POUND SEIZURE - BETRAYING DOGS FOR PROFIT

Pound Seizure - Using Dogs for Research, Testing & Teaching

Dogs like these rescues (members of my own dog pack) shown below should have the opportunity to have the life that they deserve to have. Dog's don't get to choose who they live with and what is done to them. Their welfare and their lives are at the mercy of human beings - will they end up with someone who truly respects and loves them or with someone who uses and abuses them - then discards their life as if it is trash, abandons them, leaves them stray. Dogs that end up in shelters, stray, homeless have been let down by society once, making it all the more tragic when they are let down twice. What a dog wants most is to have the opportunity to live the life it deserves to live - to be loved and to give love like only a dog can. 

In this day and age of technology there is no need to test product on dogs and other animals - many other companies are no longer doing so and they are profitable. 

So why do these companies you see listed below still carry out this barbaric practice? 

What possible excuse can there be to justify the ongoing suffering of non-human animals  - including dogs - for the testing of product?

The only real reason is that so many humans are greedy opportunists. To these people making a dollar is everything no matter the consequences, no matter the cost to others, particularly non-human animals - the road to abuse lies wide open.

At the bottom of this article you will find a link to an extensive list of companies that test on animals. Unfortunately the list is very long and you will see many companies listed who you are very familiar with…producing many products that people use and wear on a daily basis. 

If you have never had the opportunity to stop and think about this topic, or do a little research you are probably not aware of the fundamentals of this practice. And let’s face-it the information is not loudly and proudly broadcast by the manufacturers and governmental regulatory authorities who allow and ‘oversee’ the industry. So here are a few facts that you may not be aware of and some things you can do to help ensure the safety of dogs...

What is Pound Seizure?

Animal shelters/pounds and animal control facilities are permitted to sell lost, abandoned, homeless dogs and cats for use in experimentation (research, testing, teaching). This practice is called ‘Pound Seizure’.

Where is Pound Seizure Legal in North America?

Pound Seizure is legal and occurs every day in Canada and the USA.

Ontario is the only province left in Canada where pound seizure is the law. What does this mean?

Well, in Ontario, pounds must hold dogs for three days, and then they can sell the stray pets to Class 'B' Dealers who then sell the dogs and cats to labs that use them for experiments. If there is an order from a laboratory, the pound is required by law, after the three-day waiting period, to provide the animals ordered to the laboratories rather than euthanize or continue to hold them. There are some municipalities in Ontario who understand that this law is wrong and refuse to surrender dogs for research, but there are many more that comply to the law.

In other provinces selling dogs to laboratories is not a law however it is also not against the law - so pound dogs are sold by shelters for research. This means that shelters can choose to do so or not as they wish. Of all the provinces where this practice is a choice, Quebec is the worst offender for selling dogs for research.

Look at These Statistics

In 2007 Companies and Universities in Canada used 15,726 dogs and cats in experimentation. How does this number breakdown by province?

4% Atlantic Canada, (585 dogs and cats);

11% Western Canada - Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC, (1,662 dogs and cats;

33% Ontario (5,130 dogs and cats);

52% Quebec (8,159 dogs and cats).

It should be noted that backyard breeders are also a source of dogs for Class 'B' Dealers.  The following provides some statistics reflecting known numbers of dogs acquired and sold to labs by Class 'B' Dealers in 2008 as noted by the USDA. One must always remember that there are always sales of dogs that are not reported - black market sales.

In the USA, 4,643 dogs were acquired by Class B Dealers in 2008 - the numbers breakdown as follows:
49% from hobby breeders (back-yard breeders) and other individuals;
31% from Class 'B' Dealers;
20% directly from government pounds or shelters. 

The USDA has not issued comparative data for subsequent years. Although the reported numbers show a decline in the number of dogs being used for research, dogs are still being used and killed in the name of research. In the USA, ten-year average 1978 to 1987 -187,464 dogs were used for research; 1998 to 2007 69,223 dogs were used for research.

How Much Do These Companies/Universities pay for a Pound Seizure Dog?

Pound or shelter dogs (also termed ‘random source dogs’) provide a cheap source of supply at about $6.00/per dog. And the available supply is endless.

