My very long rant to my MPP and his Critic

[TrishB]

Hi all,

I'm posting below my very long rant printed letter to both Gerrard Kennedy and Frank Klees. To Gerrard Kennedy because he is not only my own MPP, but also because he is the Education Minister. To Frank Klees, because he is the Education Critic.

I wanted them both to have the same information, and for both to be aware that the other had the information. So someone will call on the other if they don't react / their reaction will cause the other to act. ;-)

It's very long - so happy reading. :-)

Trish

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Hon. Gerrard Kennedy and Frank Klees

My name is Tricia Barrett and I am a constituent of High Park. I have called your office, Mr. Kennedy, a few times to arrange a meeting with you to discuss Bill 132. So far, I have not been given consideration for your audience.

There are several areas of this Bill that concerns me. If you would both please entertain these queries, I would appreciate your careful consideration and response.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bi...ession1/b132.pdf

Please refer to the link above should you want to verify my source of reference.

The title of the bill is "Bill 132 – An Act to Amend the Dog Owner's Liability Act to increase public safety in relation to dogs, including pit bulls, and to make related amendments to the Animals for Research Act"

This bill, as it currently stands, will not increase public safety. There is no authoritative organization that endorses this bill. There are no expert studies that support Mr. Bryant's claims of increased safety. In fact, areas which have implemented Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), have found that their bite numbers went up after implementation – therefore decreasing public safety (Mr. Bryant's success story of Winnipeg is an example of this). Many areas are now rescinding their BSL bylaws in favour of Responsible Dog Ownership Legislation that requires a high standard of ownership by all dog owners, regardless of breed. In fact, there are now many states that have outlawed the proposal or implementation of BSL altogether.

The amendments to the Animals for Research Act are a needless addition to this bill. For some bizarre reason – that to be honest, completely escapes my understanding – Mr. Bryant has added that seized pit bulls be sold for research purposes. If these dogs are so inherently dangerous, as he suggests, then why would he place dangerous animals into the scientific community? Laboratory technicians work very closely and treat research animals directly. If these dogs were truly dangerous, they would not make appropriate laboratory animals.

Obviously, they are of stable temperament or the scientific community wouldn't accept them – thereby disproving Mr. Bryant's claims for the bases of this Bill. Maybe he feels that this is an appropriate end for these dogs, for them to suffer in the name of science. I see this addition as hurtful and cruel to the dogs and a slap to the people who love them – the law-abiding, taxpaying, voting public.

There is not a single study that will endorse the fact that Pit Bulls are more or less vicious than any other domesticated breed of dog. In fact, there are multiple studies that prove the opposite. The American Temperament Test Society (http://www.atts.org/statistics.html ) has tested almost 25,000 individual dogs spanning 204 individual dog breeds.

The ATTS test focuses on and measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog's instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat. The test is designed for the betterment of all breeds of dogs and takes into consideration each breed's inherent tendencies.

Here are the test results of the breeds proposed to be banned in Bill 132 and a few well-known breeds:

Breed Name Tested Passed Failed Percent
American Pit Bull Terrier 446 374 72 83.90%
American Staffordshire Terrier 457 380 77 83.20%
Staffordshire Bull Terrier 55 46 9 83.60%
Australian Shepherd 517 417 100 80.70%
Beagle 55 43 12 78.20%
Belgian Sheepdog 449 358 91 79.70%
Border Collie 197 156 41 79.20%
Bull Terrier 49 44 5 89.80%
Cocker Spaniel 214 174 40 81.30%
Collie 761 601 160 79.00%
Dalmatian 299 244 55 81.60%
German Shepherd Dog 2642 2183 459 82.60%
Golden Retriever 637 530 107 83.20%
Rottweiler 4423 3634 789 82.20%
Samoyed 270 212 58 78.50%
Shetland Sheepdog 440 292 148 66.40%
TOTALS 24,892 20,134 4,758 80.9%

So as you can see – many breeds score lower than the proposed `dangerous' breeds. Considering the focus of this test, the results are clear. They are either equal to or score higher in stability of temperament then the beloved Golden Retriever. They also score higher than the overall average of 25,000 dogs tested.

Please know that I understand the fear generated by media reports of attacks by Pit Bulls. However, there are attacks by all breeds, of varying degrees, everyday. The fact is that media chooses to broadcast the Pit Bull attacks over others are for ratings and sales, not for accuracy. The public belief has been distorted by these skewed reports to give an impression of impending doom. Since when are laws based on media hype rather than research and fact?

The Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed.

