Draconian legislation against dogs proposed by Nova Scotia....

UPDATE: HERE - sounds like a lot of people had a lot to say- and reading this, the issue really does seem to be all about ONE man who sounds like a complete dick.  As I've said before, it is an OWNER issue not a 'breed' issue.

Please read FrogDog's blog here, and PetConnection here to learn about the absolutely UNBELIEBABLE legislation being proposed by the Province of Nova Scotia.  Draconian doesn't begin to cover this small-minded, ill informed, pointless legislation being proposed. WRITE to the people below (have lifted from FrogDog's blog) and let these individuals know what you think of this.  Nova Scotia relies HEAVILY on tourism - so let them know that their livelihood will most definitely be impacted with this type of garbage.

Mayor.Mooney@townofyarmouth.ca; DeputyMayor.Boudreau@townofyarmouth.ca; Councillor.Dares@townofyarmouth.ca; Councillor.Langille@townofyarmouth.ca; Councillor.MacIsaac@townofyarmouth.ca; Councillor.MacKenzie@townofyarmouth.ca;
Councillor.Pink@townofyarmouth.ca



Text of an email sent to the above-noted individuals:


I was absolutely appalled to read the content of this proposed legislation.


I am not sure on what basis such draconian legislation has been drafted - nor what the Province of Nova Scotia thinks to accomplish by this small-minded, ill-fated, badly drafted legislation which is based on innuendo, rumour and a glaring lack of common sense.

If the individuals who propose this legislation had done their homework, even a cursory search on the internet will bring up dozens of incidents where stupid legislation such as banning a certain "breed" has been proven to be ineffective and pointless and done nothing to deal with the issues they are ostensibly supposed to address. Further, condemning a dog based on ONE bite with no recourse is nothing short of pure maliciousness; the reality is that there are cases where the dog has been provoked, attacked, beaten, mistreated or otherwise placed in a situation where its only recourse is to bite. The only balanced response would be to look at each case individually, based on the facts of THAT case, not wholesale destruction of often tolerant, loving pets!

Over the past several years, numerous cities, towns, provinces, states and COUNTRIES have rethought the belief that banning a certain 'breed' of dog somehow mitigates the problem of 'dangerous' dogs. There have been a record number of revocations of such breed bans - as statistics clearly show that banning a specific breed does not in any way decrease the number or severity of dog bites.

The bottom line is that the issue is seldom the DOG and almost ALWAYS the OWNER. Drafting legislation to deal with abusive owners, those who mistreat or actively encourage their animals to fight and develop aggressiveness, owners who neglect and starve or ignore their animals, owners who refuse to exercise responsible guardianship over their dogs - is the answer - NOT targeting the innocent victim - the dog.

The proviso that 'dangerous' dogs can be shot on sight is unbelievable. The reality is that an individual who is frightened of dogs could easily misunderstand even the friendly overtures of a dog that comes up to them. This type of decision-making is subjective to the highest degree and one would think that a town's animal services department with trained staff would be the individuals who SHOULD deal with dogs that are loose or appear to be otherwise "at large". My own dog, a black shepherd named Llyr is a goofball who despite repeated instruction STILL tends to bound towards an individual with a big grin and leaps at them would be 'shot at will' based on this legislation. The biggest issue faced by anyone he actually reached would be being licked to death!

My husband and I have been actively researching towns in Nova Scotia as we had pretty well decided that retirement in your province was our dream. I can promise you, that we would ASSUREDLY rethink that if legislation such as this was in place. As animal lovers, I could not and would not choose to live in a place that treats my beloved pets like some sort of slavering monsters!

Please do your research. There is absolutely NO doubt that if you explore the realities of most of the legislation as drafted, there are myriad examples of places that enacted similar legislation to NO effect. There are a substantial number of places, in truth, that having seen the error of their ways- have rethought this knee jerk reaction espoused by alarmists.

I sincerely hope that this whole issue is rethought and this legislation definitively shelved.

Yours sincerely,