July 18, 2007

The SPCA's view on the Lockport dog-child "sexual assault"

There is an update on Stinky Journalism regarding the original story of a dog sexually assaulting a boy in Lockport NY.

The update includes the full text of the interview by Art Science Research Laboratory with the director of the SPCA.

Read the rest of this article

Most politicians don't know why dogs bite

I recognize that some people encourage human aggression in their dogs, including training them to intimidate or attack people.

I recognize that some people encourage dog aggression in their dogs, including training them to fight each other.

I recognize that some people allow their dogs to run loose or escape and thus create fear in their neighbourhoods.

I recognize that some dogs are owned by drug dealers, thugs, and gangsters and are used for protection or intimidation.

I recognize that, in some parts of North America, there may be a dog overpopulation problem, although I'm not convinced that it is the epidemic that it's often made out to be.

Each of these is a problem and needs to be solved.

It is important to remember, however, that NONE of the above issues are the primary cause of dog bites and, as such, solutions to the above problems should not be touted as being implemented in order to reduce dog bites. They have nothing at all to do with dog bites.

Yes, we need to prevent people from overbreeding their pets, fighting them, using them as weapons, allowing them to run loose, etc. And we should have programs that target those specific problems.

But don't list the above reasons when you're trying to reduce dog bites.

Look instead at the statistics from the Center for Disease Control, from the Canadian CHIRPP program, and from the Canada Safety Council. They all clearly show that the vast majority of dog bites (including those that cause death or serious injury) are perpetrated by the family dog to the family child in the family home or a neighbour's home or a relative's home.

These were generally NORMAL dogs in NORMAL families, placed into stressful situations. These situations may have included children pressuring the dogs (such as riding, hugging, pulling tails or ears), resource guarding, pack hunting or defence behaviour (in a very few cases), territorial defence, and other behaviours that the dogs may have seen as entirely appropriate and normal.

I am certainly not defending the dogs in every situation, because a well-bred and/or well-socialized dog shouldn't fall into a default behaviour of all-out aggression when pressured. But many of these incidents were, and are, the result of normal dog behaviour.

The failure in almost every situation resulted from the lack of awareness of dog-child interaction by the dog owner, the parent, or both. Lack of knowledge, lack of experience, lack of supervision, lack of training (of both child and dog), lack of common sense.

Unfortunately, because 99 (or more) out of 100 times, a dog will endure such stresses without biting, many families become complacent. "Rover is used to Johnny" or "Rover knows that Johnny is just playing" become mantras, until the day that Rover decides to teach Johnny a lesson.

My own dogs have permanent marks on them from one getting tired of the other being a pest or from one trying to take the other's bone or from any one of myriad other possible "argument causers".

With dogs, that's part of life. However, those same teeth, when used on a human child's skin, may sometimes cause permanent, disfiguring injury.

Parents and dog owners need to be more aware of this, primarily through education.

But legislating things like breed banning and mandatory spay/neuter are not going to reduce dog bites. They may reduce the number of dogs of a popular breed or, in the case of mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs, they will reduce the population of all dogs. But they don't target the reasons why bites occur.

Some of the people who implement these programs may have their hearts in the right place, but they're not using their heads.

Even laudable programs that target animal abuse, dogfighting, and loose-running dogs are still not going to reduce dog bites because they're not looking at the real issue, which is dogs and kids not being managed properly together.

All the laws that try to micro-manage every dog owner (or, even worse, only owners of certain types of dogs) sound good to the average voter, but they don't accomplish the STATED OBJECTIVE, which is to reduce dog bites. Instead, they end up simply hurting responsible dog owners and discriminating against people with certain types of dogs (or against all dog owners in general), without taking a single step in the direction of harm reduction.

As I have said in numerous other articles, there is a simple two-part solution to encourage responsible dog ownership:

1. Educate. Similar to the campaigns against drunk driving, speeding, etc, you must get your message to the general public. It must be simple, possibly harsh, and definitely to the point.

2. Punish. When someone is stupid with their dog, either through deliberate misuse of a dog's capabilities or through negligent inattention, then the punishment should be big. It should be harsh enough that it makes the rest of the dog-owning world sit up and take notice.

As long as dogs and people live together, we will never eliminate dog bites. It is my personal opinion that, in most urban centres, the number of serious, injuring dog bites is about as low as it's going to get without getting rid of all dogs.

