Great Anti-BSL article

THOMAS WALKOM -- The Ontario government's proposed pit bull ban is bad law.

Founded on fear, it defies all logic except the most crassly political. It exploits the grief of those who have suffered dog attacks. Yet, it offers no realistic solution to the problem.

When Attorney-General Michael Bryant proposed a pit bull ban last fall, he said he would look at all the evidence before acting. He promised to move carefully. He did neither.

The bill he has cobbled together is deeply flawed and quite possibly unconstitutional. It literally bans any dog that even resembles a pit bull. An animal control officer who seizes an animal under the act won't have to prove it is in the banned category; the owner will have to prove it is not.

In effect, as Kitchener veterinarian Gary Goerée explained to a legislative committee recently, it is a ban on all short-haired dogs with big heads.

Goerée has some experience in this. In 1997, Kitchener became the first municipality in the province to ban pit bulls. That year, Goerée was appointed to the city's pit bull appeal committee, a body charged with deciding, in his words, whether animals would live or die.

It did so, he said, on the basis of snapshots taken by animal control officers. The committee would not consider the dog's behaviour. Members would not ask if it had menaced or bitten anyone.

Their only role was to determine whether it sufficiently resembled the banned breed. Was its head too wide? The hair on its coat too short? How did the tail look?

Kitchener is an important touchstone because Bryant argues that this city's experience proves breed bans can work.

In fact, it is not clear that Kitchener's experience proves anything. There are fewer pit bull bites now that that the breed is banned. But there were never many to start with.

As Goerée testified, pit bulls ranked number eight among dog biters before the ban took place — right after poodles.

Legislative committee hearings usually feature duelling experts. What was remarkable about the four days set aside for consideration of this bill was the unanimity among experts. All who testified opposed it.

Veterinarians, trainers, breeders and animal behaviour specialists all said essentially the same thing: Stiffer laws to deal with dangerous dogs are a good idea; laws aimed at specific breeds are counterproductive.

Bonnie Beaver of the American Veterinary Association told the committee that breed bans in various U.S. cities have not reduced the incidence of dog bites and are being repealed. Richard Paquette, an animal control officer from Sudbury, noted that in his community pit bulls accounted for 5 per cent of dog bites.

"Target the real problem of dangerous dogs and get away form this pit bull thing," Paquette pleaded. "I'm going to be bogged down worrying about ... people complaining about the perception of menace, rather than working with actual dogs that have been identified as causing problems."

From Britain, Michael Flowers, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals, told the committee, via conference call, that a 14-year breed ban in his country has been a flop. Litigation is rampant and dog bites are up.

Understandably, many victims of pit bull attacks support Bryant's bill. The committee heard from a few of these. Some tales were frightening,

But does victim anger alone produce good legislation? The family of someone killed by an immigrant might want all immigration banned. But most governments, while respectful of the family's grief, would probably want to look at the issue lucidly before acting.

This is the part that Bryant does not get. He seems to think the fleeting popularity attached to his proposed ban is enough to make it good law.

He is wrong.

Source

 

The simple fact of taking one one breed and making laws spacific to it is un-American. Could anyone imagine if we posted laws aginst people do to Race? Its the same thing. We didnt ban all Afganies from America (or even certain states or counties) after they attacked the Twin Towers. We never banned any Germans, or Japanese after Pearl Harbor rite? Then how is a breed (race) of dog any different????........I.D.