Can this Research, Testing, Teaching Be Done Without Harming Dogs?

Many researchers, prestigious research facilities, medical schools, etc. in North America, the UK and other parts of the world choose not to experiment on dogs and other animals for moral as well as economic and scientific reasons or simple to obey law. These companies and institutions are proof that products can be developed safely and profitably, students in medical and veterinary colleges can efficiently and fully acquire all required knowledge and skills without causing the pain, suffering and death of innocent living beings.

Supposed human entitlement is a very weak reason to sentence even one dog's life (let alone many) to suffering and death.

What Research, Testing & Teaching Means Pertaining to Dogs

Every year, tens of thousands of dogs are used in drug-toxicity studies in Europe and North America. The researchers start their testing program by giving the dogs a dosage that will kill. Then they take another group of dogs and scale the dosage back so it causes severe suffering but not immediate death. And so on, reducing the dosage on other dogs until they achieve the result desired. All of the dogs suffer terribly and then die.

Cosmetic companies, companies producing household cleaners and so on do the same kind of testing. Dogs are left to suffer with major parts of their bodies chemically burned, internal and external wounds, induced failure of organs and so on. Again, the dogs suffer and die - most often their death is slow and painful.

Many Universities use dogs for veterinary learning - operating on the dogs so the students can learn procedure and then they euthanizing the dogs when they are still under anesthetic. Some of the dogs are operated on more than once - depends on the university. Some universities put the dogs on treadmills forcing them to exercise until the dog's heart bursts. The Universities carry out many such atrocities on dogs - and to think that they where all someones 'pet' at one time. What a betrayal of a sacred trust!

So, If You Have to Give Your Dog-up for any Reason…

Make sure you DO NOT surrender your dog to a shelter unless you are 100% certain that they do not participate in Pound Seizure. 

Instead surrender your dog to a reputable, certified rescue group. Many people have given their dog’s up to Shelters because they felt another person would be able to give the dog a better life - more attention, exercise and so on. When they check back to see the adoption status of their former dog some of these people have found out that the dog was either subject to Pound Seizure or he shelter choose to sell the dog to a research lab. Although the people surrendered the dog with the best intention - for the dog’s welfare - the dog ended up dead.

At least if the dog had been simply euthanized by the shelter, the dog would have passed away in some sort of peace rather than alone in confusion and agony.

Dogs Should be Cherished by Humanity

How can we have laws for to prevent cruelty to dogs and then turn around and allow dogs to be used for 'research'.  

How many times does a dog have to suffer? 

Dogs who end up in 'shelters' have already been let down by humanity. Dogs don't get to choose who they live with and what is done to them. Their welfare and their lives are at the mercy of human beings - will they end up with someone who truly respects and loves them or with someone who uses and abuses them - then discards their life as if it is trash, abandons them, leaves them stray. What a dog wants most is to have the opportunity to live the life it deserves to live - to be loved and to give love like only a dog can. 

All though I see all of the terrible things that mankind does to dogs, I will never understand how ‘civilized’ people and a ‘civilized’ nation can:

A - Sanction Pound Seizure;

B - Not make it illegal to sell of stray, abandoned, homeless dogs for research, testing, teaching;

C - Not make it illegal to breed dogs specifically for research, testing, teaching - this is just as wrong. 

To endorse or silently allow any of these things is no different than using dogs as bait and fight dogs in dog fighting - another brutal painful and deadly connivance of mankind.  It is no different than killing dogs for meat (as the Chinese, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, etc.).

Are There any Organizations Striving to See Pound Seizure Reform?

Groups such as the Animal Alliance continue to work tirelessly to create awareness and push reform. As a result of their ongoing efforts Guelph University and the Ontario Veterinary College have voluntarily made reforms to their policies to ensure that no more pound dogs will be used for teaching or experimentation, that dogs who are used for skills training will be ‘recovered’ and adopted out, and that no more dogs will be killed for practice surgeries. While this is a great step forward, there are many other institutions and companies in the province of Ontario who have not made any such reforms. 

What You Do to Help Affect Change

One - Well you can become an advocate of change by spreading the word about Pound Seizure - most people do not even know that this occurs!