I think there's some work to do in some of the rural and northern areas of the country, but the cities who have dog legislation in place are basically managing the public actions of dog owners, not what happens inside the home.

Since it's really difficult (and, in some cases, perhaps even unconstitutional) to legislate the actions inside the home, you will eventually reach a plateau where the only way left to improve the bite ratio is through education.

The number of bites is probably as low as it's going to get because there will always be be people out there who ignore common sense and screw up what they have out of laziness, ignorance, or malice. This doesn't just apply to dogs, but dogs are one of those possessions, just like children, that some people shouldn't have, but are allowed to so that the rest of us can.

If someone is determined to be an idiot, you generally can't prevent it through legislation. All you can do is let people know the right way to act, let them know the consequences of those actions, and then bring down that hammer when they ignore you and something bad happens.

Read the rest of this article

Finally Ontario's Attorney General is forced to come clean

Ontario's Attorney General, Michael Bryant, finally revealed the costs to taxpayers of fighting parents of autistic children for the past seven years, but only after an Ontario Superior Court decision forced him to open the books.

Read the full CBC story

The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has requested a similar accounting of the legal costs associated with Ontario's ill-advised and ultimately doomed dog legislation.

The Attorney General has refused. Click here to read the response to the PC Party from Michael Bryant's henchman, Stephen Patterson.

This same ministry, headed by the Honourable Michael Bryant, was recently awarded the Code of Silence Award by the Canadian Association of Journalists in recognition of "the most secretive government body in Canada".

Read more about that award here

Michael, please, it's time to own up to your responsibilities as a public servant, step out from your hiding place behind "lawyer-client privilege", and let the taxpayers of Ontario know just how much money has been wasted on creating, enforcing, and defending Bill 132, a law that every expert denounced before its inception, a law that you MUST have been aware was unconstitutional long before you pushed blindly ahead with kangaroo committee hearings and a whipped vote in the Ontario Legislature.

Please, Michael, let us know the costs to each and every Ontario taxpayer for the following things:

1. Press releases and conferences announcing the intent to ban 'pit bulls' in Ontario

2. Expenses and honoraria for affidavits and other information solicited from extramural experts in 2004/2005 such as Alan Beck, any private law firms and others in Canada and the US whom the government may have consulted prior to holding Committee Hearings in winter 2005.

3. Public hearings conducted by the Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly on January 24, January 27, February 2, February 3, 2005 including:

a) Research costs
b) Supplies including photocopying, paper, postage
c) Travel Expenses for Committee members
d) Any payments made to witnesses at the hearings
d) Venues, audiovisual, computer and other equipment costs
e) All other costs associated with the hearings.

4. Costs associated with preparation of the Report by Committee.

5. Training costs for Animal Control officers in Ontario.

6. Dissemination of notices and other information to the public, educating them about the provisions in the law.

7. Legal Fees:

a) Expert testimony including travel expenses and honoraria for Alan Beck, Tom Skeldon, and any other witness expenses associated with pre-trial examinations
b) Legal fees associated with preparation of the defence, including hourly rate, number of hours spent
c) Research costs relative to the defence including time and materials
d) Legal fees for barristers to present arguments in Ontario Superior Court on May 15, 16 and 18, 2006 and to argue three motions
e) Costs specifically associated with the motion filed in summer 2006 and argued in Superior Court on December 21, 2006 including costs for reports, witness testimony, travel expenses, research costs, lawyer fees (internal and external), courts costs, material costs and any other pertinent expenditures.
f) Any other expenses related to defending the constitutional challenge to the amended Dog Owners' Liability Act, 2005
g) Fees paid to the Court

8. Any other costs not listed above relative to the matter described.

Read the rest of this article

July 16, 2007

Ontario "slush fund" report due soon

Ontarians could finally learn the truth about the so-called Liberal "slush fund" controversy when Auditor General Jim McCarter releases his probe as early as today.

Read the entire Toronto Star article.

Read the rest of this article

Is Dalton doing a good job? Have your say.

Angus Reid is conducting an online poll regarding the effectiveness of Dalton McGuinty as current (and soon to be ex) premier of Ontario.

Vote here:



At the time I'm writing this note, 62% had voted No.

I'm really not sure in which province the 38% who voted Yes are living, but I'm stunned that anyone with the capacity for reason and logic could possibly vote anything other than No.

