As I wrote earlier, I have NOT liked this legislation one bit. Penalizing dogs for their owners bad decisions. Penalizing dogs who have never hurt anyone.
Since that law was enacted, we have, at least in my small town, learned at just how unenforceable this law really is. We have at least three pits in town, one of which I have seen muzzled. At least staffy's neither of which is muzzled. yes, people complain, but to enforce it you have to hold the offending party there until the police comes....you tell me...how are you going to do that?
So in the Globe and Mail we find that the good guys are claiming victory.
While over in the London Free Press we find that the bad guys are claiming victory.
So the question remains...who is right?
I have to admit, to tend to agree with judge Herman when she says:
If using the term pit bull is unconstitutional, then the law will need to be rewritten as Pit Bull terminology is scattered throughout the whole thing.
And, in what Mr. Ruby called the crucial part of the ruling, the judge questioned the very wording of the legislation.
"The words pit bull are all over that law," he said. ". . . without the words pit bull, which she says are unconstitutionally vague, there is no legislation left."
I can understand Attorney General Bryant thinking this is a victory because only 2 of the 117 parts of this law were struck down....but I do think they were fairly important pieces of it too.
So I don't know. I feel good that a vet can't just arbitrarily say...this is a pit bull. But I do wish the whole law had been struck down....probably just wishful thinking that!