Two - You can sign petitions. Although you may not think this worth the time and bother - I can tell you that it is. When enough people sign governments are forced to pay attention. I have and will continue to sign many petitions against Pound Seizure in Canada, the US and around the world. Here are some sites that you can visit which host a lot of animal welfare petitions.

Care 2

Change Org

Force Change

Go Petition

The Animal Rescue Site

Three - You can reduce the number of products that you purchase from companies that test on animals;

Four - If you live in the Province of Ontario Canada, Animal Alliance has laid out some steps that you can follow to take action. The following is an excerpt from their site:

Animal Alliance prepared a document entitled The Political, Animal Services, and Scientific Case AgainstPound Seizure regarding the arguments against pound seizure and how such practices stop the implementation of progressive animal services programmes. To find out about animals in your area, you can mail your municipality a Freedom of Information request - a sample letter is available by clicking here. Also available for download is a document regarding teaching alternatives for veterinary students.’

We need to keep the pressure on the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, and the Honourable Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec, to bring in legislation banning the use of lost pets in research. So please, mail and call them. Hand-written letters are best but you can also print our sign-on letter by clicking here.

The Honourable Dalton McGuinty
Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
Tel: 416-325-1941
Fax: 416-325-3745

Email: www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/feedback.asp

The Honourable Jean Charest 

Premier of Quebec
Édifice Honoré-Mercier, 3e étage
835, boulevard René-Lévesque Est
Québec (Québec) G1A 1B4

Tel: 418-643-5321 / 514-873-3411
Fax: 418-643-3924 / 514-873-6769

Do you know if the manufacturer of your dog's food tests on animals? Even some pet food companies test on animals! The same type of cruel, abusive, lethal research that I talked about above! If you would like to make sure that the pet food products that you are buying are not tested on animals (including on dogs)... 

A  - if you live in North America, you can click here to see a list of pet food companies that DO NOT test on animals;


B - if you live in the UK, you can click here to see a list of pet food companies that DO NOT test on animals.

If you would like to see a comprehensive list of companies that manufacture many common household and personal hygiene products that DO test on animals just click here. You will be shocked to see how many of the products that you use daily have been tested on animals!

If you would like to further action to stop Pound Seizure and the Class 'B' Companies who purchase dogs to sell for research/testing you can visit this site to sign petitions and learn more.

PUPS - "What Can We Do"?

PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety) is the federal proposal that anyone who owns (or co-owns) even ONE intact bitch be brought under commercial regulations, if he also sells (or offers for sale) fifty dogs in a year. 

This measure is sponsored by the HSUS, so we know that the number "50" is arbitrary and will be reduced with future amendments. No need to reduce the number of intact bitches because anyone with an ownership interest in ONE intact bitch (as young as four months old) would be automatically included. Co-ownerships are specifically mentioned; it's possible that such things as breeding rights and puppy back contracts may also "count" in one way or another as your sales numbers are tabulated.

PUPS erases the line between those who sell at wholesale and those who sell at retail. Currently, retail sellers are regulated locally. PUPS is an effort to bring those who sell at retail (like anyone who advertises with a personal website) under the auspices of the federal Animal Welfare Act. Contrary to the claims of PUPS supporters it does NOT apply only to internet sales. PUPS includes breeders who place pets "via any means of conveyance"; internet ads/websites, newspaper, telephone, dog show contacts and so on.

Requiring hobby breeders to follow USDA rules would force many people to give up hobby breeding entirely. Commercial rules forbid keeping dogs in your house, and instead require that an expensive kennel facility be built. Carpet, grass and upholstered furniture (like a couch or chair) is forbidden in the dog areas. Raising pups in your bedroom instead of a kennel would not be allowed. Dogs must be kept in runs with cement floors, roof-style covers, an adequate ventilation system and floor drains for sanitation protocols which are also regulated. The cost of building such facilities would be out of reach for the vast majority of breeders.

Other rules that would be difficult if not impossible for hobby breeders to meet include submission to unannounced inspections and meeting ambiguous exercise requirements.