Read the rest of this article

Gotta use that word "pit bull"

Came across this story while reading KC Dog Blog's weekly roundup. It's a perfect example of the media's desperate need to somehow, somewhere, include the word "pit bull" in any story about dog bites.

Two separate incidents in Lubbock TX. Both appear to have involved German Shepherds, including one that caused serious injury to the face of a mail carrier.

In this story about two separate German Shepherd attacks, the newspaper reporter (Eric Finley), for some unknown reason, felt the need to single one incident out of the 19 previous incidents in the city. Which one? The one, and only one, of 21 dangerous dog complaints that involved a "pit bull".

This had nothing to do with the current story, unless the reporter was willing to take all 19 prior incidents and discuss them all, equally.

In fact, since this report is about a type of dog that typically does not fall under the "pit bull" moniker, and since there is no valid reason to mention the prior story, it appears that this reporter may have an agenda to keep the supposed dangerousness of "pit bulls" in the readers' minds.

You will notice that there is no further mention of the German Shepherds in this story after the reporter brings up the prior "pit bull" incident.

The last thing the readers are left with, the lingering memory in their minds, is "that pit bull that attacked those two children in Lubbock", not "that German Shephered that attacked the mail carrier and that other German Shepherd that attacked its neighbour" nor the other 18 incidents that had nothing to do with "pit bulls" and probably nothing to do with German Shepherds.

And for those who may wish to quibble with me about breeds, no, I don't believe that German Shepherds are more dangerous or should be singled out. Breed is the least important factor in a list of reasons why dogs bite.

I'm just making a point.

Read the rest of this article

Titillation vs. evidence

On July 9, a story broke throughout various news organizations about a two year old boy being sexually assaulted by the family "pit bull" in Lockport NY, near Niagara Falls. I didn't discuss it here because, frankly, I had serious issues with the story and I wanted to find out more.

My first thought was, "is this even possible?". Then, even if possible, how can this happen with parents in the house? No screaming from the boy?

Thanks to KC Dog Blog for pointing me to Stinky Journalism, who did their own investigation, talked to their own sources, and debunked a number of the claims made by the mainstream media who, apparently, severely misquoted some sources.

This site, at first glance, seems to be doing a wonderful job of pointing out various media outlets' misrepresentations, errors, omissions, and outright lies.

Another example is the reporting of the rape and murder of a five year old girl, with at least one media outlet going so far as to insinuate that the family was involved. The final determination was that the girl had accidentally strangled herself on a jump rope in her closet and that there was no rape, at all, whatsoever. Read Stinky Journalism's own investigation of this story.

Read these two Stinky Journalism articles and you will be amazed at the audacity, desperation, and downright dishonesty of some of the media organizations.

Moral of the story? Don't believe everything (or even most) of what you read in the newspaper or see on TV. It is getting to the point where even the simplest stories are not even remotely related to the reality of what happened.

Read the rest of this article

July 13, 2007

Ssshhh, careful what you say

Couldn't resist reprinting this report from CityNews Toronto.

Apparently, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority has issued a "clarification" to airport screening officers because they were taking their job way too seriously and, it appears, arresting passengers who were simply being a little mouthy.

The CATSA has now provided two sample lists of potential statements by passengers to security personnel. The first is a list of those statements that are considered "illegal" and for which you may be arrested, charged, and face jail time. The second is a newer list of statements for which you will be given only a warning.

Some of them are interesting.

Illegal comments:

The person over there is carrying a bomb.

I have a bomb in my bag.

There's a bomb in the washroom.

The bag I checked in upstairs contains an IED (improvised explosive device).

I am going to set fire to this airplane with this blowtorch.

I've got plastic explosives that can blow up this airport.

I'm going to blow up this airplane over the Atlantic.

You better look through my suitcase carefully, because there's a bomb in there.

Screener: What's in that bottle? Passenger: Liquid explosives.

The man in seat 32F has a machine gun.

Comments prompting warnings only:
Do you think I have a bomb in my suitcase?

There's no bomb in my shoe.

What do you think I look like, a terrorist?

Hi Jack!

My gun misfired when I was hunting this weekend.

This security does nothing to stop hijacking.

Your hockey team is going to get bombed tonight!

You don't need to frisk me, I'm not carrying a weapon.

