois and the City of Chicago this past week.

 

Congratulations!

 

You did what many people thought was impossible. You stopped HSUS in its tracks in a state that is a must-win battle for the powerful and radical animal rights group, which is pushing two bills that would have a devastating effect on people who raise dogs.

 

Also, in the City of Chicago, where HSUS has political clout at the highest levels, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance stalled during a committee hearing.

 

However, it would be inaccurate to say that you defeated HSUS. You stopped them. You fought them to a stalemate. You have forced them to back down because they didn’t have the votes to win.

 

But you can also expect a bag of political dirty tricks to emerge in the coming days, and the American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging you to be prepared to continue this fight with renewed vigilance, energy and dedication.

 

Here’s what happened, and what to expect.

 

In the state Senate, SB 139 and SB 53 did not get enough support to pass in committee. SB 139 would have made tail docking and ear cropping into felony animal cruelty offenses, and SB 53 would have imposed irrational and burdensome restrictions on people who raise dogs.

 

Votes were not taken, but the bills’ sponsors saw the handwriting on the wall and chose not to force the issue in the face of certain defeat. Several senators credited numerous letters in opposition from dog owners as being an important factor in changing their positions. The American Sporting Dog Alliance was at the forefront of this effort.

 

However, the bills’ sponsors did not simply allow the legislation to die. Instead, they turned them into what are called “shell bills.” Shell bills are stripped of all language and sent to the Senate floor as an empty document.

 

The senators have until April 3, 2009, to amend new language into the bills, and this deadline can be extended in some cases. This keeps the bills alive, in case the sponsors can find enough support to pass them. If the empty bills are amended at some point, they would be sent back to their Senate committees for reconsideration.

 

However, dog owners were lied to by the sponsor of the House version of the kennel legislation, HB 198.

Continued here.

ONCE AGAIN, LONDON SHOWS IT HAS THE WRONG STUFF

FrogDog has a tale which is unfortunately all-too-typical of London, Ontario, where persecution of dog owners is the order of the day.  Of course, it is the home of replacement Attorney General Chris Bentley, who believes that Bullmastiffs and Dogues de Bordeaux are 'pit bulls', so maybe orders are seeping down from the top.  Actually, those breeds may as well be 'pit bulls' since there's no such thing, as everybody who didn't just fall off the turnip truck (including the Attorney General's own lawyer who defends the ban in court) knows full well.

This time, the crack dog identification team at London Animal Services got a Code Red when somebody applied for a dog tag for their - I kid you not - French Bulldog.

The grismal details are available over at Froggy's place.

OH SWELL, THE GONAD THIEVES ARE AT IT AGAIN

What's going on in California?  Have they got too much time on their hands, too much money they can't figure out how to waste, or what?  I thought the State was going bankrupt, couldn't meet its payroll, was looking for loans. Do they plan to spend their way out of debt?

Why are  government officials obsessed with the gonads of dogs and cats and when did being a responsible pet owner start to include neutering, anyway?  I know why the animal liberation gang is into it - it's the fast-track to extinction - but why do other people buy into it?  They can't all be stupid.

Sen. Florez had introduced an AB1634 copycat Bill, SB250.

Florez introduces spay-neuter bill

By Malcolm Maclachlan (published Tuesday, February 24, 2009)

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, has introduced one of the most controversial ideas from the last legislative session: a bill that would encourage spaying/neutering of most dogs and cats in California.

 

Florez's SB 250 requires adult animals to be fixed unless the owner obtains a license to have an "unaltered" animal over six months of age. Owners of unaltered cats would be required to keep them indoors. The license could be revoked at any time, and would also need to be transferred to the new owner if the animal was sold or given away.

Dubbed "The Pet Responsibility Act," SB 250 was given its number to denote the $250 million a year spent to house and euthanize stray dogs and cats. According to the US Census Bureau and other agencies, a dog born in California today has a one in four chance of dying in a shelter.

Imagine how much this puppy would cost to enforce, then consider that mandatory neutering laws cause more pets to be killed in shelters, not fewer.

Bill Hemby at PetPac is all over it and has a petition to be signed as well (right sidebar).

Do we have any actual statistics to back up the 1 : 4 chance of dying in a shelter?  And would that not be the fault of people in shelters who are killing animals?

I don't see the connection between risking your dog's health and possibly negatively affecting his temperament by neutering too early and being a responsible owner.  I also don't see how performing life-altering surgery on a pet will change the culture of convenience killing in shelters.

Too many people out there are drinking the Animal Liberation flavour of Kool Aid for my liking.