Luvmypit
October 21st, 2004, 11:15 AM
Previous Story
Print Story
E-mail Story
Next Story
Oct. 21, 2004. 01:00 AM
The case for banning pit bulls
MICHAEL BRYANT
Pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals, more bull than pet, and therefore should not be haunting the streets, fields and family rooms of Ontario. A remarkable, silent majority is finally being heard on this issue.
But the debate over banning pit bulls is not exclusive to Ontario: Bans are in place in places like Kitchener-Waterloo, Windsor, Winnipeg, and abroad in Britain and New Zealand, and are being considered in London, Brantford, and Toronto. Why ban these beasts?
There are statistics to back up the thousands of e-mails I have received of unreported pit bull attacks, but nothing makes the case for banning pit bulls better than the experiences of Winnipeg and Kitchener.
Winnipeg was experiencing more than 30 serious, reported pit bull attacks a year. Today? Zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks annually, and in a few short years since the ban was introduced, they now have about one a year.
That means that people in those cities who otherwise would have continued to be attacked by pit bulls were, instead, spared serious injury.
Ten years ago, when I saw the 5-year-old Toronto girl whose face was savagely mauled by a pit bull, many wondered how many more children would be harmed by these incomparably vicious dogs. Ten years from now, maybe there will be no more, if this pit bull ban passes in Queen's Park.
Even more interestingly, attacks in Winnipeg by all breeds of dogs — once numbering 30 to 40 per year — have decreased overall. A decade after their pit bull ban was instituted, dog attacks number about one per year, refuting the claim that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by the banned pit bulls.
The truth is, while other dogs can be dangerous, no other dog is as dangerous as a pit bull.
No other dog can match the severity of the attack, and the unpredictability of the attack. Even a U.S. study from 2000, sometimes cited as evidence by opponents of the pit bull ban, finds that one-third of dog-bite related fatalities — yes, fatalities — were caused by pit bulls.
While it may be difficult to say definitively how many pit bulls there are in North America, it is certain that one-third of dogs are not pit bulls, a breed that is killing and attacking at an alarming rate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't permit muzzled wolves on leashes in public parks. Why? Because they're just too dangerous. So it is for pit bulls.
Attorney-General
Michael Bryant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some say government should punish the deed, not the breed. I say, we should indeed punish the deed. And the government's proposed bill would, if passed, seriously punish irresponsible dog owners with tougher fines, doubling them to $10,000, and even jail time for extreme cases.
But we also need to face the fact that pit bulls are a breed apart. They don't scare the hell out of people because they're not always pretty; they are frightening because of the injuries they routinely inflict upon people and their pets.
Some say pit bulls aren't a breed at all, they can't be identified.
My experience is that those opposing the pit bull ban are the only ones who believe rules cannot be crafted to permit the identification of what everyone knows to be a pit bull.
In fact, Ontario intends to adopt the definition of pit bull utilized by Winnipeg in its successful pit bull ban. To be sure, if legal regulations can identify harmful emissions, dangerous pesticides and complex narcotics, we can do the same with a dog that can often be spotted (and heard) a block away.
There is an underlying ideology advanced by those opposed to the pit bull bans, arguing that dog bans are wrong. It's a fundamentalist argument that knows no exceptions.
I don't disagree that dog bans are extreme, but I would have thought that those who love animals also agree that there are some animals that do not belong in public.
We don't permit muzzled wolves on leashes in public parks. Why? Because they're just too dangerous.
So it is for pit bulls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bryant, is Attorney-General of Ontario and MPP for the Toronto riding of St. Pauls.
Print Story
E-mail Story
Next Story
Oct. 21, 2004. 01:00 AM
The case for banning pit bulls
MICHAEL BRYANT
Pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals, more bull than pet, and therefore should not be haunting the streets, fields and family rooms of Ontario. A remarkable, silent majority is finally being heard on this issue.
But the debate over banning pit bulls is not exclusive to Ontario: Bans are in place in places like Kitchener-Waterloo, Windsor, Winnipeg, and abroad in Britain and New Zealand, and are being considered in London, Brantford, and Toronto. Why ban these beasts?
There are statistics to back up the thousands of e-mails I have received of unreported pit bull attacks, but nothing makes the case for banning pit bulls better than the experiences of Winnipeg and Kitchener.
Winnipeg was experiencing more than 30 serious, reported pit bull attacks a year. Today? Zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks annually, and in a few short years since the ban was introduced, they now have about one a year.
That means that people in those cities who otherwise would have continued to be attacked by pit bulls were, instead, spared serious injury.
Ten years ago, when I saw the 5-year-old Toronto girl whose face was savagely mauled by a pit bull, many wondered how many more children would be harmed by these incomparably vicious dogs. Ten years from now, maybe there will be no more, if this pit bull ban passes in Queen's Park.
Even more interestingly, attacks in Winnipeg by all breeds of dogs — once numbering 30 to 40 per year — have decreased overall. A decade after their pit bull ban was instituted, dog attacks number about one per year, refuting the claim that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by the banned pit bulls.
The truth is, while other dogs can be dangerous, no other dog is as dangerous as a pit bull.
No other dog can match the severity of the attack, and the unpredictability of the attack. Even a U.S. study from 2000, sometimes cited as evidence by opponents of the pit bull ban, finds that one-third of dog-bite related fatalities — yes, fatalities — were caused by pit bulls.
While it may be difficult to say definitively how many pit bulls there are in North America, it is certain that one-third of dogs are not pit bulls, a breed that is killing and attacking at an alarming rate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't permit muzzled wolves on leashes in public parks. Why? Because they're just too dangerous. So it is for pit bulls.
Attorney-General
Michael Bryant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some say government should punish the deed, not the breed. I say, we should indeed punish the deed. And the government's proposed bill would, if passed, seriously punish irresponsible dog owners with tougher fines, doubling them to $10,000, and even jail time for extreme cases.
But we also need to face the fact that pit bulls are a breed apart. They don't scare the hell out of people because they're not always pretty; they are frightening because of the injuries they routinely inflict upon people and their pets.
Some say pit bulls aren't a breed at all, they can't be identified.
My experience is that those opposing the pit bull ban are the only ones who believe rules cannot be crafted to permit the identification of what everyone knows to be a pit bull.
In fact, Ontario intends to adopt the definition of pit bull utilized by Winnipeg in its successful pit bull ban. To be sure, if legal regulations can identify harmful emissions, dangerous pesticides and complex narcotics, we can do the same with a dog that can often be spotted (and heard) a block away.
There is an underlying ideology advanced by those opposed to the pit bull bans, arguing that dog bans are wrong. It's a fundamentalist argument that knows no exceptions.
I don't disagree that dog bans are extreme, but I would have thought that those who love animals also agree that there are some animals that do not belong in public.
We don't permit muzzled wolves on leashes in public parks. Why? Because they're just too dangerous.
So it is for pit bulls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bryant, is Attorney-General of Ontario and MPP for the Toronto riding of St. Pauls.