I wonder into which category I would fall if I yelled, "Stand back! I have a pit bull!"

Screener: "Sir, is that a pit bull in your carry-on? Could you step over here please? SIR, PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE PIT BULL, NOW!"

Read the rest of this article

Subscribing to chicobandido

To subscribe to the chicobandido blog, copy/paste one of the following addresses into your news reader:

Atom: http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/atom.xml

RSS: http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/atom.xml?alt=rss

Subscribing is a term for using a news reader (also called an RSS/Atom reader or a feed reader) that will regularly and frequently check blogs, news websites, etc, and show you their most recent articles, all in one place, so you don't have to go to each site individually, every day.

Internet Explorer 7 (Windows XP/Vista only) already has a feedreader built into it. A number of online websites such as Google and Yahoo will give you a "home page" on which you can put your most important feeds.

If you want to have a program installed on your computer that collects feeds from all over the Internet and puts them in one spot, one example is FeedReader from www.feedreader.com. I like it and used it a lot in the past, but now I'm using a Google home page with a number of blog and news sites feeding into it.

Once you have determined (and perhaps installed) your preferred news reader, you must set up the various feeds that you want to read.

Each blog or news site in which you're interested should have an Atom or RSS address (URL) that you simply copy/paste into your news reader setup.

So, on each blog or news site, look for any of the following terminologies:

Atom Feed
News Feed
RDF Feed
RSS Feed
XML Feed

Whatever the address/shortcut/URL is for that phrase, that's what you're going to copy/paste into your news reader.

The address will usually end in the letters "xml", but not always. Better to depend on the terminology used to describe it, such as RSS.

For example, as mentioned at the beginning of this page, to subscribe to the chicobandido blog, copy/paste one of the following addresses into your news reader:

Atom: http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/atom.xml

RSS: http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/atom.xml?alt=rss

Note that, if you simply click on the link, without right-clicking and copying the shortcut or without copy/pasting the shortcut, you may end up with what looks like a lot of garbage. These pages are not designed to be readable in your average web browser and, even if you can read them (as in Windows XP), they won't send you new information each and every day unless you actually set them up in your news reader.

Read the rest of this article

July 11, 2007

Letter to all Ontario voters

The following is a message written by Jamie MacDonald on Facebook's "Help Elect Chris Savard" Discussion Board.

Chris Savard is the Progressive Conservative candidate for Stormont, Dundas & South Glengarry in the 2007 Ontario election.

For more interesting and insightful comments by Jamie, please visit Mac's website at http://jmacd.bravehost.com/

Here's Jamie's message, reprinted with permission from the author.

I would be interested in knowing if there are people in the riding that have been impacted by the implementation of Bill 132 (DOLA) or as it's known by the public at large (the "pit bull" ban).

This Bill deprived a select group of Ontario citizens of their Charter Rights.

We were subject to jail time, fines, unwarranted search and seizure and all of this without due process of law which is accorded to every other Canadian citizen.

A recent Superior Court Decision - "Cochrane v. Ontario" (You can google this if you're interested) has given us back most of our rights.

The Judge ruled that the Ontario Liberals violated Section 7 and 11d of the Charter, she struck down "reverse onus" and declared "Pitbull includes" and the term "Pitbull" terrier as vague and Unconsitutional, as there is no such breed of dog as a "Pitbull".

She did uphold the constitutionality of the language of naming a purebred dog (or a dog that is substantially similar - Crown must prove this) as it can readily be identified.

So watch out Chow, Doberman, Akita, German Shepherd, Rottweiler, etc owners. (And the list could get longer.)

A remedy hearing was held on June 28 in the Superior Court of Ontario for the judge to decide the remedy. (What do we do, now that the Bill is in shambles and they've wasted all this money)

You can read the summary of the hearing here (This is a summary by a very involved party who was present). We are hoping to have a ruling prior to the election.

If you're a farmer or a Senior or someone else in the riding, you may be reading this post and saying to yourselves - Who cares? Nothing to do with me, I hate this imaginary "breed", good riddance!

Well here's just a couple of reasons why you should care.

First of all there is the cost to taxpayers of all the time spent in the legislature debating this Bill and talking about a non-existent breed of dog, then there was the cost to taxpayers of the committee hearings. I believe it was 4 days!

