So there it is again. Another pit bull attack makes the news.
Next, I'm sure,
the mayor is going to make his
"I'd like to have all of these dogs gone from the city" remark again.
Breed-specific legislation isn't the answer.

On any given day, how many dog bites are suffered by Indianapolis residents? 5? 10? 50? Of those, how many are by pit bulls? When a pit bull bites someone, it makes news. When a person is bitten by a Chihuahua or a Labrador retriever, the media don't jump all over it like a Pomeranian on a wounded duck DOES.
My guess is that the percentage of pit bull bites is very low. Any dog is capable of inflicting a bite, whether provoked or not. Before you vilify this breed any further, report on the percentage of bully breed bites versus other breeds. This would only be responsible journalism.
_________________________________________________________
In the past several months:
- a woman was killed by a German Shepherd & Doberman Pinscher
- a young child was severely mauled by an Akita
- a child left alone with a German Shepherd was mauled
- an officer required 14 stitches when a collie bit her
- a child stepped on the paw of a Golden Retriever who nearly tore off half of her face with a bite
- an Australian shepherd was involved in a 20-minute mauling of a woman who required over a 1,000 stitches
- a woman was killed by her Australian Shepherd, Catahoula Leopard Dog and Golden Retriever
- a man was bitten several times by a Kerry Blue Terrier after he interferred in a dog bite

I could go on. The reality is this: significant dog bites are rare, including those committed by pit bulls. People like to have something to fear, and when it's not rising color-coded terrorist threats or whatever faddish fear news agencies promote - it's good 'ol dog bites, preferably committed by a pit bull or Rottweiler. People like to demonize. Apparently, it brings meaning to some humans existence. Sucks for the rest of us, though.
____________________________________________________________________
Here in Indy, we have had a rash of sensational pit bull attack stories. The last one started with "There has been ANOTHER pit bull attack in Indianapolis" and ended with "The Dog Ordinance passed by city council last year doesnt seem to be putting a curb on PIT BULL attacks."

Yet, there have been other significant attacks-one, a GERMAN SHEPPARD jumped a fence to attack a kid in daycare. Another child had 300 stitches due to a Dobie attack.

Did that make the press?

Nope.
________________________________________________________________

DO YOU WANT WANT RE-ELECTED???????
FOOD FOR THOUGHT SO THINK!

UPDATE: Canada's Breed Ban - "Pitbull" Ruled Unconstitutional
Take a good look at this photo of Michael "PuppyKiller" Bryant - and remember his face.

He is the man responsible for the one of the world's most notorious breed bans - a ban intended to exterminate pitbulls and their owners from the Province of Ontario, Canada

But poor Michael was looking rather red-faced last week after losing part of the challenge to his breed ban.

The Red-Faced AG Comes Up Empty

Let's just say that the Ontario Attorney General's pants were hanging down to his ankles last week when the appellate judge, hearing the constitutional challenge to Ontario's notorious Bill 132 - "Dog Owners Liability Act", left some of the act in place but ruled that the term "pitbull", found throughout the law, is unconstitutionally vague, striking it from the law.

We're not sure which part of Michael Bryant was redder - his face or his arse - having been spanked hard in public..........

in a very legal sense.

Now Mr. Bryant can blather to the media all he wants - and somehow try to claim victory ( I think I hear his handlers saying, "Spin it, baby, spin"), but he's coming up empty. Why?

The Judge Rules For Innocent Dogs

Because when you have a law that bans pitbulls, followed by a ruling that rules that the government cannot legally use the term "pitbull", whaddya got? A big FAT nothing!

We have one thing to say to the judge: You, GO, girl!

So what does this ruling mean for the thousands of innocent dogs and innocent dog owners throughout the Province of Ontario?

First - let's do a quickie recap, shall we?

The History Of Bill 132

Canada's notorious breed ban - known as Bill 132 - Dog Owner's Liability Act (DOLA) - was rammed through the provincial government in an effort led by Michael Bryant, Ontario's Attorney General - along with Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Now Bill 132 - outraged animal lovers the world over and was opposed by literally every animal organization in Canada. But that didn't stop Michael Bryant - nooooooo-sir-eee-Bob - and Ontario's breed ban passed in a vote that split right along part lines.

Something was seemingly upside down, too - for those of us here in the States - as in the party vote - the Liberals voted FOR the ban, and the Conservatives voted AGAINST the ban.