The USDA is currently criticised for lax enforcement of existing law. In 2008, the USDA had 99 inspectors who conducted 15,722 inspections or re-inspections on facilities including 4,604 licensed breeders and 1,116 licensed brokers. The numbers of facilities/homes that would be added by PUPS would be in the thousands, adding additional strain on the existing system. PUPS would result in fewer inspections of the large, commercial breeders the AWA was intended to regulate in the first place.

Along with many other canine groups, AKC opposes PUPS, stating:

 

The AKC also has a number of serious concerns with the bill as introduced and does not support this measure.

(You can read their concerns and the full alert at the link below)

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4543

One of best PUPS opposition statements belongs to the national cat registry association, CFA, even though PUPS doesn't even apply to them (doesn't apply YET - which is the whole idea of why they oppose):

http://www.cfa.org/Client/exhibitorsalert.aspx

There is a version of PUPS in the Senate, and a version in the House of Representatives. Presumably, this makes it easier to get it pushed through quickly once the votes are there. And, at last count, there were 196 congressional sponsors for PUPS; more are signing on every day. Once they get around 220 or so they will have enough votes to pass and it just might be brought up at that time. There is talk that PUPS may never come to a vote because the USDA may amend the AWA and then it might be a moot point. We can hope!

There's a new legislative site that allows you to contact your legislators quickly and let them know when you support or oppose proposed legislation.

Click on the two Popvox links below to urge your legislator to oppose PUPS in both House and Senate:

US Senate PUPS
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s707

US House of Representatives PUPS
https://www. popvox.com/ bills/us/ 112/hr835

The entire rationale for PUPS is to try to "catch" people who are breeding commercially and selling directly to the public via the internet. However, people who attempt to skirt the law now will not be more likely to comply if a new law is passed. Instead, we will lose many conscientious breeders who are the best sources for healthy, well-bred dogs in this country. The language of PUPS would also bring rescue groups and other resellers under onerous federal rules. Many of these groups use the internet (websites or puppyfind-type services) to find homes for their animals. All retailers who sell directly to the public should remain under local regulation.

Please take a minute to contact your senator and congressman. Popvox makes it quick and easy.

Institutionalized Cruelty - the AlphaTex case

Disability as a result of a toe amputation surgery left Mark Smith with some challenges in the day-to-day upkeep of his family-run kennel. Mounting medical bills made life difficult for the Smith family. A soft economy had hurt sales recently and helped to swell the numbers of Collies, Shepherds, and Golden Retrievers at the Smith's AlphaTex Kennels, based in Texas. 

The Smiths had all their dogs seized. The evidence for the warrant? Video of a limping puppy. Less-than-perfectly clean conditions were found when the Humane Society of West Texas entered the premises.

Dogs rescued?

Well, not exactly. 

When the Humane Society of West Texas entered the property to confiscate the dogs, they killed the puppy that was featured on the video. Reason for the limp? The pup had injured it's leg after tangling with a fence and was recovering. He was due to be adopted by one of the kennel's former employees. Instead of having a chance at a full and happy life, the puppy is now dead.

The "Humane" Society also killed an adult Collie that day, claiming "mange"...in reality, she had hypothyroidism. Coat loss is a common side effect of hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism is fully treatable and should not be a death warrant for anyone, man or animal. Come to think of it, mange is also a treatable condition. Makes a handy excuse to kill, though.

Another dog had previously been kicked by a horse, suffered a broken leg, and Mark had sought veterinary care. The vet had put a pin in her leg. She was improving. Improving, that is, until the "humane" society raided the premises and decided to kill her that day.

The Smiths did not give permission to the Humane Society of West Texas to kill any of their dogs, or to take and farm them out to foster homes across the state of Texas. But that's exactly what happened.

A litter of eight puppies was taken into custody. Great! They would get proper veterinary care and attention. Right?

Wrong again. Under the "loving" care of the Humane Society  veterinarian, seven of the eight puppies subsequently died of parvo.

With adequate veterinary care and IV hydration/nutrition, the death rate from parvo is very low; certainly nowhere near the 88% from this litter that perished.

Unless, of course, you are a veterinarian employed by the state-sponsored raiders, who, once in court, will try to deflect the blame for the deaths onto the breeder.

