Somebody left this comment on my post about the craziness in Ontario -
"not that they should be banned but there is no way in hell that dog only has boxer and rottie in him. Please!"
Here is a photo of Bowser and Daisy - my own personal rottweiller mix - next to each other - they do certainly seem to share some features, don't you think - very cute short ears, large black noses, round large eyes, mouths that are shaped naturally as a smile - really I don't see how anyone could deny - if we are going to agree that yes - Daisy is certainly a rotweiller, because she certainly does hold every characteristic of the breed called rottweiller - then by association - Bowser must also have rottweiller in him because he has several characteristics that make him look like Daisy.
What are the characteristics that make him look like a "pit bull", anyway? Is it his colouring? That is a colour that is associated with boxers - and his owner says that he has boxer in him - so why would that make him have any pit bull in him - that's a boxer attribute. Is it his wide mouth? Boxer. Small ears? Boxer and rottie mixes have small ears.
Only seeing his face - it's tough - but to me - there may also be a smidge of shar-pei in there as well - and you don't know, there could be a bit of some kind of spitz or german shepherd in there too. Breed identification is so tough - and subjective. And really - nobody should ever die for it, should they? Really, it's ridiculous.
What a lot of people don`t seem to understand about the Ontario law is that it doesn`t matter if he has any of the 3 named Breeds that are considered 'Pit Bulls' in him.
ReplyDeleteThat`s irrelevant to the Gov`t.
It could be ANY Breed(Corso,Boxer,Lab,Mastiff,JRT.... etc) that is giving him the characteristics that have made someone allege that he is a Gov`t 'pit bull'.
Here is how Ontario defines a 'pit bull'
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90d16_e.htm
[quote]“pit bull” includes,
(a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); (“pit-bull”)[/quote]
It`s a) and e) that are catching people unaware.
Hopefully that is clear as mud.
So keep ANY dog out of Ontario that a Gov`t official MIGHT call a 'pit bull'.
Any dog with a square head,short hair and whip tail is going to get tagged as a Gov`t 'pit bull' and if it was born after Nov 27/05,it`s a dead duck or a future resident of Nova Scotia unless you win in Court.
wow thankyou Joan this blog is very nice. the resembalance is incredible between Daisy & Bowser.
ReplyDeletethankyou for sharing your thoughts and Daisy picture very kind of you to take your time to do so.
Danny Truong
"Substantially similar" has never been defined legally so no one can possibly know what that means.
ReplyDeleteA Judge will make that determination if this case does proceed through the Courts.
In my humble opinion he doesn`t look remotely similar,let alone substantially similar to any of the named Breeds(shown at the link below) but my opinion and the Public`s opinion means squat.
http://wagthedog.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/2/3/4080367.html
That`s why this legislation is vague.Everyone has a different opinion on what that means.
All Canines are substantially similar.
Does that mean they all fall under this law?
Bowser actually looks substantially similar to a boss I used to work for. I better phone the guy up and tell him to get his arse out of Ontario before a Mississauga Animal Control officer throws a catch pole around his neck.
ReplyDelete