Bill 132 -The Planned Extermination of Pitbulls

But what's in Bill 132 - the notorious Ontario breed ban?

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with such an evil plan - The Dog Owner’s Liability Act:

Bans Ontarians from acquiring pitbulls and says:
No person shall own a pitbull
No person shall breed a pitbull
No person shall transfer a pitbull, by gift or by sale, or otherwise
No person shall abandon a pitbull - or allow a pitbull to stray
No person shall import a pitbull
Train a pitbull for fighting (can you say, duh?)
Mandates that all owners of existing pitbulls must spay or neuter existing animals
Mandates that all existing pitbulls be muzzled in public
Requires dog owners obtain certificates from veterinarians to PROVE their dog ISN'T a pitbull (called a reverse onus)
Allows police and dog wardens to enter a citizen's home to seize any dog fitting the description of a "pitbull"
Requires that all pitbull puppies be shipped out of the province, sent to reasearch facilities or euthanized.
Yes -euthanized. Dead puppies. Oooh - and violators face a maximum penalty of $10,000 and six months in jail. Can you say breed extermination?

Who Will Save Innocent Dogs?

Bill 132 left Canadian dog lovers devastated, and condemmed innocent puppies to death - or rather a fate worse than death if you count those research facilities.

Who would save these innocent dogs? Who would stand up for the owners of these innocent dogs, and who would stand up against a government with such an evil plan?

Now maybe you were all thinking what I was thinking! - that PETA and Ingrid and Wayne Pacelle and HSUS would swoop in and help save the day.

And maybe you were thinking what I was thinking - that PETA and HSUS would put the resources of their milti-million dollar organizations at the disposal of innocent dogs and innocent dog owners in Ontario.

And maybe you were thinking what I was thinking - that PETA and HSUS would press the button on their magic media console, and fire up the legions of PR spokespeople, "issues specialists" and the like - all for the benefit of innocent dogs in Canada!

And maybe we both thought that the sounds of PETA & HSUS outrage would soon be heard around the world!

Alas - that was not to be, and help from the PETA and HSUS calvaries did not arrive............

The Sounds Of Silence

Where was the usual outrage from PETA and HSUS?

Where was the well-oiled PETA press machine? Where was the well-orchestrated HSUS PR machine that rolls with precision to asks us all to help save the animals?

PETA and HSUS were.........Missing. Their presence was .......None, Zilch, Nada. PETA & HSUS were strangely quiet. I heard the sounds of ............ silence.

What - were PETA & HSUS too busy begging for money to save the seals? Didn't both these organizations petition the Canadian government for other animals?

Didn't Ingrid and Wayne have time to save innocent dogs? Or..............maybe Ingrid and Wayne didn't have time to save innocent pitbulls?

Would it be because PETA and HSUS can't make any money -ooooops, I mean donations - off this cause?

Would it be because PETA and HSUS actually back breed specific legislation?

Like when PETA's Ingrid Newkirk wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle saying that all pitbulls in shelters should be euthanized?

Or like when HSUS backed breed specific legislation in their letter to the Louisville Metro Council last year?

Such lingering questions, but I do digress .....................

The Province Of Ontario Kills Innocent Dogs

Now with Bill 132 in place - Michael Bryant's storm-trooping police went about the province seizing and killing innocent dogs of the pitbull persuasion, and even those dogs that resembled pitbulls - like labs and boxers etc.

And if you were a kind-hearted soul that rescued your dog - and thus had no pedigree to PROVE your dog wasn't a pitbull, then you were S*O*L* - and it was nite, nite for your dog.

Even travelers coming to the Province Of Ontario with dogs resembling pitbulls risked having their dogs seized or killed.

Taking On The Government

So - Toronto dog owner, Catherine Cochrane, represented by prominent attorney Clayton Ruby, and backed by the Dog Legislation Council Of Canada, did what every-red-blooded dog-owner who believes in truth and justice and equal protection under the law - she sued the government.

To help pay the legal expenses, the DLCC held bake sales, and fashion shows, and Candlelight Vigils! Across Canada the people who stood up for pitbulls pooled their pennies to help save innocent dogs.

In fact - I would encourage every dog lover to make a donation to defray the mounting legal bills : DONATE TO THE DLCC HERE.