So if there is no genetic evidence, no supporting scientific studies and no expert endorsement of any organization here in Canada – how can we possibly, responsibly, pass this proposed bill? Simply, we cannot. It is not socially acceptable and would be irresponsible of our government to do so.

Mr. Bryant also jokingly said in a media conference that "Don Cherry's dog is safe" from his ban. Dog Cherry's original dog "Blue" which was a Bull Terrier passed away some 10 years ago. Since then, he has acquired an American Staffordshire Terrier. You can see a picture of him and his dog here, on his dog's breeder's website: **removed due to forum rules** How will it appear when the McGinty government bans "The Greatest Canadian", Don Cherry's dog? Or will he receive different treatment due to his status or his acknowledgement of being a responsible dog owner? If he does – shouldn't ALL Ontarians receive the same treatment?

You need to understand that responsible dog owners across Ontario have been requesting changes to legislation here in Ontario for years. The current system is flawed, vague and ineffective. However Bill 132 is not what we requested. Responsible dog owners want all owners to be held to the same, high standard. A wonderful example of effective, financially feasible and socially acceptable legislation can be found here:

http://www.dogsandkids.ca/Bylaw%20Pkg%20-%20intr.pdf
AN ENLIGHTENED APPROACH TO COMPANION ANIMAL CONTROL FOR CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES

This proposal was drafted in October of 1999. It was researched by and endorsed by every Canadian Authoritative Organization that has input on Safety and Animal Husbandry. This is the legislation that Ontario deserves. This is the legislation that Ontario wants. This is the legislation that Ontario can afford to implement both in
terms of finances and safety.

There is another section of Bill 132 that I find particularly disturbing; Section 13 and beyond: "Warrant to Seize Dog". In order for this section to be effectively and accurately enforced – all enforcement officers and Justices of the Peace will need to be systematically trained in dog behaviour. 13. (1) Subsection (2) applies where a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath or affirmation that there are reasonable grounds to believe…. Who will give the Justice of the Peace this information? Will they be trained in behavioural assessment? Will the Justice of the Peace have likewise training in order to disseminate the information and to accurately decide upon it?

As a responsible dog owner, tax paying citizen of Canada with no criminal history – I resent that I may be treated as a criminal and have officers storm my home. I have the basic right to safety and sanctuary within my own home. This bill does not allow for warnings, discussions, a requirement of proof or due diligence. Why should I be treated like a common criminal when I have done nothing wrong? This bill is infringing on my basic human rights.

Further, an officer can also seize a dog without a warrant should the dog be in a public place. Therefore, officers will also need to be trained in how to handle an animal safely – both for their own safety and the safety of the animal. If an owner is upset (and rightfully so) and the dog reacts, will that be used against them as fuel for the affirmation of aggression?

How is unlawful seizure of my property without notice, due diligence or evidence, Canadian in anyway? How is denying my rights to my property and destroying it within the realm of Provincial law?

The financial impact of this proposal has not been researched or considered. In fact, I believe it has been ignored due to its massive impact on the feasibility of this Bill altogether. Officers will need training across all Ontario. Under resourced municipalities will need extra funding so that they may police this bill in order to enforce this Provincial Law. How are municipalities going to be able to field the load of reports of misidentified Pit Bulls, assumed menacing behaviour and investigate each and every report? Is the Attorney General ready to commit those funds? Are the Liberals? Many municipalities cannot afford to enforce their current laws and many do not have Animal Control services at all. Are the Provincial Police ready for the additional duties of Animal Control? Will their funding also be increased?

Simply – if no one has the resources, funding or capability to enforce this law, it will not be worth the paper it is written on. The responsible public wants laws that protect their rights, their families and their pets from being injured, unjustly accused or condemned.

What is the recourse for the animal owner to fight against having their animal seized? How does a dog owner satisfy the court? It has yet to be defined if there is any recourse for a seized dog's owner. The onus is on the dog owner to prove that they are or are not of a particular breed – however that `qualified proof' hasn't been defined either. If there is recourse, what will be acceptable to the court? That too hasn't been defined. In Canada, we are innocent until proven guilty. Doesn't this subsection fly in the face of that statement which is a cornerstone of Canadian law?

Here is my personal concern:

I own a Rottweiler. He is a large male, 115lbs, lawfully licensed here in Toronto. He is registered with the Canadian and American Kennel Clubs, a Canadian Champion, has several temperament certificates, a first level Obedience title and is currently in training to serve the public as a Search And Rescue dog. His training will be ongoing until the day he passes on.

