by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
September 3, 2004
Just as we wouldn’t let a great white shark in a swimming pool, maybe we shouldn’t have these animals on the civilized streets.
Ontario attorney General, Michael Bryant
Last weekend two pit bulls were being looked after by a friend of the owner. While walking the dogs down a quiet street at 3:00 a.m., the dogs suddenly turned on the 25-year-old man for no apparent reason and viciously attacked him. It took two police officers firing 16 rounds to bring the dogs down and save the man’s life.
In light of those events, and other horrific incidents involving pit bulls, both the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario are considering legislation to ban the animals, at least from built up or urban areas. and naturally the issue is divisive. analogies to guns, most of which do not hold up are constantly being made. at least the federal government isn’t getting into the act--we would end up with another multi-billion dollar registry which, like the gun registry would serve no other purpose than to make the government and the sheep that follow them think that they have accomplished something.
Dogs are not guns. as is being pointed out, guns are inert objects; they don’t think or react. Guns are only dangerous when a person decides to handle or use one. and as long as the gun works, the consequences of its actions are well known and predictable. This is not so with animals and a case in point was the attack last week. The pit bulls in question had never caused problems before. They were acquainted with the person who was walking them on that quiet street in the middle of the night--some reports describe the man as having been the dogs’ breeder. Out of the blue and with no way to predict that it was coming, the dogs simply attacked.
In a nanny state like Canada where all levels of governments have absolutely no qualms intruding on the lives of its citizens, the first solution to any problem is always to ban something. after all it is much easier to ban something than it is to regulate it. But what is noticeable in the pit bull debate is that many of the people who are against the ban think that the problems can be solved by taking stronger action against owners. While this sounds good many of these same people, for example the editorial page writers of the Toronto Sun are also the harshest critics of our criminal justice system. They argue, quite rightly, that those who are found guilty of such offences as possession of child pornography and violent offences are dealt with too leniently by the courts. They are not likely to be satisfied with any tougher penalties that could be imposed on dog owners. and the owner of the dogs that attacked their walker last weekend appeared to have had no history of attacks. There has been nothing to indicate that the owner had trained or otherwise encouraged his animals to attack. There is no way that criminal responsibility could properly attach in that situation.
Even when the owners of such dogs do absolutely nothing to teach or encourage their animals to attack, it is can never be a certainty that the dogs will not do so; whether simply walking with their owner, or when they pass on the street by a child. What makes pit bulls stand out from other breeds is that once they sink their teeth into something, it is practically impossible to force them to let go of their pray. Their jaws are locked. Despite being assisted by several people, last week’s incident was only terminated when the police showed up and shot the dogs. Even after being shot, one of the dogs still kept coming.
The argument made by some veterinarians and other animal experts, that some dogs are half breeds and therefore it is impossible to tell which dog is a pit bull. In a world where children are born to mixed race couples, we don’t seem to have any difficulty in determining for example, when a person is black for purposes of being the victim of a hate crime. We can distinguish between those animals that should be banned and those that should not.
The city of Winnipeg vastly reduced attacks by dogs when they banned pit bulls. They should be banned everywhere.
Proponents of the gun control registry often say that it is worth the exorbitant cost if just one life can be saved. You never hear that argument in the pit bull debate.
Michael Bryant is right--pit bulls are dangerous and they should be kept out of cities--just like sharks should be kept out of swimming pools.