So months later, in an effort that took the cooperation of so many, not to mention the generosity of many, and the testimony of dog experts from around the world, dog owners had their day in court to help save innocent dogs.

And finally - the ruling came down from On High on behalf of those innocent dogs, and much of it in favor of those innocent dogs and innocent dog owners.

Not only that, but dog owners, respresented by the talented Mr. Clayton Ruby, jammed a crowbar into the lid of Mr. Bryant's evil master plan and jacked open the lawbooks.

While the ruling left certain items standing - the ruling cleared the way to having Bill 132 overturned by invalidating two crucial elements:

Firt - the definition of pitbull, and Two - the reverse onus of proving one's dog isn't a pitbull.

About The Ruling

First - the court ruled that the term "pitbull", contained in Bill 132 - the Dog Owner's Liability Act - or DOLA - is unconstitutionally vague, since there is no such breed and is striking the term "pitbull" from the law.

However, the court left standing the definitions of the American Staffordshire Terrier, the American Pitbull Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Second - the court struck down the reverse onus -or the requirement that Ontario's dog-owning citizens obtain a certificate from a vet to prove their dog isn't a pitbull.

So while Michael Bryant and the government are all puffed up and claiming that Bill 132 withstood the challenge - we say read it and weep, Michael.

In fact - if you'd like to read Bill 132 WITHOUT the term "pitbull" - you can get a copy right here - and see for yourselves just how gutted the ruling left Bill 132, now that "pitbull" is removed: Download Bill132NoPitBullBan.pdf

Read it and weep, Michael - Cha, cha, cha.

The Bottom Line

OK - so for all you dog lovers out there - this is the bottom line:

The ruling basically means that all "pitbulls" - meaning all the dogs that are unregistered with a dog registry, or are unregistrable because they are mixes or mutts - are now safe (technically) from Bill 132.

But - that unfortunately leaves the purebred dogs, such as the American Pitbull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier at risk - these dogs are still covered by Bill 132 or DOLA.

So now that we're all clear on which dogs are safe, and which dogs come under Bill 132 - just how many dogs will this impact?

Ask The Right Questions

Now - the citizens of Ontario will be glad to hear that their Attorney General has gone to such great lengths to keep everyone safe from vicious dog attacks by sparing absolutely no expense.

Michael Bryant has spent millions of dollars to pass Bill 132, not to mention spent months and months and spent even more money on the lawsuit.

The good people of Canada will rest easy tonight knowing that with the murder rate in Toronto at an all-time high, and the McGuinty government defending against corruption charges left and right, and a failing school system, that Michael Bryant has spent every last dime to make sure every last "pitbull" in Ontario was either unable to reproduce or dead.

The good people of Canada will rest easy tonight knowing that from the year 2000 - through the year 2006 - that there were approximately 600 purebred dogs that would come under Bill 132 registered in the Province of Ontario:

Approximately 60 American Staffordshire Terriers
Approximately 100 American Pitbull Terriers
Approximately 400 Staffy Bulls
The question for Mr. Byant and the goverment of Province of Ontario is why?

Why Ask Why?

Why would Mr. Bryant and the government of Province of Ontario spend millions of taxpayer dollars to ban so few dogs?

Why would Mr. Bryant and the government of Province of Ontario spend millions of taxpayer dollars to duplicate laws that basically already exist ?

Why would Mr. Bryant and the government of Province of Ontario spend millions of taxpayer dollars to promulgate and defend such a law?

Would it be because Bill 132 is a cloaking device - a Trojan Horse with a secret inside?

Is Bill 132 really meant to do other things, things that maybe a democratic government in the Western Hemipshere really shouldn't be doing, or couldn't legally be doing and get away with it?

Just what secret might be hidden within Bill 132, and other breed-specific, anti-dog laws around the country?

We'll Tell You No Lies

Now to those dog lovers who find statistics and census data boooooooooring - this might perk you up a bit:

Would it surprise you to learn that according to the 2001 Census by the Canadian Government that:

Over the period of 1986 to 2001, the number of immigrants living in Toronto increased by almost 800,000 or 65%
In comparison, Toronto’s Canadian-born population increased by almost 400,000 or 18%
Immigrants accounted for two-thirds of Toronto’s total population growth between 1986 and 2001
Nope - it wouldn't surpise me at all. But just what do the Census numbers have to do with dogs and breed bans?