The prosecuting attorney presented only limited evidence that seemed to be extremely biased. It must have seemed that way to the jury as well, because they threw out all the charges. All the dogs are now slated for return to the Smiths.

The jury was instructed by the judge that they could assess each case of cruelty individually. The jury still found no evidence of cruelty.

None.

No credible evidence that even one dog was abused, neglected or otherwise mistreated.

Except, that is by the Humane Society of West Texas. Unfortunately, they were not the ones on trial.

In typical animal extremist fashion, the prosecuter tried to turn the trial into a referendum on breeding.

"They kept big dogs alive so they could have little dogs to sell"

he stated in court.

So now, the not-so-subtle implication is that SELLING DOGS is a criminal offense. Since when, exactly?

The prosecutor objected to a binder of photos and information showing the conditions and care provided in the kennel over the 18-month period prior to the seizure.

Incredibly, this prosecutor also belongs to a Facebook group devoted to publicly libelling the Smiths. Further proof of the animal rights extremist lynch-mob mentality in this case. Not to mention, a breach of ethics.

But why expect any ethics here? You see, it was never about good care for the dogs, it was always about removing them from a "greedy, evil breeder". At any cost. Hang the consequences.

The defense attorney admitted that conditions were not tip-top in cleanliness, but felt that the Smiths should have been given some sort of warning to improve prior to the situation devolving into a raid.

Obviously, killers don't like to give any advance notice or fair warning.

The lawyers who defended the Smiths did so on a pro bono basis, and there is a federal case pending. PLEASE dog lovers, dog breeders, and dog owners, dig into your pocketbooks and send a donation via Paypal to:

Jessica@caprocklawyer.com

Next time you may need someone to help get YOUR dogs back.

Or maybe, just maybe, these renegade animal raiders will think twice in the future before trampling all over someone's human rights, and nabbing and killing their dogs.

ALL ABOUT PIT BULLS

First, Did you Know…

A Pit Bull is not a breed of dog, instead it is a term used to generally describe individual breeds of dogs that all have similar characteristics, the most common of which are...

One - American Pit Bull Terrier;

Two -  American Staffordshire Terrier; and

Three - Staffordshire Bull Terrier, short form name - ‘Staffy’.

If you would like to further test your ability to identify a Pit Bull you can click here. 

There are many other breeds that fall into the 'Bully Breed' class - for example the Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, Boxer, Boston Terrier, French Bulldog, Olde English Bulldog and more!

The Pit Bull breeds were originally developed during the 19^th century by crossing Bull Dogs and Terriers. Breeding focused on attaining characteristics to attain a good ‘fighting’ dog (if indeed that can be good at all - to me it is shameful that any human would want to use dogs to fight each other or another animal for human entertainment and monetary gain). To this purpose breeding was tailored to develop traits that were desirable in a fighting dog. Traits such as…

- High tolerance for pain (this just makes me very sad);

- High prey drive (like many dogs such as hounds);

- Strength and agility (like many dogs such as the German Shepherd and Boxer).


Despite the fact that many people today - upon hearing the word ‘Pit Bull’ immediately think of aggression towards humans - this was one trait that the three breeds did not have…and that this till holds true for Pit Bulls of today. Back in the 19^th century Pit Bulls were family ‘pets’ and pre-fight / during the fight they required a lot of handling by their humans - so reactive-aggressive behaviour to humans was not bred into the Pit Bull. And as to Bully Breeds being more aggressive than other breeds of dogs...in 2002, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta Georgia carried out a study that proved there are no specific dog breeds that are inherently viscous.


Some people believe also believe that  Bully Breeds have superior jaw strength enabling them to lock down on a victim like no other dog can. In 2005, National Geographic conducted a study to measure the bite force of various breeds of dogs. The bite force of the Bully Breeds proved to be less than that of other breeds such as the German Shepherd and the Rottweiler...and both of these breeds are no less likely to be great companions than the bully and other breeds!

