Rebuttal to Pit-bull Bylaw Serves Purpose

BREED-SPECIFIC LAWS NOT USEFUL IN PREVENTING HARM Tuesday, September 20, 2005 Memo: Selma Mulvey is a Burford resident. Column: Rebuttal BY SELMA MULVEY, SPECIAL TO THE FREE PRESS Your editorial, Published on 09/14/2005, The London Free Press Here as well, is a rebuttal to that very article: Your editorial, Pit-bull bylaw serves purpose (Sept. 14), makes some excellent points, but I'm not sure they are the ones intended.The statistics you quote on breed are likely skewed. First, they are stats on reported bites and, as we all know by now, pit bulls get more attention than other types, not only in the media but also on the street. A nip by a pit bull is more likely to be reported than a potentially more serious attack by another breed. Without a bite registry in Ontario (an idea rejected by the Liberals), we have no valid information.Breed is not even particularly useful as a category, except with respect to how popular the type may be, which would allow for mathematical adjustment when citing percentages, for example. Items such as reproductive status, sex of dog, status of obedience training, age of dog, age of victim, sex of victim, age of owner, sex of owner, circumstances (including owner's presence or absence), number of dogs involved, was there chaining or isolation, bite history of a particular dog, etc, provide much more valid information for dog-bite prevention than breed alone.The weak enforcement of licensing in many municipalities has contributed to the problem by forcing everyone to guess at how many dogs may reside in a municipality, never mind what breed they may be.The media's relentless campaign about the dangers of pit bulls has, in some cases, attracted the type of individual who is fearful or wishes to intimidate others.Cowards and bullies are not suitable as dog owners.You are correct in stating that there are other breeds available. When the same individuals who have ruined this type of mongrel can no longer acquire one, they will simply move on to the next media darling.Your statement that a poodle bite is less serious than a pit bull bite is insulting to those who have been injured by poodles. It further contributes to the mythology surrounding pit bulls, which are, after all, only dogs.If people of questionable competence were unable to obtain dogs from pet shops and backyard breeders, this problem would be significantly reduced. Ethical breeders and affiliates of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as well as breed rescue clubs, are very fussy about where they place dogs. They not only do thorough checks on those wishing to obtain a dog, they also match individuals with dogs that they are likely to get along with and are likely to be able to raise properly. Pet shops and backyard breeders will give a dog to anyone with cash or a credit card. Competence is not an issue with them nor is the welfare of dogs or people.The constitutional challenge filed in Ontario Superior Court has nothing to do with pit bulls, breed or even dogs. It is built around the unassailable rights and freedoms for all Canadians guaranteed by the Charter. These include the right to be presumed innocent in a court of law, the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure, the right to freedom of movement and the right to freedom from discrimination.The major constitutional violations in the provincial law will, I suspect, come back to bite the McGuinty Liberals. (Sept. 14), makes some excellent points, but I'm not sure they are the ones intended.The statistics you quote on breed are likely skewed. First, they are stats on reported bites and, as we all know by now, pit bulls get more attention than other types, not only in the media but also on the street. A nip by a pit bull is more likely to be reported than a potentially more serious attack by another breed. Without a bite registry in Ontario (an idea rejected by the Liberals), we have no valid information.Breed is not even particularly useful as a category, except with respect to how popular the type may be, which would allow for mathematical adjustment when citing percentages, for example. Items such as reproductive status, sex of dog, status of obedience training, age of dog, age of victim, sex of victim, age of owner, sex of owner, circumstances (including owner's presence or absence), number of dogs involved, was there chaining or isolation, bite history of a particular dog, etc, provide much more valid information for dog-bite prevention than breed alone.The weak enforcement of licensing in many municipalities has contributed to the problem by forcing everyone to guess at how many dogs may reside in a municipality, never mind what breed they may be.The media's relentless campaign about the dangers of pit bulls has, in some cases, attracted the type of individual who is fearful or wishes to intimidate others.Cowards and bullies are not suitable as dog owners.You are correct in stating that there are other breeds available. When the same individuals who have ruined this type of mongrel can no longer acquire one, they will simply move on to the next media darling.Your statement that a poodle bite is less serious than a pit bull bite is insulting to those who have been injured by poodles. It further contributes to the mythology surrounding pit bulls, which are, after all, only dogs.If people of questionable competence were unable to obtain dogs from pet shops and backyard breeders, this problem would be significantly reduced. Ethical breeders and affiliates of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as well as breed rescue clubs, are very fussy about where they place dogs. They not only do thorough checks on those wishing to obtain a dog, they also match individuals with dogs that they are likely to get along with and are likely to be able to raise properly. Pet shops and backyard breeders will give a dog to anyone with cash or a credit card. Competence is not an issue with them nor is the welfare of dogs or people.The constitutional challenge filed in Ontario Superior Court has nothing to do with pit bulls, breed or even dogs. It is built around the unassailable rights and freedoms for all Canadians guaranteed by the Charter. These include the right to be presumed innocent in a court of law, the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure, the right to freedom of movement and the right to freedom from discrimination.The major constitutional violations in the provincial law will, I suspect, come back to bite the McGuinty Liberals.

As you scour the page of rebuttles in the LONDON FREE PRESS online, there is only 1, when in fact, I know many that sent in rebuttles. Yet which one made it in? Could it be from a City Staffer? Read on...this one made my hair curl!

Pit-bull bylaw serves purposeWhile it's understandable that responsible owners of pit bulls will resent both provincial legislation and a city bylaw relating to their dogs, the bigger issue is public safety. London Animal Care and Control statistics from September 2001 to September 2004 show that an average of one out of 5.9 pit bulls has bitten a person. Next worst are rottweilers, at one in 14.4. And that doesn't take into account the ferociousness and severe injuries that mark many pit-bull attacks. Still, pit-bull owners' concerns deserve attention, and, to that end, city council's environment and transportation committee did the right thing this week in referring the issue back to staff. Among dog owners' concerns with the bylaw is a requirement that they have $1 million in liability insurance. They say it may be impossible or too expensive. If so, changes should be made in the bylaw because a requirement that can't be met would negate enforcibility. Coun. Fred Tranquilli, who chairs the committee, says in referring the bylaw city staff have been asked to ensure its definitions are consistent with those of the provincial statute. While this newspaper urged council last fall to delay its pit-bull bylaw pending provincial legislation (which has since become law), the city contends a municipal law would provide a licensing system for pit bulls that would help identify which dogs are "grandfathered" (allowed to remain, under strict controls). The provincial law does not provide for licensing. Tranquilli points out this is also beneficial to dog owners because it proves their pit bull is grandfathered. In light of the opposition pit-bull legislation has met, anything that adds clarity has merit. Ontario's law bans pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and any dog "that has an appearance and physical characteristics similar to any of those dogs." Some opponents of the legislation have argued the definition is not clear and is too broad. That's a red herring because the same could be said for any dog where there has been cross-breeding. Such rhetoric doesn't help people who have been badly mauled by an aggressive dog. Others say the problem is bad owners. But an irresponsible owner is a greater threat if he or she is master of a pit bull than of a poodle. Besides, a broader city bylaw yet to come will cover all dogs and therefore addresses all owners. Thanks to grandfathering, no one is being required to surrender dogs they currently own. There will be tighter restrictions, such as the requirement that pit bulls be muzzled and on a leash when in public places, but people will be allowed to keep their dogs. They just can't replace them with another pit bull. Given the variety of breeds available, surely one of those would meet most people's needs. Since Winnipeg banned pit bulls in 1990, such attacks there have declined from 25 a year to one or two. The increase in public safety is worth giving up one choice in selecting a dog.