Not-So-Hidden Racial Profiling

Let me spell it out for those readers who may not get the connection between breed-specific legislation, race and poverty.

So follow closely, boys and girls, and let's connect the dots together in ten easy steps. Ready?

Breed bans aren't really about the actual dogs or breeds of dogs. Why? Because there are already laws in place that punish and kill dangerous dogs.
Breed bans are really about the people who own the dogs. Why? Ask youself who, in the minds of the politicians, own such dogs?
Why, the answer to that question is easy, since the media - and the HSUS - tell us on a daily basis that pitbulls are the "dogs of choice for crackheads and criminals, gang members", right?
And just who are these crackheads, and criminals and gang members - these "criminals who own pitbulls"?
Do politicians stereotype these "criminal pitbull owners" as white, female criminals and gang members?
Or.... do politicians stereotype these "criminal pitbull owners" as black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, and male gang members?
And just what does this breed ban do? Why it expands police powers, silly.
And what else does this breed ban do? Why it allows the police to enter homes without a warrant silly!
And just ask how else would a government (excluding the Bush administration's Patriot Act) be able to legally engage in racial profiling, legally target racial and ethnic minorities, not to mention legally grant expanded powers to the police of search and seizure without a warrant?
It's called Bill 132 - the Dog Owner's Liability Act.
The Biggest Loser


Michael Bryant is the biggest loser - and the numbers don't lie.

Just like I said - ask no questions and we'll tell you no lies.

Remember - take a good look at this photo of Michael "PuppyKiller" Bryant - and remember his face, and remember what he perpetrated against innocent dogs and innocent dog owners.

That way you won't forget when he asks to be re-elected this fall.

THESE ARE THE ADDRESS FOR THE MAJORITY OF INDY COUNCIL MEMBERS
COPY AND PASTE THEM IN YOUR E-MAIL
MAIL To

kingro@sbcglobal.net, rboyd@indygov.org, rgibson@indygov.org, jmsanders@msn.com, angelamansfield@aol.com, jimthod@aol.com, schneider725@yahoo.com, cainforcouncil@aol.com, greg@greagbowers.org, jnytes@indygov.org, woliver@indygov.org, stalley@indygov.org, sherronfranklin@yahoo.com, patrice4council@yahoo.com, mmadams@iquest.net,vabrown2022@yahoo.com,
dmmahern@hotmail.com

USE THIS AS YOUR SUBJECT
"Breed Ban Ruled Unconstitutional"

THEN COPY AND PASTE THIS INFO IN THE MESSAGE FEILD
SEE IF WE CAN GET THEM TO THINK BEFORE THEY VOTE!!!

So there it is again. Another pit bull attack makes the news.
Next, I'm sure,
the mayor is going to make his
"I'd like to have all of these dogs gone from the city" remark again.
Breed-specific legislation isn't the answer.

On any given day, how many dog bites are suffered by Indianapolis residents? 5? 10? 50? Of those, how many are by pit bulls? When a pit bull bites someone, it makes news. When a person is bitten by a Chihuahua or a Labrador retriever, the media don't jump all over it like a Pomeranian on a wounded duck DOES.
My guess is that the percentage of pit bull bites is very low. Any dog is capable of inflicting a bite, whether provoked or not. Before you vilify this breed any further, report on the percentage of bully breed bites versus other breeds. This would only be responsible journalism.
_________________________________________________________
In the past several months:
- a woman was killed by a German Shepherd & Doberman Pinscher
- a young child was severely mauled by an Akita
- a child left alone with a German Shepherd was mauled
- an officer required 14 stitches when a collie bit her
- a child stepped on the paw of a Golden Retriever who nearly tore off half of her face with a bite
- an Australian shepherd was involved in a 20-minute mauling of a woman who required over a 1,000 stitches
- a woman was killed by her Australian Shepherd, Catahoula Leopard Dog and Golden Retriever
- a man was bitten several times by a Kerry Blue Terrier after he interferred in a dog bite

I could go on. The reality is this: significant dog bites are rare, including those committed by pit bulls. People like to have something to fear, and when it's not rising color-coded terrorist threats or whatever faddish fear news agencies promote - it's good 'ol dog bites, preferably committed by a pit bull or Rottweiler. People like to demonize. Apparently, it brings meaning to some humans existence. Sucks for the rest of us, though.
____________________________________________________________________
Here in Indy, we have had a rash of sensational pit bull attack stories. The last one started with "There has been ANOTHER pit bull attack in Indianapolis" and ended with "The Dog Ordinance passed by city council last year doesnt seem to be putting a curb on PIT BULL attacks."

