A queasy feeling engulfs my stomach whenever I read about dogs attacking people. I can sense how helpless the victim must have felt as he or she was overwhelmed and assailed by a sharp-clawed, razor-toothed beast.
I get especially tense whenever a child is involved. I was a small kid up until high school, so I know what it’s like to feel subjugated by something much bigger (and aggressive) than you.
We’re not supposed to fear dogs. They’re supposed to be man’s best friend, guardians of our vulnerable and eyes for our blind. They’re supposed to shower you with licks and love because they’re so darn grateful to see you.
That’s not always the case. While dogs play a vital role in our society, particularly in terms of companionship, many people have been victims of unprovoked dog attacks.
As reported in The Reminder, two particularly disturbing dog attacks have occurred in less than a year on Centennial Crescent (last summer) and Queen Street (last month). In the first case, an adult woman was the victim; in the latter, a small child.
On today’s front page is an article exploring the demand and merits of a pit bull ban in Flin Flon, as that particular breed is involved in a large percentage of dog attacks. I would like to see Rottweilers also included in any thought of a ban.
While there are conflicting studies over whether breed-specific dog bans reduce attacks, sometimes we must go beyond what’s documented on paper and use our common sense.
Research from DogsBite.org shows that between 2005 and 2015, two dog breeds – pit bulls and Rottweilers – accounted for 76 per cent of all fatal dog attacks on humans in the US.
Obviously if the two most dangerous breeds are banned, fewer people will get hurt – provided there is effective enforcement.
Of course there are people – namely a subsect of dog owners who prefer pit bulls and Rottweilers – who vehemently oppose breed-specific bans. They believe it’s unfair to treat every member of a certain breed like a ticking time bomb, and they do have a point.
But should the right of an individual to own one breed of dog, when there are many breeds to choose from, take precedence given the propensity of that breed to harm or kill innocent people?
Other people argue that pit bulls and Rottweilers who attack humans are the consequence of negligent or aggressive owners. Blame the owners, not the animals, they say.
There is likely some truth to that, too. But with more than three in four fatal dog attacks involving two of the some 340 dog breeds known to society, can anyone reasonably argue that breed is irrelevant? That the high volume of attacks involving two particular breeds is some sort of tragic coincidence?
There is no place in Flin Flon for breeds with such a horrendous track record. Mayor Cal Huntley and his council should immediately set the wheels in motion for an all-out ban on pit bulls and Rottweilers within municipal limits – with strict, enforceable-on-first-offence penalties to back it up.
If you agree with me, call or write your mayor and city councillors. They work for us, and I sincerely believe that most of us favour a pit bull and Rottweiler ban for obvious reasons.