Experts testified for the dogs, told the Liberals don't do it. Here is how you deal with dangerous dogs of any and all breeds and imaginary breeds. Liberals wouldn't listen (surprise, surprise) and proceeded with their agenda (some of us would call it a smokescreen to divert your attention away from some of their other little messes.)

So it was implemented.

We (Bannedaid) and supporters took them to court and won the majority of the case.
Now here is the interesting part for all taxpayers in Ontario!

Our legal fees have topped 1/2 million.

So we (Bannedaid) and supporters thought the public (You) might like to know how much you donated?? to this case and the defense of Bill 132 in court.

So the PC caucus filed a request for costs under the freedom of Information Act.

Well guess what?

Dalton McGuinty doesn't wish to tell you how much you donated?? and he doesn't think you have a right to know.

You can read the refusal letter here.

So to all farmers, to all Seniors, to all those who have loved ones in Nursing homes in the riding (who are probably getting 1 bath/week), if you want to know why Mr McGuinty has no money to help you,look no further than here

He and Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant have just spent millions???? (Who knows?) protecting you from this dog and others just like him.

And by the way, if you see me walking him, honk to show your support or stop and say hi, he hasn't eaten anyone lately, loves everyone, Liberals (not so sure anymore).

I don't know about you, but I'm ticked off!

I want to know how much they spent and I want them to spend my money on Dog education programs in schools, Dog Education ads on TV and implement other ideas that were given to them at the hearings by the real experts on dogs. Michael Bryant couldn't even pick out a purebred American Pit Bull Terrier from a gallery of 24 other purebred dogs. One of the dogs was a Jack Russell Terrier!

Do you want this guy dealing with gun toting felons, pedophiles, street racers etc in this province?

Forget about the FLICKING TV Ads Mr McGuinty.

I know how to shut my damn lights off!!

My dog and I will be telling you to FLICK OFF on October 10. I hope other dog owners will join me! Our dogs vote!!!! Remember that Dalton! (If you're reading this and I'm sure you are)

Mr Tory, if you're reading this, you have to make this an issue, tell the public about the refusal and tell dog owners in this province that you oppose Bill 132, you oppose Breed Specific Legislation and you will get rid of it when elected.


Mr Tory, I'm waiting.

I support Chris Savard.

Can I support you and this party?

I promise my next post will be a lot shorter.

Please visit Mac and show your support for all Ontario citizens (even the owners of "Pit bulls").

Read the rest of this article

Vote for Jasmine and show support for Ontario's banned dogs

Jasmine is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owned by a member of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada. Her breed is banned in Ontario. Her owner has entered her in the Canadian "Pet Idol" contest and she has consistently been in the lead since the beginning!

If Jasmine wins this contest, not only will this be good PR for dogs unfairly targeted by discriminatory legislation, but her owner will donate half the money prize to Bullies in Need Rescue and the other half to Banned Aid to help with the Ontario legal challenge.

Please show your support for Jasmine by voting at http://www.petidol.ca/vote_756.pet

Each unique e-mail address can vote once in a 24-hour period. As soon as you have voted with an e-mail address, you will receive a message in your Inbox. You must click on the link in that message to confirm your vote, otherwise it will not be counted.

The rules specifically state that you can use more than one e-mail address, so if you have work, personal, Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, and other addresses, feel free to use them all to boost the voting.

Voting ends on July 19 at 11:59:59 PM.

Please vote every 24 hours to keep Jasmine in the lead. Some of the other dogs are catching up to her, so every vote counts!

Read the rest of this article

Eulogy on the dog

One of the best quotations I've ever read regarding dog's devotion to its owner.

Courtesy of bartleby.com


Gentlemen of the jury, the best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter whom he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us — those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name — may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolute, unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world — the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous — is his dog.

Gentlemen of the jury, a man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he can be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that had no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace, and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.


GEORGE GRAHAM VEST, “Eulogy on the Dog,” speech during lawsuit, 1870. — Congressional Record, October 16, 1914, vol. 51, Appendix, pp. 1235–36.

A foxhound named Drum “was known far and near as one of the fastest and least uncertain of hunting dogs.” He was shot and his owner sued for damages, $150 being the maximum allowed. The case started before a Justice of the Peace, was appealed to another court and transferred to another. It was in the final trial, in the State Circuit Court at Warrensburg, Missouri, that Vest made his speech, the peroration of which is above.