Yet, there have been other significant attacks-one, a GERMAN SHEPPARD jumped a fence to attack a kid in daycare. Another child had 300 stitches due to a Dobie attack.

Did that make the press?

Nope.
________________________________________________________________

DO YOU WANT WANT RE-ELECTED???????
FOOD FOR THOUGHT SO THINK!

UPDATE: Canada's Breed Ban - "Pitbull" Ruled Unconstitutional
Take a good look at this photo of Michael "PuppyKiller" Bryant - and remember his face.

He is the man responsible for the one of the world's most notorious breed bans - a ban intended to exterminate pitbulls and their owners from the Province of Ontario, Canada

But poor Michael was looking rather red-faced last week after losing part of the challenge to his breed ban.

The Red-Faced AG Comes Up Empty

Let's just say that the Ontario Attorney General's pants were hanging down to his ankles last week when the appellate judge, hearing the constitutional challenge to Ontario's notorious Bill 132 - "Dog Owners Liability Act", left some of the act in place but ruled that the term "pitbull", found throughout the law, is unconstitutionally vague, striking it from the law.

We're not sure which part of Michael Bryant was redder - his face or his arse - having been spanked hard in public..........

in a very legal sense.

Now Mr. Bryant can blather to the media all he wants - and somehow try to claim victory ( I think I hear his handlers saying, "Spin it, baby, spin"), but he's coming up empty. Why?

The Judge Rules For Innocent Dogs

Because when you have a law that bans pitbulls, followed by a ruling that rules that the government cannot legally use the term "pitbull", whaddya got? A big FAT nothing!

We have one thing to say to the judge: You, GO, girl!

So what does this ruling mean for the thousands of innocent dogs and innocent dog owners throughout the Province of Ontario?

First - let's do a quickie recap, shall we?

The History Of Bill 132

Canada's notorious breed ban - known as Bill 132 - Dog Owner's Liability Act (DOLA) - was rammed through the provincial government in an effort led by Michael Bryant, Ontario's Attorney General - along with Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Now Bill 132 - outraged animal lovers the world over and was opposed by literally every animal organization in Canada. But that didn't stop Michael Bryant - nooooooo-sir-eee-Bob - and Ontario's breed ban passed in a vote that split right along part lines.

Something was seemingly upside down, too - for those of us here in the States - as in the party vote - the Liberals voted FOR the ban, and the Conservatives voted AGAINST the ban.

Bill 132 -The Planned Extermination of Pitbulls

But what's in Bill 132 - the notorious Ontario breed ban?

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with such an evil plan - The Dog Owner’s Liability Act:

Bans Ontarians from acquiring pitbulls and says:
No person shall own a pitbull
No person shall breed a pitbull
No person shall transfer a pitbull, by gift or by sale, or otherwise
No person shall abandon a pitbull - or allow a pitbull to stray
No person shall import a pitbull
Train a pitbull for fighting (can you say, duh?)
Mandates that all owners of existing pitbulls must spay or neuter existing animals
Mandates that all existing pitbulls be muzzled in public
Requires dog owners obtain certificates from veterinarians to PROVE their dog ISN'T a pitbull (called a reverse onus)
Allows police and dog wardens to enter a citizen's home to seize any dog fitting the description of a "pitbull"
Requires that all pitbull puppies be shipped out of the province, sent to reasearch facilities or euthanized.
Yes -euthanized. Dead puppies. Oooh - and violators face a maximum penalty of $10,000 and six months in jail. Can you say breed extermination?

Who Will Save Innocent Dogs?

Bill 132 left Canadian dog lovers devastated, and condemmed innocent puppies to death - or rather a fate worse than death if you count those research facilities.

Who would save these innocent dogs? Who would stand up for the owners of these innocent dogs, and who would stand up against a government with such an evil plan?

Now maybe you were all thinking what I was thinking! - that PETA and Ingrid and Wayne Pacelle and HSUS would swoop in and help save the day.

And maybe you were thinking what I was thinking - that PETA and HSUS would put the resources of their milti-million dollar organizations at the disposal of innocent dogs and innocent dog owners in Ontario.

