Mountaintop Natural Pets

Any dog that looks, wags and woofs like a pit bull is not welcome in Ontario, the province’s highest court has ruled.

The Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday upheld the province’s controversial 2005 ban on pit bulls, saying the dogs have a tendency to be unpredictable and even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning.

Yesterday’s decision overturns a 2007 lower court ruling that said Ontario’s definition of pit bulls was too vague because it did not refer to a specific type or breed of dog.

But the appeal court disagreed, restoring the law to the form in which it was enacted.

The three-judge panel said the province’s total ban on pit bulls is not “arbitrary” or “grossly disproportionate” and does not violate any constitutional rights.

“… Evidence of unpredictability provided the Legislature with a sufficient basis to conclude that the protection of public safety required no less drastic measures than a total ban on pit bulls,” they wrote.

Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley said he was pleased with the ruling and called on all those affected to be respectful of the law.

“We all love our pets,” Bentley said in an interview. “As a government we are bringing in legislation, in other circumstances, to ensure their safety. In this case we brought in legislation to protect the people of Ontario. We did it because the public demanded it.”

After a series of vicious pit bull attacks, the Ontario government amended the Dog Owners’ Liability Act to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls. Dogs born before Nov. 26, 2005, are allowed to live, but they must be sterilized, and muzzled and leashed when in public places. Dogs born after that date must be destroyed.

The court says the ban applies to pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and any dog with a similar appearance or characteristics.

But that blanket definition means hundreds of dogs could now be at risk, said Jean-anne Moors, a dog owner who is part of the grassroots group that challenged the law.

“Who is to decide who is a pit bull? A pit bull is a mongrel and doesn’t exist as a breed,” she said. “It is a mixed breed dog with certain characteristics which people say are pit bull types.”

She said she has three Staffordshire bull terriers and all are “wonderful pets.” They are older and not under threat of destruction.

Moors said her group has spent nearly $500,000 in private donations from dog owner groups across Canada and the U.S. to challenge the ban. She fears many dogs will be killed because the definition of a pit bull appears open to interpretation. Technically, animal control officers who seize a dog they believe to be a pit bull can have it destroyed if the owner doesn’t try to stop it through a court action, she said.

Breed-specific legislation is discriminatory, believes the Toronto Humane Society. “We are disappointed in the court ruling,” said Ian McConachie, senior communicator with the society.

“A golden retriever could look like a pit bull. The legislation doesn’t define it clearly enough.”

Source: Times Daily By Bernie Delinski, Staff Writer , Published: Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 3:30 a.m.

Source: Posted By: Ebone’ Mone’t, KTHV, Little Rock, AK

Hundreds of dogs are being put down throughout Central Arkansas, because of Vicious Dog bans.

Jacksonville says despite its law, it’s seen a surge in stray pit bulls. These dogs aren’t allowed in city limits unless they were grandfathered in by the deadline. Dog owners had until May of 2007 to register their pits.

Now if an unregistered dog is caught, owners have a few days to find it a new home outside the city or the pet could be killed.

Meet Rock, he’s about a year old. Being a pit in Jacksonville, he’s public enemy number one. His breed is banned.

Because Rock’s owners didn’t register him by last year’s deadline, the Jacksonville animal shelter says he has to find a new city to call home or be put to sleep.

People like Joy and William Harris and Mark Brown, who live in the area, have mixed opinions about the Vicious Dog Ordinance.

“I hate the idea of euthanizing any animal,” says Joy Harris.

“I think it’s a pretty good deal they are dangerous they really are,” says William Harris.

“I don’t think you should pass the same judgment on an entire breed of dogs based simply on their genetics I think that the primary responsibility is that of the dog owner,” says Brown.

The city’s shelter says every year it takes in about 2,500 strays,
500 are returned to owners, and 1,000 are adopted. Another 1,000 are killed.

As for pit bulls their chance for survival is less than other breeds.
Except in rare exceptions, the city ordinance restricts the shelter from putting pits up for adoption.

This year, the shelter has taken custody of 137 pit bulls. It says most were strays, and others were turned in by neighbors. Of those, 93 were put down.

Mayor Tommy Swaim says since the city has enforced the ordnance it’s seen the number of pit bull related dog bites cut in more than half.

“It’s sad for us to have to do that but the safety of the public particularly the small children is the main source of our concern,” says Swaim.

As for pits like Rock, the shelter says it’s seeing an increase of them without a legal place to call home. Jacksonville says before it passed its pit bull ban, they saw an influx of pit bulls because people were moving to town from other areas that already had bans in place.

Dog rescue groups that adopted eight pits from the Jacksonville animal shelter this year are now full and can’t take any more.

By ROB PIERCY / KING 5 News

MOUNT VERNON, Wash. – A few times a week you can find Bill Sauneuf at a Mount Vernon park, playing catch with his German Shepherd “Jester.”

Though Jester is well behaved, Sauneuf worries that changes in the city dog ordinance could force him to buy liability insurance.

“If the law required me to have one, I’d get one, but wouldn’t like it,” he said.

The city is looking at whether to require owners of “dangerous dogs,” dogs that have viciously attacked in the past, to carry $500,000 insurance policies. Owners of so-called “potentially dangerous dogs” would have to carry $250,000 policies.

“Any dog that would be menacing, threatening, chasing other people or other domestic animals, would be an example of behavior of a potentially dangerous dog,” said Jill Boudreau of the Mount Vernon Police Dept.

The city animal control officer is the one who makes the decision and often bases that decision on what witnesses say.

Sauneuf says that’s troublesome for people who own dogs like jester.

“He’s a big dog and somebody could easily be scared by him,” he said.

But Chuck Starkey, whose dog Teddy was nearly another dog’s lunch, thinks some owners should have large insurance policies.

“Just to protect the people who get attacked, because you know they’re going to need some help,” he said.

Saunuef says instead of insurance, a better requirement for dog owners would be education.

“Make them train their dogs, put them through classes and education, treat the problem, educate the dogs, educate the people about their dogs,” he said.

Insurance policies aren’t cheap. One of the best deals we could find online cost $900 a year for $250,000 worth of coverage.

The Mount Vernon City Council is holding a public hearing at 7 tonight on changes to the dog ordinance.