Some people are afraid of my dog. Although he is perfectly stable, well trained and of the best of temperament – his size alone can be intimidating. All whom have met him, even those initially afraid of him and his breed, have accepted him as a sweet, loving and welcome addition. However, there will always be those who cross the street when they see us, will not meet us and have no intentions of attempting to change their view. That is their right, just as I have mine – as long as we do not infringe upon each other.

How does this bill, protect me as a responsible dog owner, from the malicious reporting of possible menacing behaviour of my dog to the authorities? How does it allow for myself and my dog to be assessed and found innocent? How will I be protected from further harassment? How do I know that my playing, frolicking dog won't somehow be misinterpreted as exhibiting menacing behaviour? Do I have your assurances? What are they based upon?

There have already been incidences of harassment, threats and assaults from self imposed enforcers of this proposed bill. People have been verbally and physically attacked, their dogs abused. Responsible dog owners have had to put themselves at risk by now walking at night – trying to avoid these confrontations. I cannot tell you the perils that we are now vulnerable to, due to walking alone in the dark in city streets and parks. This has been affecting all dog owners – due to the public erroneously identifying various breeds (mine included).

I must admit that I am afraid. I'm afraid for my own personal safety and that of my beloved pet. I am afraid of vigilante justice. I live in your riding Mr. Kennedy, on the edge of High Park because of its lovely `doggy friendly' nature, dog-park, well kept trails and friendly community. How can you possibly endorse a law that will put your own constituents at risk?

I'm also very disappointed that as the Education Minister, that you have not demanded a dog safety program be implemented in our schools. Canada's own Dr. Stanley Coren (Prof. Stanley Coren, Ph.D., F.R.S.C., Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4, Phone (604) 822-6458, Fax (604) 822-6923, E-mail: scoren@psych.ubc.ca , Website: http://www.stanleycoren.com ) has been conducting a study. During his years of community service, he has conducted "Bite Prevention" classes for grade 2 and 3 students. He has found an 80% drop in dog-related injuries when comparing those children who attended his classes as opposed to those who didn't. 80%! Considering children represent the vast majority of dog-related injuries – it would be irresponsible of us not to immediately introduce such a program here.

The Rottweiler Club of Canada has purchased teacher kits, "Be A Tree" http://www.doggonecrazy.ca/teacher_kit_offer.htm in order to teach bite prevention to children. Are you as the Education Minister going to allow small, privately funded clubs and organization be responsible for the education of our children for their safety? Although I would love to teach every child these important lessons – isn't that why we have an educational system – so that every child has the opportunity to learn the same lessons, both academic and life? This is your responsibility to supply to the children of Ontario Mr. Kennedy. My ability to take time off of work, travel across this entire, massive province and teach every school aged child is nonexistent. Only our educational system can supply such ample, consistent coverage of all children.

I have an 8-year-old nephew and a 5-year-old niece. Due to a 14 year long career in the pet industry and a life long involvement with dogs, I am privy to extensive knowledge in pets, training and behaviour. I have taught them how to deal with being approached by a strange dog, how to ask before petting a dog, how to react to a threatening dog, how to properly behave around dogs, etc. I feel quite confident that they now have the tools to prevent being bitten in a variety of situations. What about other families with young children? What about families that don't have pets? Those children may also find themselves faced with a situation involving a dog. Do they not also deserve to be armed with the knowledge of how to avoid from being injured?

Further studies showed that a first level dog obedience class also reduced dog-related injuries. Combining the two – child education in bite prevention and dog obedience returned an unheard of 95%decrease in dog related injuries! How can our Education Minister afford to not implement these injury saving and potentially life saving programs for our children? Please contact Dr. Stanley Coren if you would like to substantiate my claims. I invite you to do so.

If the true intent of this bill is to "increase public safety", with all of the above information available – it is proven beyond a doubt that Bill 132 is not responsible legislation.

What is the true cause of dog-related injuries?

We need to understand the true causes – irresponsible dog ownership. Regardless of what type of dog you own, you responsible for your dogs actions and for maintaining control of said dog at all times. When you hear of a dog-related injury – your first reaction should be "What was the owner doing?" Just like it is when we hear of a car accident. The breed of dog is as inconsequential as is the make of car. My dog has never injured anyone. Why? I don't allow him into situations where he may be placed at risk. I'm human, he's my responsibility.

If we hear of an injury, you will then hear the true cause of you look for it. The child was unattended, the dog was running at large, the owner was abusive, etc.

