No real logic behind Montreal’s recent vote
When I was a kid, we often played a game called Hot Potato. This activity involved a group sitting in a circle, passing along an object (the “potato”) while singing a song. When the verse ended, whomever was holding the object was “out.” Naturally, the objective of the game was to be sure anybody but yourself was left holding the object at the end of the song.
What I hadn’t known at the time is that, apparently, there is an adult version of Hot Potato. In it, the participants are avoiding possession not of a potato, but of blame and responsibility. The latest champions of this version reside in Montreal, where the burden of accountability landed in the laps of innocent animals. I am, of course, referring to the senseless pit bull ban that was passed 37-23 by the city’s council.
If the debates arising from this fresh ban seem familiar, it’s because Ontario had a similar conversation roughly a decade ago, which also ended in legislation banning the pit bull family. Since 2005, pit bulls—actually a collective term for several breeds such as Staffordshire bull terriers and American pit bull terriers have been required to be leashed and muzzled in public, sterilized, and prohibited from being brought into the province. As of 2012, the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association estimates over 1000 dogs have been needlessly put down as a result of this ban.
“…the senseless pit bull ban that was passed 37-23 by the city’s council.”
Now, I am not a fan of statistics. I don’t particularly trust them, and I know how easy they are to be conveniently manipulated to benefit one’s cause. But for the sake of perspective, let’s do a quick comparison. As reported by Global News in February of this year, the city of Toronto experienced 86 reported pit bull bites in 2004, just prior to the enactment of Ontario’s breed-specific legislation. The second-highest breed for reportable Toronto bites, their numbers do not even break the top ten for the same statistics in 2014. This shouldn’t be surprising, given that heavy restrictions have greatly reduced Ontario’s pit bull population.
What some may find surprising, however, is that the breed most commonly responsible for bites remained the same within that decade: German Shepherds. These dogs account for 112 bites in 2004 and 92 bites in 2014. May I remind you that this is the same breed of dog often used by police forces, search and rescue teams, border patrol, and as a loving family pet. Clearly, these dogs have a place in our society.
To delve a little further, many breeds present as repeats on the top 10 list over the decade: Labrador Retrievers (fourth and second); Jack Russell terriers (third in both years); and Rottweilers (fifth and fourth) consistently top the list. Their counterparts include many small, popular, and/or intelligent dogs, such as Border Collies, Golden Retrievers, Bichon Frise, Shih Tzus, and Siberian Huskies, to name a few.
These statistics do not tell us that we need more legislation covering more breeds and enacting further restrictions. They do tell us that virtually any canine has the potential to inflict injury or display aggression. They do tell us that bites are an inevitability, as are many dangers in life. These numbers and the bans governments have conceived do not incriminate the canines mentioned—they speak loudly of the neglect on the part of owners and society.
“They do tell us that bites are an inevitability, as are many dangers in life.”
When a human commits a crime, we do not rise and cry loudly for the persecution of all those within his or her gender, race, or country. We do not suggest all men be caged to prevent sexual violence. We do not demand permanent house arrest for all soldiers because they hold the potential to cause serious harm. Such absurd “solutions” would be neither humane nor effective, and would leave the root of the problem unaddressed.
As with so many other issues, the blame with dog aggression is rooted in human selfishness. At every point along the canine spectrum, we breed dogs to suit our needs, aesthetic, and otherwise. We have aimed for sloped backs, smushed-in faces, and yes, aggression. Yet for every cold-hearted owner choosing through intent or neglect to allow their dog to develop dangerous behaviours, there are several loving hearts waiting for a kiss from their appreciative companion.
We deem wildlife a “nuisance” when we build our subdivisions over their homes. We bemoan cat and rodent overpopulation while failing to address our own. And now we banish certain dog breeds from their homes—the majority, loving—while neglecting the poor or downright criminal ownership at the root of any dog attack. We’re not children any more, and this Hot Potato needs to land in our hands.
Photo by Ildar Sagdejev.