According to the recollection of Thomas T. Crittenden, counsel for the defendant and later governor of Missouri, Vest made no reference to the evidence but confined himself to a tribute to canine affection and fidelity. “He seemed to recall from history all the instances where dogs had displayed intelligence and fidelity to man. He quoted more lines of history and poetry about them than I had supposed had been written … It was as perfect a piece of oratory as ever was heard from pulpit or bar. Court, jury, lawyers, and audience were entranced. I looked at the jury and saw all were in tears.” — Gustav Kobbe, A Tribute to the Dog, pp. 9–18 (1911).

According to John F. Phillips, former law partner of Vest and a member of the House of Representatives, whose comments appear in the Congressional Record with the eulogy on the dog, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $500, far more than the sum sued for. The excess was remitted. Vest was elected to the Senate eight years later and served 1879–1904.

Read the rest of this article

July 10, 2007

Welsh Corgi mix identified as "pit bull" and destroyed

My apologies in advance to the Peterborough Examiner. I'm copying the full text of this article from their online newspaper. Unfortunately, these stories have a habit of disappearing into the "archives" and this is one I don't want us to forget.

The original story can be found here, at least for as long as they keep it on their website.

This article was written by Lynn Reynolds, a dog breeder and trainer who has been directly involved with the case.

Printed from www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com web site Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - © 2007 Peterborough Examiner

Great dog, ugly label


Monday, July 09, 2007 - 00:00

Editorial - Re "First pit bull euthanized under new provincial law" (June 29) -

Ziggy was a friendly, happy, tail-wagging, glad-to-be-hugged little dog with a very ugly label attached to her - "pit-bull cross." This label was given to her by a system which cannot prove that that is what she was. It took only one or two individuals to attach that label to her. She could, however, be proven to be a Welsh corgi cross. DNA testing could have eliminated the doubt about her lineage, but that was not allowed to be done.

This little dog had harmed no one. Her only offense: she accidentally got out of the home where she was loved and cherished, and she supposedly "looked like a pit-bull" (which according to a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal, is "unconstitutionally vague as there is no such breed").

The "breed specific legislation" was rushed into being with little thought to its consequences, and with a great deal of protest from the dog-related community and concerned individuals, which is ongoing as I write this. Where are the people who enacted this law? They certainly weren't there to witness the killing of this innocent creature and the agony of those who had to do it. Nor were they here to witness the tears of the many people who have been involved with this dear dog over the many months of her incarceration.

Where are these lawmakers as the young women who owned the dog faces huge costs incurred for the incarceration and court proceedings? If this dog had been correctly labeled the "corgi-cross" that she definitely was, her owner would have faced a fine and the dog would have gone home, probably the same day she was picked up. As it is, her body lies waiting to be buried, not even able to be claimed until all costs are paid.

This young women, and her dog, and those forced into upholding this law are all victims: victims of a system which refuses to listen to the many protests against this unfair and uncompromising law. How many other dogs have already been unjustly sentenced to death and killed under this law? Many are sitting on "death row" right now! How many more people are going to be devastated emotionally and financially by this ill-designed law?

This is not a protest about "biters" and aggressive dogs being destroyed. It's for the dogs who are being mislabeled and destroyed for no valid reason. Why are these unfortunate dogs not even allowed to be assessed and temperament-tested by a panel of knowledgeable professional trainers?

Which breed of dog will be harassed and/or banned next? Could it be mine?

To label an entire breed as dangerous because a few poorly-bred, untrained, improperly socialized dogs cause problems is like labeling all human individuals within a specific ethnic group as lazy or violent.

Caring, responsible dog owners must continue to speak out against this unjust "breed specific legislation" to the members of our provincial government. Justice was certainly not done for those involved in this travesty. We couldn't save Ziggy. Let's pray we might be able to help the next ones in line awaiting the same fate.

Lynn Reynolds has been showing, breeding and training dogs since 1979. She became involved in Ziggy's case when she was asked to pray for those devastated by the event.


Read the rest of this article
The opinions expressed on this page and on this website are those of the author and are not necessarily the opinions of any organization for which the author may work or volunteer.
Permission to duplicate, forward, or crosspost text from this page is granted only if the duplicated, forwarded, or crossposted text credits this blog and includes a link to the original article (the URL at the bottom of each article).
© Copyright 2007 Steve Barker