Current laws are not being enforced. When a dog running at large injures a person – why was it running at large? Every municipality has leash laws. So it is a failure in two parts. One: that the owner allowed their dog to run at large. Two: law enforcement for not implementing, maintaining and enforcing their leash laws. If they for some reason were not able to enforce their leash laws, then that must be reviewed. Are they under staffed? Are they under funded? Are they overwhelmed? If so – there is no sense in adding to their duties. Bill 132 is not a replacement of current laws; it is in addition to existing laws. So unless we are currently fully enforcing our existing laws, additional laws should be frozen. Maybe we'll find that our current laws will suffice, if properly and fully enforced.

In a recent story out of Ottawa, mail delivery had to be stopped due to a chronic irresponsible dog owner allowing their dog to run at large. Apparently, this owner has over $6000 in outstanding fines against them – and yet, they still will not control their dog. This community is being held hostage. Animal control has been overwhelmed and seems helpless to correct the situation. They are unable to dispatch the appropriate resources and apprehend the dog. Apparently this is a Shepherd / Pit mix but the media has only chosen to report the `Pit Bull' part. Also, although this particular dog is only 2 years old – there are fines outstanding for up to 6 years – further proof that irresponsible owners are chronic and will continue to be irresponsible until forced to behave otherwise.

A comprehensive Responsible Ownership Legislation for Everyone (ROLE) program will include:

- Regulation and heavy controls on the breeding of dogs. Poor breeding begets poor temperaments and poor structure. Animals with weak temperaments or ailing bodies causing pain are animals at risk of being involved in dog-related injuries.
- Regulation of the sale of animals. The simple requirement of enough money is not a responsible sale criterion.
- Education of the dog owning public. We talk about responsible dog ownership, but do all dog owners truly know what this means? We must ensure that they do. Although ignorance is an explanation, it is not an excuse where an injury has occurred.
- Mandatory obedience training of every dog, regardless of breed.
- Licensing the dog owner, rather than the dog. Much like a driver's license, a basic test of animal husbandry, requirements, training knowledge and care should be passed before the purchase or transfer of any animal – to be repeated upon every new acquisition of an animal.
- Full and regular enforcement of existing laws, including but not limited to licensing, leash laws, basic care requirements and more.
- Education of children at school age in bite prevention. We have fire prevention, bicycle safety, how not to talk to strangers – we must also incorporate dogs into our safety education curriculum.
- A province-wide spay and neuter education program.
- Refusing dog ownership rights to those who chronically fail to meet requirements or adhere to animal control laws.

Please do not punish all dog owners for the irresponsibility of the few. Please do not ban a group of breeds that excel in many areas such as companions, obedience, fly ball, agility, therapy dogs, search and rescue and much, much more. Do not punish 3 breeds, which would represent many thousands of dogs here in Ontario, for the under 1% owned by irresponsible owners. This could have easily been my breed 10 years ago when the hysteria was about them. Or Dobermans 20 years ago. Or German Shepherds 30 years ago. This too, will pass and another breed will become `fashionable' to those who prize their machismo more than their pets or being law-abiding citizens. The only way to put an end to this cycle is to stop it at its source: ownership.

Please – do not endorse Bill 132. Yes we need change. However it must be researched, endorsed, educated and supported. Please contact our expert organizations. They are more than willing to support the government in the definition, implementation and maintenance of Responsible Ownership Legislation for Everyone. Work to protect ALL victims. Work to protect ALL owners' rights.

I will freely admit that my interest in politics has been slight at best. However, now that there is an issue that is close to my heart and horribly flawed to its very core – I feel the need to get involved. My impression of the Liberals at this point is poor to say the least. The lack of research, endorsement, fact over fiction – it flies in the face of democracy. Why is this not a free vote? Why on earth would the Liberal Party choose to ignore their
constituents? Why would they choose media hype to the safety of the Ontario people? Why would they possibly impose flawed legislation that would certainly result in political suicide in the next election?

Your constituents want to speak to you and to receive your reassurances that responsible government will prevail over political grandstanding. Of course, a lack of interest or consideration for your constituents may not impact you immediately, but I assure you that it will come election time.

I look forward to meeting with you both in person and hearing your response.

Yours truly,


Tricia Barrett

[Sansano]

Trish,

Tried to send you a PM but you are full. This is what it said :

--------------------


Great letter to Kennedy. I wonder if you'll get a response. Kennedy is on the far left of the Liberal Party and I am sure supports this bill. They know what's best for us, don't you know?

I just posted about a new bill being brought forward by Julia Munroe of the PC's. I am going to try and talk to her tomorrow. Can I send her the letter you sent Kennedy? Lot's of good info in it. I am sure she would be happy to see you too. Have you been able to get in to see anybody? I doubt the Libs will talk to you. They are not very open to debate on this and do not wish to engage in any type of discussion where they look bad or are challenged.

