may enter a person's home on hearsay or a complaint from a neighbour and seize a dog, regardless of breed.

 

2.  fails to include  "with provocation"  as part of the criteria for determining if a dog's behaviour was inappropriate, regardless of breed.  The owner is left with only the defense of having exercised due diligence should an incident occur.  Subsesquently, a criminal could conceivably break into your home and if your dog defends you or the property, you could be fined.  A fine of up to $10,000 is being considered.

 

3.  provides for fines if your dog is accused of menacing behaviour.   Menacing behaviour could merely be a dog barking and bobbing along its fence line.  There is no definition for menacing behaviour in this Bill.

 

4.  state that it is incumbent upon the owner to prove the lineage of his/her dog.  There is no means for an owner to prove that dog of an unknown breed mix is a certain breed in court, something veterinarians do not have the time to do, and then hope that the testimony given by that veterinarian is better than the testimony heard from the Crown's expert witness.

 

If you read between the lines, Mr. Bryant's "solution" for the volume of restricted dogs that would be surrendered to local animal control facilities is to broaden the scope of the Animal Research Act.

 

Mr. Bryant's Bill 132 discriminates against all responsible pet owners in this province.