And maybe you were thinking what I was thinking - that PETA and HSUS would press the button on their magic media console, and fire up the legions of PR spokespeople, "issues specialists" and the like - all for the benefit of innocent dogs in Canada!

And maybe we both thought that the sounds of PETA & HSUS outrage would soon be heard around the world!

Alas - that was not to be, and help from the PETA and HSUS calvaries did not arrive............

The Sounds Of Silence

Where was the usual outrage from PETA and HSUS?

Where was the well-oiled PETA press machine? Where was the well-orchestrated HSUS PR machine that rolls with precision to asks us all to help save the animals?

PETA and HSUS were.........Missing. Their presence was .......None, Zilch, Nada. PETA & HSUS were strangely quiet. I heard the sounds of ............ silence.

What - were PETA & HSUS too busy begging for money to save the seals? Didn't both these organizations petition the Canadian government for other animals?

Didn't Ingrid and Wayne have time to save innocent dogs? Or..............maybe Ingrid and Wayne didn't have time to save innocent pitbulls?

Would it be because PETA and HSUS can't make any money -ooooops, I mean donations - off this cause?

Would it be because PETA and HSUS actually back breed specific legislation?

Like when PETA's Ingrid Newkirk wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle saying that all pitbulls in shelters should be euthanized?

Or like when HSUS backed breed specific legislation in their letter to the Louisville Metro Council last year?

Such lingering questions, but I do digress .....................

The Province Of Ontario Kills Innocent Dogs

Now with Bill 132 in place - Michael Bryant's storm-trooping police went about the province seizing and killing innocent dogs of the pitbull persuasion, and even those dogs that resembled pitbulls - like labs and boxers etc.

And if you were a kind-hearted soul that rescued your dog - and thus had no pedigree to PROVE your dog wasn't a pitbull, then you were S*O*L* - and it was nite, nite for your dog.

Even travelers coming to the Province Of Ontario with dogs resembling pitbulls risked having their dogs seized or killed.

Taking On The Government

So - Toronto dog owner, Catherine Cochrane, represented by prominent attorney Clayton Ruby, and backed by the Dog Legislation Council Of Canada, did what every-red-blooded dog-owner who believes in truth and justice and equal protection under the law - she sued the government.

To help pay the legal expenses, the DLCC held bake sales, and fashion shows, and Candlelight Vigils! Across Canada the people who stood up for pitbulls pooled their pennies to help save innocent dogs.

In fact - I would encourage every dog lover to make a donation to defray the mounting legal bills : DONATE TO THE DLCC HERE.

So months later, in an effort that took the cooperation of so many, not to mention the generosity of many, and the testimony of dog experts from around the world, dog owners had their day in court to help save innocent dogs.

And finally - the ruling came down from On High on behalf of those innocent dogs, and much of it in favor of those innocent dogs and innocent dog owners.

Not only that, but dog owners, respresented by the talented Mr. Clayton Ruby, jammed a crowbar into the lid of Mr. Bryant's evil master plan and jacked open the lawbooks.

While the ruling left certain items standing - the ruling cleared the way to having Bill 132 overturned by invalidating two crucial elements:

Firt - the definition of pitbull, and Two - the reverse onus of proving one's dog isn't a pitbull.

About The Ruling

First - the court ruled that the term "pitbull", contained in Bill 132 - the Dog Owner's Liability Act - or DOLA - is unconstitutionally vague, since there is no such breed and is striking the term "pitbull" from the law.

However, the court left standing the definitions of the American Staffordshire Terrier, the American Pitbull Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Second - the court struck down the reverse onus -or the requirement that Ontario's dog-owning citizens obtain a certificate from a vet to prove their dog isn't a pitbull.

So while Michael Bryant and the government are all puffed up and claiming that Bill 132 withstood the challenge - we say read it and weep, Michael.

In fact - if you'd like to read Bill 132 WITHOUT the term "pitbull" - you can get a copy right here - and see for yourselves just how gutted the ruling left Bill 132, now that "pitbull" is removed: Download Bill132NoPitBullBan.pdf

Read it and weep, Michael - Cha, cha, cha.

