Shon
10-08-2004, 12:27 PM
Charming like a panting, muscle-bound sewer rat is charming, pit bulls are one of the few creatures even cockroaches can look down on.
Little more than a four-legged testosterone boost for the machismo-challenged folks -- who'd be better off seeking help from Pfizer Inc. -- pit bulls are a loathsome, ugly breed, loved mainly by those with serious self-confidence issues.
To summarize, pit bulls are horrible -- but that doesn't mean they should be illegal.
Yet that's exactly what many Calgarians want, and with Ontario considering a ban on the steel-jawed uber-terriers, there are fears a precedent set by Canada's biggest province may result in local pit bulls getting the boot, too.
This past weekend, about a dozen pit bull owners protested at the Alberta legislature over Ontario's crackdown, and it seems their fears are justified -- in Calgary, calls to the city demanding a similar vicious breed ban are on the rise.
But what's good for the goose isn't always good for the hyperactive, twitching terrier -- and those who support a ban on specific breeds such as pit bulls are assuming Calgary is like other cities where such dogs are a serious danger.
It's not.
Calgary, as of 2004, has the lowest bite-per-dog ratio of any major Canadian city, with a paltry 200-or-so bites reported each year out of 91,000 licensed dogs. Painful, yes, but still paltry.
That number is about a quarter of what Calgary used to see annually between 1985 and 2000 -- and the credit goes to Calgary's method of handling its dog population.
As well as having a unique no-tolerance policy on aggression -- instead of waiting for teeth to meet flesh, the slightest sign of anti-social dog behaviour gets the owner a visit and a warning from bylaw officers -- Calgary has more off-leash dog parks than any other city in Canada.
As any dog expert will tell you, a well-socialized dog accustomed to meeting other canines and people is far less likely to bite when it accidentally gets loose -- which is when a good portion of dog attacks occur in other, less-enlightened cities.
In the words of Bill Bruce, the city's top bylaw and animal service officer, "there's no substitute for a damn good animal- control program."
Of course, there are people who still say pit bulls, and other dogs bred specifically for fighting, were never meant to be pets -- they're a ticking time-bomb with teeth, essentially.
Maybe so, and I wouldn't want my child playing with one either, but there's also ample evidence pit bulls can be perfect family pets, if raised and trained properly.
Banning the breed would be an injustice to those responsible owners who, for some unfathomable reason, prefer pit bulls over the thousands of more pleasant varieties available.
Instead of targeting a breed of dog for what it might do, the city -- or the province, if it follows Ontar-io's lead -- should target dog owners for what they don't do. And that includes owners of poodles, bassets, bloodhounds and every other breed, not just pit bulls.
Too often, a dog abused through neglect, poor training or a lack of socialization pays the ultimate price for using its teeth when it didn't know any better. The owner pays a fine, and is then free to buy another dog.
When a dog bites, it should be the owner's responsibility -- and that specific person should be the one to pay the price, by being banned from owning another dog.
Too many people buy a dog as a status symbol, and then after the novelty wears off, they realize it's hard work, and neglect sets in.
The result, whether it's a pit bull or a pomeranian, is a dog far more likely to bite than one from a good home with a caring owner.
Trying to stop dog attacks by banning a specific breed misses the point, when a rotten owner is capable of turning any mutt into a monster.
If a bad driver crashes his truck, we don't try to ban Fords -- we punish the idiot behind the wheel.
And so it should be with dogs driven to bite by terrible owners.
Little more than a four-legged testosterone boost for the machismo-challenged folks -- who'd be better off seeking help from Pfizer Inc. -- pit bulls are a loathsome, ugly breed, loved mainly by those with serious self-confidence issues.
To summarize, pit bulls are horrible -- but that doesn't mean they should be illegal.
Yet that's exactly what many Calgarians want, and with Ontario considering a ban on the steel-jawed uber-terriers, there are fears a precedent set by Canada's biggest province may result in local pit bulls getting the boot, too.
This past weekend, about a dozen pit bull owners protested at the Alberta legislature over Ontario's crackdown, and it seems their fears are justified -- in Calgary, calls to the city demanding a similar vicious breed ban are on the rise.
But what's good for the goose isn't always good for the hyperactive, twitching terrier -- and those who support a ban on specific breeds such as pit bulls are assuming Calgary is like other cities where such dogs are a serious danger.
It's not.
Calgary, as of 2004, has the lowest bite-per-dog ratio of any major Canadian city, with a paltry 200-or-so bites reported each year out of 91,000 licensed dogs. Painful, yes, but still paltry.
That number is about a quarter of what Calgary used to see annually between 1985 and 2000 -- and the credit goes to Calgary's method of handling its dog population.
As well as having a unique no-tolerance policy on aggression -- instead of waiting for teeth to meet flesh, the slightest sign of anti-social dog behaviour gets the owner a visit and a warning from bylaw officers -- Calgary has more off-leash dog parks than any other city in Canada.
As any dog expert will tell you, a well-socialized dog accustomed to meeting other canines and people is far less likely to bite when it accidentally gets loose -- which is when a good portion of dog attacks occur in other, less-enlightened cities.
In the words of Bill Bruce, the city's top bylaw and animal service officer, "there's no substitute for a damn good animal- control program."
Of course, there are people who still say pit bulls, and other dogs bred specifically for fighting, were never meant to be pets -- they're a ticking time-bomb with teeth, essentially.
Maybe so, and I wouldn't want my child playing with one either, but there's also ample evidence pit bulls can be perfect family pets, if raised and trained properly.
Banning the breed would be an injustice to those responsible owners who, for some unfathomable reason, prefer pit bulls over the thousands of more pleasant varieties available.
Instead of targeting a breed of dog for what it might do, the city -- or the province, if it follows Ontar-io's lead -- should target dog owners for what they don't do. And that includes owners of poodles, bassets, bloodhounds and every other breed, not just pit bulls.
Too often, a dog abused through neglect, poor training or a lack of socialization pays the ultimate price for using its teeth when it didn't know any better. The owner pays a fine, and is then free to buy another dog.
When a dog bites, it should be the owner's responsibility -- and that specific person should be the one to pay the price, by being banned from owning another dog.
Too many people buy a dog as a status symbol, and then after the novelty wears off, they realize it's hard work, and neglect sets in.
The result, whether it's a pit bull or a pomeranian, is a dog far more likely to bite than one from a good home with a caring owner.
Trying to stop dog attacks by banning a specific breed misses the point, when a rotten owner is capable of turning any mutt into a monster.
If a bad driver crashes his truck, we don't try to ban Fords -- we punish the idiot behind the wheel.
And so it should be with dogs driven to bite by terrible owners.