Talk to you soon.

Mike


PS. So when can I sell you a PC membership?

[TrishB]

I've cleaned out my PM box - sorry about that.

Actually, I plan on sending it to Julia - along with the previous receivers on it so she knows where it's been and that they haven't responded.

No - Gerrard won't meet with me - but I'll keep hammering him. He's my MPP - he will hear me.

[Stubby]

Any updates on this Trish?

[TrishB]

Yes actually!

Crossposted from RCCBSL:

Hi all,

Here are the results - please take note of who voted yes (we need to
change their minds), who voted no (we need to thank them) and who
was absent - which still represent wild cards / or a thank you for
not voting to party lines. ;-)

PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED TO DOGS
STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 132, An Act to Amend the Dog Owners Liability Act to increase public safety in relation to dogs, including pit bulls, and to make related amendments to the Animals for Research Act

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1441 to 1446.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne
Bartolucci, Rick
Bentley, Christopher
Berardinetti, Lorenzo
Bountrogianni, Marie
Bradley, James J.
Broten, Laurel C.
Brown, Michael A.
Brownell, Jim
Bryant, Michael
Cansfield, Donna H.
Caplan, David
Chambers, Mary Anne V.
Cordiano, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce
Delaney, Bob
Dhillon, Vic
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duguid, Brad
Duncan, Dwight
Flynn, Kevin Daniel
Fonseca, Peter
Gerretsen, John
Gravelle, Michael
Hoy, Pat
Jeffrey, Linda
Kular, Kuldip
Kwinter, Monte
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Leal, Jeff
Levac, Dave
Marsales, Judy
Matthews, Deborah
McGuinty, Dalton
McMeekin, Ted
McNeely, Phil
Meilleur, Madeleine
Mossop, Jennifer F.
Phillips, Gerry
Pupatello, Sandra
Qaadri, Shafiq
Racco, Mario G.
Ramal, Khalil
Ruprecht, Tony
Sergio, Mario
Smith, Monique
Smitherman, George
Takhar, Harinder S.
Van Bommel, Maria
Watson, Jim
Wilkinson, John
Wynne, Kathleen O.
Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Bisson, Gilles
Chudleigh, Ted
Dunlop, Garfield
Flaherty, Jim
Hampton, Howard
Hardeman, Ernie
Horwath, Andrea
Hudak, Tim
Klees, Frank
Kormos, Peter
Marchese, Rosario
Miller, Norm
Munro, Julia
Murdoch, Bill
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Prue, Michael
Runciman, Robert W.
Scott, Laurie
Tascona, Joseph N.
Wilson, Jim

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 53 and the nays are 24.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You may want to note that my MPP, Gerrard Kennedy was absent for the vote (my follow up email requested he simply avoid the vote if he didn't feel that he could cross party lines). His office finally responded to my follow up email and referred to my statement of him missing the vote and said that they couldn't state what he would do. I don't know if his being absent or not was intentional or not - but I'm going to send him a thank you note anyway.

Where do we go from here?

The Standing Committee For The Legislative Assembly:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/committees/leg_assembly.htm

These are our new best friends. Note how they voted above or if they were absent. Either way - we MUST get all of them on our side. This bill must either be completely revamped in committee or killed. We cannot let it just 'exist' in committee - that would mean it can rear its ugly head at any time. It only needs the 3 reading and vote to become law - so the committee is our chance.

I should note that the fact that this bill went to committee is a MASSIVE feather in our cap. The contact, emails, phone calls, letters, meetings, media attention, demonstrations, etc. HAD AN IMPACT!

Mr. Bryant was very sure with his "BANNED, BANNED IN ONTARIO" statement that this would be law by Christmas. Well, it's going to committee due to public pressure - KUDOS!!

New Wind In Our Sails!!!! Congrats all - we're almost there. Keep up the GREAT WORK!!

[CanadianRotts]

Hi all and Trish:

Wonderful letter!!!

I saw your list of the 'Nays'...

Prue, Michael - my MPP!!! ...and I voted for him!!! His constituency office is right around the corner from my home. I will have to send him an email, or go in to thank him. Thanks for posting this....

I work at a Provincial Gov't Ministry at Queen's Park (can see the building from my window, right across the street)...and it's so hard to keep my mouth shut. I have pictures, and articles in my office...I think I have made the speech to about 50% of people in my office. A lot of people just don't get it....

Dianna

[CanadianRotts]

Forgot to post Michael Prue's website:
Michael Prue

I have been wanting to join the party for quite sometime, this gives me the proverbial kick in the a$$ to do it!!

Dianna