The term 'Pit Bull' originated in England. During the Medieval period of the 1200's, bull baiting arrived in England - bull dogs were used to bait the bulls. Both bull and bear bating were a popular form of 'entertainment' considered as a sport and opportunity for gambling. In the 1800's Bull Dogs were breed with Terriers to create a faster more agile dog for bull baiting events. In 1835, both bear and bull baiting were prohibited when an act was passed in Parliament to stop the brutal sport. Unfortunately, today there are many places in the world were dog fighting still occurs legally and illegally. Pit Bull's are used both as bate and fighting dogs - having no choice but to participate they are cruelly treated, live a short life of pain and suffering all for the entertainment of humans. I am often struck by the thought that humans have advanced very little over the ages.

Today, Pit Bulls are probably the most feared and legislated-against (restricted and banned) dog in the world. Yet, in locations were they are not so treated, Pit Bulls are well known and loved family pets who not only get along with children but with other animals. They also excel at Agility, Fly Ball, Soccer and other such activities. Many Pit Bulls also work as Registered Therapy Dogs and other occupations such as Search and Rescue. 

So how did the Pit Bull get such a bad rap? 

Well, years ago it was the Rottweiler, the Doberman, the German Shepherd, the Boxer and the list goes on. All it takes is one incident and the media’s quest to sell their copy fuels the fire. The media knows humanity’s lust for blood and sensationalism and the media will get as much mileage out of a story as it can. The end result - the populace shifts their fear from one breed to another. And the more stories that can be found the bigger the stigma grows. 

It really is that simple. 

The sad thing is that most people do not even know what a Pit Bull really looks like and most reported ‘Pit Bull’ attacks - at least eight out of ten are not actually Pit Bulls! 

Think about this statistic…in 2006, an estimated 72 million dogs lived in households in the U.S. (U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook (2007 Edition)How many of these dogs are purebred, pedigreed, and registered, less than you might think - the very liberal estimate is maybe 25%. So 75% of the dogs in North America are not purebred. Further supporting the fact that most dogs attacks reported as being perpetrated by Pit Bulls simply are not. 

Overall fatal incidents from dog attacks in general are extremely rare. About 75 million dogs reside in the US today. About 32 fatal dog attacks occur each year. To better understand how out-of-kilter most people’s concept of dog attacks are take a look at purely human attack fatalities. The human population of the US is about 300 million (4x the dog population). Humans in the US murdered 16,000 humans (500x the number of dog-related deaths). 

So one the whole, not only are dogs much less dangerous to humans than humans are, but the number of actual Pit Bull related attacks are extremely low. Here is a great bit of information to put things in a little more perspective…

In 2002 the American Temperament Testing Society statistics showed that American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers (both ‘Pit Bull breeds’) and Rotweillers passed the good temperament test +80% of the time. A very high passing grade! Other common family dogs did not fare as well. For example Golden Retreivers and Bichon Frise received a 77% rating, Chihuahuas and Lhasa Apsos received 71% (you can view the test results at the American Temperament Test Society .

Recently the American Temperament Testing Society carried out another round of tests - pit bull terriers received a very high passing rate of 90.6%. The average pass rate for the other 121 breeds tested was 77%. The tests involve putting each dog through a series of unexpected situations - including involvement with strangers. Pit bulls have been proven - once again NOT to be inherently aggressive. Aggression in an individual dog, any breed - is a result of acquired behavior - forced on the dog by a human.

So, How About Taking a Look at Just How Sweet Pit Bulls Really Are…

Well, you can start with this Yes, Pit Bulls Suddenly Snap;

And then take a look at this Gentleman Duke - A bait Dog’s Salvation;

And lastly this Pit Bull Bigotry - Public Perception and Legislation.

For those of you who are not sure what a bait dog is - Pit Bulls are still used to day in legal (in some US States) and illegal (in other US States and Canada) dog fights. To train the dogs to attack another dog ‘bait’ dogs are used. Dogs that are submissive, sweet natured dogs are used as bait dogs. They end up severely injured, live a short life of torture and pain and then are killed - some are lucky enough to be rescued. Duke is one such dog. 

So, the next time some one says something bad about a Pit Bull, I am hoping you will stand-up and say - ‘hey wait a minute, you are wrong and here is why’. 

