BSL = safer city?

[K9Friend]

Write to the GLOBE & MAIL and let them know what you think of this news article & John Barber!?

Globe and Mail
January 24, 2007
John Barber

Pit bull ban could be just a start for a safer city

Good news! The number of pit bulls destroyed by the city every year has increased substantially since the breed was banned province-wide in August, 2005. Five hundred of the dogs have died painlessly in municipal facilities since the ban, compared with 441 that suffered the same fate in the 16 months prior to its enactment.

Of special interest, almost 200 of the potentially vicious animals were executed summarily – not because of anything they had done, but simply because of what they were. The law is biting back.

This is not necessarily good news to the municipal officials charged with its enforcement. Toronto animal services manager Eletta Purdy is one of a legion of experts, genuine and otherwise, who oppose the ban. She would prefer to assess each potentially dangerous dog “on its own merit” before deciding whether to put it down. “If it was a healthy, well-behaved dog, we would be placing it up for adoption, regardless of the breed”, she said.

But now, municipal officials all over Ontario are forced to destroy many healthy, well-behaved and potentially adoptable dogs, simply because of their breed.

Because of this, and for many other reasons, just about every animal-welfare organization in existence, from the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, opposes breed-specific bans. Their ultimate argument is that such bans do nothing to reduce the risk to small children of being torn to pieces by vicious dogs that, they acknowledge, were bred to kill.

But what if they’re wrong? What if even one of those 200 summary executions prevented a single hideous mauling of the sort that inspired Attorney-General Michael Bryant to ban pit bulls in Ontario? This would be very good news.

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to determine anything beyond the fact that more potentially dangerous dogs are being euthanized. Dog attacks were not classified by breed prior to the ban, according to Ms. Purdy, so there is no way to determine whether or not it has increased public safety.

“I have no evidence that tells me one way or another”, she said. “In order to ascertain that, you would have to have some very good statistical information, and I’m not sure that exists.”

In the absence of any reliable data, hypotheses rule. Among those who oppose the ban, the most common is a variation on the refrain that “guns don’t kill people, people do”. Even though pit bulls have been bred to be vicious (just as guns are designed to kill), such dogs are said to be safe if handled properly.

This is no doubt true. The problem is this breed’s particular attraction to people who value vicious dogs and don’t mind using them for the purpose to which they were bred. A pit bull ban can’t contain the anti-social impulse, but it does to some small extent, disarm it.

People say that irresponsible dog owners will switch to other breeds when they can’t have pit bulls. Again, they’re right. Who can forget the news from Christmas Day, when two free-roaming Rottweilers attacked a Hamilton toddler in a mauling that lasted for minutes, despite the efforts of bystanders to free him. The boy “looked like he was a doll being torn apart”, according to a neighbour.

Different generations choose their own vicious dogs. German shepherd dogs, bred to attack people and used for that purpose in the Belgian Congo and German concentration camps, were once the most dangerous dogs on Canadian city streets. Then it was Dobermans, then pit bulls. Now, it appears, the vicious dog of the day is the Rottweiler – “a natural weapon of war”, according to some of its fanciers.

Fortunately, there is a simple answer to this emerging dilemma: a ban on Rottweilers, followed by bans on any other breeds that are turned to the same anti-social purpose, until people finally realize that a crowded city is no place for potentially vicious animals. The pit bull ban is a good start.

[wdawson]

i think i need glasses.....that story can't be for real......good news,the number of pitbulls put down has increased

[MyBirdIsEvil]

Cliff's notes for anyone who can't bring themselves to read every single bit of this utter tripe:

Good news! The number of pit bulls destroyed by the city every year has increased substantially since the breed was banned province-wide in August, 2005.

And then the author goes on to state that this is a good thing because:

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to determine anything beyond the fact that more potentially dangerous dogs are being euthanized. Dog attacks were not classified by breed prior to the ban, according to Ms. Purdy, so there is no way to determine whether or not it has increased public safety.

And in conclusion:

Fortunately, there is a simple answer to this emerging dilemma: a ban on Rottweilers, followed by bans on any other breeds that are turned to the same anti-social purpose, until people finally realize that a crowded city is no place for potentially vicious animals. The pit bull ban is a good start

So basically there is now way to prove whether or not breed bans have had any effect on the amount dog attacks, but it is still a good idea because ANY dog can be potentially dangerous, therefore more and more breeds should be banned until no one owns dogs that could POTENTIALLY do damage to a human being (which would be all dogs).

Wonder who taught this author their writing style.

[mummummum]

Well, at least his ignorance matches his incompetence.