The Bottom Line

OK - so for all you dog lovers out there - this is the bottom line:

The ruling basically means that all "pitbulls" - meaning all the dogs that are unregistered with a dog registry, or are unregistrable because they are mixes or mutts - are now safe (technically) from Bill 132.

But - that unfortunately leaves the purebred dogs, such as the American Pitbull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier at risk - these dogs are still covered by Bill 132 or DOLA.

So now that we're all clear on which dogs are safe, and which dogs come under Bill 132 - just how many dogs will this impact?

Ask The Right Questions

Now - the citizens of Ontario will be glad to hear that their Attorney General has gone to such great lengths to keep everyone safe from vicious dog attacks by sparing absolutely no expense.

Michael Bryant has spent millions of dollars to pass Bill 132, not to mention spent months and months and spent even more money on the lawsuit.

The good people of Canada will rest easy tonight knowing that with the murder rate in Toronto at an all-time high, and the McGuinty government defending against corruption charges left and right, and a failing school system, that Michael Bryant has spent every last dime to make sure every last "pitbull" in Ontario was either unable to reproduce or dead.

The good people of Canada will rest easy tonight knowing that from the year 2000 - through the year 2006 - that there were approximately 600 purebred dogs that would come under Bill 132 registered in the Province of Ontario:

Approximately 60 American Staffordshire Terriers
Approximately 100 American Pitbull Terriers
Approximately 400 Staffy Bulls
The question for Mr. Byant and the goverment of Province of Ontario is why?

Why Ask Why?

Why would Mr. Bryant and the government of Province of Ontario spend millions of taxpayer dollars to ban so few dogs?

Why would Mr. Bryant and the government of Province of Ontario spend millions of taxpayer dollars to duplicate laws that basically already exist ?

Why would Mr. Bryant and the government of Province of Ontario spend millions of taxpayer dollars to promulgate and defend such a law?

Would it be because Bill 132 is a cloaking device - a Trojan Horse with a secret inside?

Is Bill 132 really meant to do other things, things that maybe a democratic government in the Western Hemipshere really shouldn't be doing, or couldn't legally be doing and get away with it?

Just what secret might be hidden within Bill 132, and other breed-specific, anti-dog laws around the country?

We'll Tell You No Lies

Now to those dog lovers who find statistics and census data boooooooooring - this might perk you up a bit:

Would it surprise you to learn that according to the 2001 Census by the Canadian Government that:

Over the period of 1986 to 2001, the number of immigrants living in Toronto increased by almost 800,000 or 65%
In comparison, Toronto’s Canadian-born population increased by almost 400,000 or 18%
Immigrants accounted for two-thirds of Toronto’s total population growth between 1986 and 2001
Nope - it wouldn't surpise me at all. But just what do the Census numbers have to do with dogs and breed bans?

Not-So-Hidden Racial Profiling

Let me spell it out for those readers who may not get the connection between breed-specific legislation, race and poverty.

So follow closely, boys and girls, and let's connect the dots together in ten easy steps. Ready?

Breed bans aren't really about the actual dogs or breeds of dogs. Why? Because there are already laws in place that punish and kill dangerous dogs.
Breed bans are really about the people who own the dogs. Why? Ask youself who, in the minds of the politicians, own such dogs?
Why, the answer to that question is easy, since the media - and the HSUS - tell us on a daily basis that pitbulls are the "dogs of choice for crackheads and criminals, gang members", right?
And just who are these crackheads, and criminals and gang members - these "criminals who own pitbulls"?
Do politicians stereotype these "criminal pitbull owners" as white, female criminals and gang members?
Or.... do politicians stereotype these "criminal pitbull owners" as black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, and male gang members?
And just what does this breed ban do? Why it expands police powers, silly.
And what else does this breed ban do? Why it allows the police to enter homes without a warrant silly!
And just ask how else would a government (excluding the Bush administration's Patriot Act) be able to legally engage in racial profiling, legally target racial and ethnic minorities, not to mention legally grant expanded powers to the police of search and seizure without a warrant?
It's called Bill 132 - the Dog Owner's Liability Act.
The Biggest Loser


Michael Bryant is the biggest loser - and the numbers don't lie.

Just like I said - ask no questions and we'll tell you no lies.

Remember - take a good look at this photo of Michael "PuppyKiller" Bryant - and remember his face, and remember what he perpetrated against innocent dogs and innocent dog owners.

That way you won't forget when he asks to be re-elected this fall.