I will be following this article up with one on Breed Specific Legislation - which sees a lot of Pit Bulls condemned to death in Canada and the USA.
 
One Last Thing - You Can Help Pit Bulls In Ontario 

If you agree Pit Bulls are not the evil demons that the media and others have made them out to be, and would like to see them treated as they should be in Ontario - as loved and respected canine members of society -  you can help make sure that the ban on Pit Bulls is repealed by signing this petition. You may not be aware but (shame) Ontario is one of those places that instituted Breed Specific Legislation against Pit Bulls. 

Breed-specific legislation restricts people from having dogs based on dog breed.This requires breed identification of each and every dog. As noted above, this gets into murky water as there are far more cross breed dogs in North America than there are pure breed registered dogs. Most mixed breed dogs are a genetic conglomerate resulting from more than one generation of mixed breed dog interbreeding. In addition, a dog that doesn’t meet any single breed standard may be categorized as a type of dog rather than a specific breed, i.e. a Shepherd, a Terrier, a Pit Bull. This means that the primary means of identification for a mixed-breed dog is a visual glance followed by a guess - very subjective. Pretty much the same way the media identifies a ‘Pit Bull’ as the guilty dog in an attack. 

Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant, who pushed for this ban on Pit Bulls in Ontario, proposed this manner of identification:

“I’ve said before and I will say again, if it walks like a pit bull, if it barks and bites like a pit bull, wags its tail like a pit bull, it’s a pit bull.” (Ontario Hansard 38-1, November 4, 2004.


And so it stands. Make no mistake BSL is racism, to make things worse it is racism born of ignorance and it is lethal. Many Pit Bulls and dogs who people think may be Pit Bulls are put to death because of this legislation. Euthanized, gassed to death, heart sticked and so on.

So here is how you can help…

Randy Hillier, MPP for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, tabled a bill in Queen's Park to repeal the breed-specific legislation passed by the McGuinty government in 2005, commonly known as the “pit bull ban”. Subsequently Randy created a website and a petition to help support the bill to repeal the ban, just click here .

Thanks for reading this, every little bit we do to help change the perception of Pit Bulls can save a sweet misunderstood dog’s life! We can change the future and make it a better place for dogs.

References:
Stop BSL http://stopbsl.com/
KC Dog Blog http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/
American Temperament Society http://atts.org/

BRINDI'S STORY - INNOCENT DOG ON DEATH ROW IN HALIFAX

 

To Sign Brindi's Petition, just click here .To read Brindi's Story please continue below...

 Why Brindi's Situation Upsets Me...

Dog's lives are so short - all too often I have seen dogs misunderstood, taken away, incarcerated and put to death. 

It pains me that a ‘civilized’ country can do such things. 

There are so many dogs penalized simply because humans do not understand dogs - do not employ common sense - do not stop to really think. I am always brought back to a single question - why does humanity continue to believe that it is ok to kill a dog for something we would not kill a human for? Why is a dog’s life worth so little to so many? Because of ignorance, fear and because man has one thing that most non-human animals do not have - an opposable thumb.

The opposable thumb has allowed mankind to develop tools that make man a more powerful animal, a more destructive and brutal animal than any other living species.

Brindi is yet one more example of the inability of humanity to stop and think with logic rather than assumptive arrogance and raw, unlearned emotion.

Dog's often scuffle with each other - it is natural. The fact that Brindi's scuffles have never resulted in another dog or person being harmed should indicate that she is not intent on doing harm. If she was she would have done harm when she had the opportunity. 

Despite that,  Brindi has so far spent 3 years in incarceration - taken away from those who love her for no solid, logical reason other than human stupidity. And once again she faces death by euthanization as another court date looms.

Halifax Regional Municipality is responsible for incarcerating her, kicking her and sentencing her to death. These are forms of cruelty that only humans posses - much more harmful than anything Brindi has ever done or is ever likely to do.

