The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Dear Editor, RE: Breed Specific Legislation In response to what appears to be an increase in the number of dog bites and the media's presentation of "pit bulls", Rotweillers, and Dobermans as the main culprits, rural municipalities, towns, even provinces and whole countries are overrun by legislators outdoing each other by proclaiming breed bans. If you ban the breed the problem will go away, right? Well, if only it were so easy. Breed specific legislation attempts to solve a problem by treating the symptom and is therefore doomed to fail. It sounds good, gets votes, and appeals to many members of the public, but what they hope will be a simple solution to a simple problem is not. The intent of a breed ban is to enhance public safety by decreasing the number of dog attacks on people, particularly children. While this goal is without a doubt admirable and worthwhile, the tool that has been selected is severely flawed. The media trumpets cases where "pit bulls" attack. It is no surprise that a politician might "take a stand", a very public one, and DO something É make a law! Ban a breed! And why isolate "pit bulls", Rotweillers, and Dobermans? It is true that due to their anatomic structure certain breeds are capable of inflicting more damage in a shorter period of time than others. However, focusing on that ignores the bigger picture. All breeds are capable of biting people. Would you rather have a scar on your face from a "pit bull" or lose a finger to a Shi Tzu? What a question! Why not prevent both? One thing that has always baffled me is why society believes a problem will disappear simply by declaring something "illegal". If only. Be it drugs, alcohol, or gambling, it has never worked. Breed bans are an ineffective way of dealing with the real issue. Problems with Breed Specific Legislation include: Breed identification. What exactly is a "pit bull"? The short answer is that your guess is as good as mine. Going by visual clues alone, many hound, Mastiff and Boxer crosses will end up being labelled "pit bulls". Who is responsible for making the identification? What knowledge and training do they have? False security. Oh, well, now that "pit bulls" are banned dogs biting won't be an issue, so we can all just carry on petting unfamiliar dogs, taking away their toys, invading their territory, snatching their food. Bad idea. Ease of adding more breeds to the ban. Once the legislation for "pit bulls" is in place, it is incredibly easy to add breeds. Receive a complaint about a Rotweiller Ð add Rotweillers to the list. Maybe the situation is to ban dogs over a certain height or weight? Where will it end? This is a very complex issue and it is certainly easier to ban a breed than to develop programs and legislation that address the many reasons for canine aggression. After all, the root of the problem is not the breed so conveniently banned, it is the human Ð a species that is much more difficult to train. Yours truly, Dr. Sandra Neumann Saskatchewan SPCA
