A 2008 study by the Canadian Veterinary Journal, for instance, stated that in the period from 1990 to 2007, Rottweilers, huskies, and mixed breeds, respectively, caused more fatalities in that country than pit bull terriers. However, those breeds also exceeded the numbers of pit bulls examined. Clearly, a review of canine attacks must include numerous factors such as breed representation, numbers of dogs in given households, population density, and, most important, responsible dog ownership.
Dogs are pets, after all, and are therefore entirely dependent on an owner’s capacity to provide adequate care, training, and proper supervision. Pit bull bans indicate the state’s inability to address or enforce this accountability. Furthermore, such legislation fits into a broader criminalize-criminalize-criminalize! framework of alarming government intervention into problem areas that people somehow managed to resolve by themselves in the past, including bullying in schools and certain types of speech. Common sense is nowhere to be found. An unsupervised larger-sized dog, at a child’s face level, is more likely to cause serious damage when that child does something unpredictable, like try kissing it.
Most curious of all is what Ontario lawmakers define as a “pit bull”:
2) Section 1 of the Act is amended by adding the following definitions:The last bullet point makes it especially clear where the government stands on the issue of nature vs. nurture when it comes to this canine breed. I wonder whether the bureaucrats realize the logical implications of their thinking when it comes to humans.
“pit bull” includes,
(a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); (“pit-bull”) [emphasis mine]