I make my living working with dogs. I also have eight rescued dogs - some of them were much more reactive then Brindi has ever been. Reactivity does not mean the dog is bad, nor does it mean that the dogs is vicious and will do harm. Reactivity is easily addressed. It is when people misunderstand dogs - like you are doing - that greater harm is done. Addressing reactivity is a very simple task. In fact it is easier to address such things in a dog than it is in a human. Because dogs live in the moment it is easier to change a dog's habits' than it is a human's. Humans carry grudges, dogs do not. Dogs are very forgiving and will, given the opportunity treat each day, each experience as a new beginning. It is only with difficulty that we are able to convince, permit and allow ourselves to do the same.

I have worked with dogs that went way beyond anything Brindi has ever done. I rehabilitated those dogs - so to hold Brindi for never even having bitten anyone is a complete injustice and it is also cruelty.

So, before you accuse a dog of being dangerous, it is important to look inside yourself and see if you have made a terrible mistake. When we judge a situation, a person or a dog from an uninformed, emotional state rather than from an informed and logical basis we become hypocrites and our behaviour can be many times worse than that of those we judge.

Look to yourself first, and then reassess your judgement. We all make mistakes everyday - to error is human. The important thing is to recognize the mistake, do what is in your power to correct the mistake and learn.

About Brindi…

Brindi is a dog that has been imprisoned for far too long. Both her trainer and her veterinarian

are greatly concerned for her welfare. She has suffered psychologically and physically after being yanked away from her home with her companion, Francesca Rogier, who rescued her from a shelter. Mrs. Rogier has cooperated with the judge’s conditions in order to reintegrate Brindi into society. There is strong support for her return in the local community, and among Brindi’s trainer, veterinarian, and groomer.

In July 2008, the Halifax Regional Municipality decided arbitrarily that Brindi is a dangerous dog and ordered her to be put down. It cited a few incidents with other dogs, all but one without injury. The one instance of injury required no medical treatment. Brindi had gotten along well with most dogs she met, and also had never attacked a human. Yet Halifax would not reconsider its decision, nor would it agree to any options or offers Francesca put forward. It offered no process of appeal, and even blocked her from getting assessment of Brindi’s temperament without a court order. When Francesca obtained the order and asked a behaviorist to examine Brindi, the outcome was decidedly positive. But Halifax ignored the results, thus forcing Francesca to take her case before the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

In January 2009, a judge ruled that by seizing Brindi without notice or the right of appeal, Francesca’s civil rights were violated. It proved a hollow victory, as Halifax simply continued to refuse to return Brindi. Instead, it laid charges against Francesca, who had never been charged before. The matter soon became tied up in the courts, prolonging Brindi’s confinement even further. For most of this time, Francesca was not permitted to visit Brindi, who was also kept isolated from other dogs. Not surprisingly, her health began to suffer. Finally, in May of 2010, Dartmouth Judge Alanna Murphy released Brindi from the pound after nearly two years. The conditions of release she imposed were: further training with Brindi, compliance with a muzzle order, maintaining a secure dog run, and payment of fines. As Francesca had offered Halifax animal control the very same conditions back in 2008, she was happy to comply, and also continued working with her trainer after Brindi came home.

Then, Brindi was picked up by animal control after a scuffle with another dog in September 2010. Though that dog was not seriously harmed, and once again, no humans were hurt – even though they kicked her - Brindi is again on death row and in danger of being put down. Francesca Rogier now faces a trial date in March. In the meantime, Brindi’s vet, who has been monitoring her health, has reason to suspect pancreatic cancer. Further medical tests are pending.

This petition respectfully asks Judge Buchan to please do the honorable act of allowing Brindi to be released to her home and loving family. We are convinced that Brindi is not a dangerous dog, and believe it would be wrong to end her life prematurely.

We also ask all advocates and supporters of Brindi to sign the petition below started by Carol W. Both petitions will be delivered to the court by Carol W. and Hand4Paws in March.

The next trail date is March 2 and March 16, 2012.

This petition respectfully asks Judge Buchan to please do the honorable act of allowing Brindi to be released to her home and loving family. We are convinced that Brindi is not a dangerous dog, and believe it would be wrong to end her life prematurely.

We also ask all advocates and supporters of Brindi to sign the petition below started by Carol W. Both petitions will be delivered to the court by Carol W. and Hand4Paws in March.

You can click here to go to Brindi's petition and sign to help save her.

Please help make sure that Brindi goes home.