 |
| Summer 2007 Newsletter |
 |
 |
|
| Is Your Canaan Dog BSL Ready? by CCO Columnist Larry Myers |
 |
 |
| The rise in dog numbers has come with a price. Agendas are at work to take away rights from dog owners. These rights can be as simple as where we walk our dogs, or as oppressive as banning a breed from an area. And bans go hand-in-hand with death. Here in Canada we have had an example of this in Bill 132 in Ontario. Enacted in August 2005, this bill was to keep Ontarians safe from deadly �pit bulls�. Even though legislation already existed that would punish the owners of aggressive dogs, Michael Bryant and the rest of the torchbearers decided that the ultimate Frankensteins were the dogs. Caught up in the net of �pit bulls� were the American Staffordshire Terriers, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Pit Bull Terrier. Owners of these dogs were told to get them out of Dodge or there would be a reckonin� at High Noon. Enforcement agents have been given KGB-like powers to seize dogs, and then force the owners to prove that they are not �pit bulls�. Of course, these agents of the State do not have an accurate description of what a Pit Bull looks like, they are working on the method of defining obscenity � you�ll know it when you see it. This has caused dogs to be taken from people�s homes and confined in Lubayanka-like facilities awaiting the hangman. And this scenario could play out for other breeds in the not to distant future. Across Canada laws are already in place to restrict and contain vicious dogs. Only in a couple of cases is the definition of vicious actually spelled out. The area of Lakeshore has added Presa Canario to the list of banned dogs. Guysborough in Nova Scotia has banned �Pit Bulls� and Rottweilers, while Sherbrooke has enacted controls on Rottweilers and Mastiffs. And the new Sword of Damocles is in New Brunswick where the Restricted Dogs Act (Bill 55) pops up and down like a demented gopher depending on how the political winds are whistling at that moment. This stellar piece of legislation would place severe restrictions on the ownership of not only the dreaded �Pit Bull�, but also the Rottweiler and the Akita. A gentleman in Calgary had the renewal of his homeowner insurance policy denied �due to unacceptable dog breeds in the household". He had a Rott-mix and a GS-mix. A quick peek over the border finds bans on such breeds as Great Danes, Boxers, German Shepherds, Chow Chows, Dalmatians, and even Golden Retrievers. Dogs are being banned on the basis of what-if, not what they have done. Even a cursory glance at the stats shows that the range of dogs that bite is wide. In Perth County, Ontario, dog bite statistics compiled since January 2002 show just 1% of bites attributed to 'pit bulls'. One third of reported bites were caused by mixed breed dogs, and the top five biting breeds were, in order: Chow Chow, Jack Russell Terrier, Labrador Retriever, Dachshund, and Rottweiler. Of the nearly 900 reports of bite incidents in Ottawa, Ontario for the last three years, only five were attributable to pit bulls. The largest number of bite incidents involved Black Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers. Kitchener-Waterloo banned 'pit bulls' after 18 bites reported the previous year. During that same period, there were 85 bites attributed to German Shepherds. And yet the �Pit Bull� is the banned breed. In Winnipeg, after their breed ban came into effect, Winnipeg Humane Society Spokesperson Aileen White was quoted as saying, �It's certainly already proven within our province that if you ban a certain breed, the people that want to own this kind of tough looking dog, if you will, they're going to go on to the next breed," she says. "They'll just keep going down the list, until when do you stop? At what point do you actually stop banning breeds?� It would seem that the �Pit Bull� is just a very convenient animal to ban. The image of them has been painted as the dog of choice for drug dealers and Atlanta Falcon quarterbacks. They show pictures of them chained up, snarling away, an obvious killing machine just waiting for the chance. They are supposedly genetically programmed to bite, maim and destroy. And with this Clintonian abstract of logic in place � I never had biting relations with that woman � all of the �Bully Breeds� can be compartmentalized and filed under BANNED. What makes a dog vicious? Is it the breeding? Is it the environment? Is it age? Do the circumstances of the biting incident come into play? Ultimately there is no such thing as a specific vicious breed. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another simply because of its breed. The fllowing organizations do not support Breed Bans: The Canadian Kennel Club The BCVMA (BC Veterinary Medical Association) and CVMA (Canadian Veterinary Medical Association) The Canadian Safety Council The Canadian Association of Pet Dog Trainers The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies The National Animal Coalition Toronto Humane Society Winnipeg Humane Society Every provincial organization of the SPCA The Pet Industry Advisory Council The American Kennel Club The American Veterinary Medical Association "Singling out one or two breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment and create a false sense of security. Of course, even dogs from small breeds can also bite and are absolutely capable of causing severe injury." The American Veterinary Medical Association If these organizations don�t know about dogs, who does? Oh yeah, the �Fiberals�. Dalton McGuinty and Michael �Dr. Death� Bryant have used BSL to deflect their litany of lies with the public once, they will do it again. After all, no new legislation needs to be enacted, just the old one modified. And they will look to breeds that are smaller in number, but have those qualities that can have them labeled as a killer. Prick ears are a good starting point. Those soft, snuggly Goldens have the floppy ears, and this makes them look so gall darn cuddly. Lean muscular bodies�.all those teddy bear breeds have the nice fluffy coats just like a stuffed animal. An alert and watchful presence�not like those snuggly, wuggly Labs that follow you everywhere. So, essentially they will be looking at the watch-type dogs. We have already shown that neither the deeds nor the quantity of deeds is relevant when the Bryant Inquisition is on a roll. Some people point to the breed standard for the Staffies as being part of their downfall. They talk about �Jaws well defined. Underjaw to be strong and have biting power�. should give the impression of great strength for his size, a well put-together dog, muscular�. In other words, traits that do not apply to a Caviler King Charles Spaniel. The Canaan Dog has in its breed description terms like �reserved and aloof with strangers, highly territorial, and natural guardian.� This could be interpreted as a defensive watchdog that will attack anyone coming into its territory. Of course similar things are written in many other breeds, but we are looking for those little needles in the 'Breed' haystack. What I would like to see is that no one gives them an excuse to think these things about the Canaan. Most of us want pets that are not a threat to visitors, other animals, children, or meter readers. So when we go out in public, we want dogs that will walk well in the park and socialize well at events without snarling at anyone who comes within 5 feet of them. The requirements of the Canine Good Neighbour programme are an excellent starting point for what we should expect from our dogs. You don�t have to take the test, but knowing that your dog could pass it should make all of us more comfortable. |