Breed Specific Legislation

Three reasons BSL doesn't work and how to fix it

Michael Bryant is the former Attorney General responsible for Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) in Ontario. He said pit bulls are the problem, Ontarians want BSL and that pit bulls are “ticking time bombs.” He made each of these assertions without consulting Ontarians and without consulting the Ontario experts. There is one impossibility that Bryant and BSL did accomplish and that was to get Victoria Stilwell, from Britain’s ‘It’s the Dog or Me, to agree whole-heartedly with Pack Leader, Cesar Millan that BSL doesn’t work.

BSL, aside from being an unconscionable legislation, doesn’t work and many of the places that enacted it are now repealing it. BSL doesn’t work for many different reasons, today, we discuss three; it provides citizens with a false sense of security, it costs the taxpayer more money with no increase to safety, and it doesn’t address the real problem – irresponsible owners. There is a solution and Calgary currently seems to have it.

A false sense of security

Ontarians who believe BSL works are at risk because despite pit bulls being banned, bad owners still own and teach bad habits to their dogs. The Toronto Humane Society writes, “Focussing on breeds gives the public a false sense of security.” The irresponsible owner is still walking the streets with their dangerous dog that may or may not fit the description outlined in BSL. Resources being tied up identifying the “pit bull” are resources that cannot be on the street handling routine animal control and actual dangerous dogs of irresponsible owners.

The Bickell Foundation states, “When limited animal control resources are used to regulate…[one] breed without regard to behavior, the focus is shifted away from…effective enforcement of laws that…[would] make our communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating spaying and neutering and laws that require all owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed.”

The cost of BSL

In 1996, Maryland determined “the cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single dog with the label “pit bull’ was about $68,000 with no measurable result in increased safety. The already limited resources are no longer available because they are re-allocated to enforce BSL. Testing for dog DNA, lawyers, and police officers all need to be paid to enforce BSL. Maryland inevitably paid out $560,000.00 for the fiscal year in 2001 – 2002 and that was just for the confiscation of pit bulls.

Despite the money that was spent trying to enforce BSL literally 100’s of family pets were euthanized because they fit a description. What price will Ontarian parents pay when their children learn that it’s ok to fear someone just because of the way they look?

Bad Owners are still bad owners

Gang members, drug dealers and dog fighters have historically been attracted to pit bulls because of their loyalty and tenacity. Criminalizing ownership of these innocent animals only feeds into the criminal’s ego. These types of people already consider themselves operating outside of the law, BSL isn’t going to make them abide by any rules.

The irresponsible owner won’t neuter/spay their dog, they won’t teach their dogs manners and they won’t be responsible if their dangerous dog hurts someone. By dangerous dog I mean any dog not just pit bulls. They will still leave the dogs outside on a chain or let them run free regardless of breed. Despite BSL dogs will still be neglected and starved, thus the dog will still feel compelled to find food or someone, human or animal, with whom to socialize. Irresponsible owners are not affected by this legislation and by focussing on the breed we are only amplifying the problem with BSL.

An intelligent way to see things

Scientists from the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) agree that there is “no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.” It is truly ridiculous to believe that the way something looks determines its’ fate.

In the late 19th Century, Cesare Lombroso, founder of Positivist and a Social Darwinist, believed criminals were inferior beings and could be caught because they were thought to have small head with a large face, fleshy lower lip and a thin upper lip, protuberance on the head, large sinus cavities, receding hairline and so forth. How is BSL thinking any different than 200 years ago?

The Bickell Foundation’s website summarizes the CDC’s findings;

• 70% of canine attacks were from an unneutered male, which means unneutered males are 2.6 X more likely to attack than the neutered or spayed.

• Dogs that are chained up are 2.8% more likely to attack

• In 2006, 97% of dogs involved in fatal attacks were not spayed/neutered.

• 78% of dog attacks are from dogs that are not pets, they are guard dogs, image enhancement, fighting dogs or breeding dogs.

• 84% of the dogs who attacked were abused, neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or were never allowed to interact with children

Calgary, Alberta has implemented a model that has seen an actual decrease in dog bites. "We don't punish breeds, we punish behavior," said chief bylaw officer Bill Bruce. "The bottom line is, we believe all dogs are capable of biting." (Defendingdog.com) Calgary is fast becoming the model to follow in many places that are now repealing this ridiculous legislation.

Hopefully, it is just a matter of time before BSL will be banned in Ontario. BSL doesn’t work, it doesn’t work because people are still not safe from dangerous dogs, it cost Ontario more money to enforce and bad owners are still bad owners. As long as we examine the facts and address the issue, like Calgary did, then we are on our way to recovery and repeal.

BSL as a political Ploy

 Breed specific legislation (BSL) and how it came about in Ontario demands further examination. Cheri DiNovo, MPP for High Park - Parkdale noted in a speech to legislation regarding Bill 16, a repeal of Bill 132, she says, “It was a bill (132) used in a worst possible political way…It had nothing to do with the dogs.”

In a chronology of Bill 132 dogownersrights.com reports,

“At 3:00 in the morning on August 29, 2004, in a back alley in a crack-infested area of Toronto, a man is walking two unneutered male "pit bull" type dogs.  Although not the owner of the dogs, he is referred to in newspaper reports as a friend of the owner and the "breeder" of the dogs…Nobody knows exactly what happens next or why.  Eyewitnesses state that, just prior to the attack, the man had the larger of the two dogs in a "headlock".  Whatever caused these two dogs to attack this man, the results are horrific.  He has serious injuries to his head and legs.  The dogs are shot multiple times by police.” 

Sponsorship Scandal comes to light

In September 2004 the First Public Hearings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising activities began.  In a nutshell, there were people in the liberal party who were accused of engaging in activities that did not benefit of the people of Canada.  In fact, millions of dollars were given to advertising companies who did little to no work for the government. 

Interestingly enough, the Liberals in Ontario began their anti-pit bull campaign. It may be a stretch to some but one should ask themselves, why anyone didn’t petition for the pit bull in 1994 when the Ellis’ were attacked, or 1997 when Kitchener enacted a municipal ban on pit bulls or when Windsor enacted their ban earlier that year.  Why did this one attack of a man, who according to eye-witnesses had the largest pit bull in a headlock prior to the attack, become Bryant’s catalyst? 

The First Public Hearings of Commission of Inquiry begins in September then in Bryant holds a press conference on October 15, 2004 and states, “We have deliberated…Pit bulls - BANNED - BANNED - We are banning pit bulls in the province of Ontario!” After a bit of Q and A Bryant goes on to say, “We are focusing on pit bulls.  Pit bulls and only pit bulls.”

Pit Bulls become a distraction

Creating a common enemy is a strategy used by many; Hitler created fear of Jewish people; Americans created the fear of terrorists; parents created monsters that are out only after dark, and Ontario created Pit Bulls.    

Bryant couldn’t create a human enemy but he did create an enemy.  One that he, himself, couldn’t identify.  Cheri DiNovo reveals, “Michael Bryant, the Attorney General who introduced the Bill, couldn’t pick a pure bred pit bull out of a lineup of cross breeds,”   They literally lined up a few dogs and asked Bryant to pick out the pit bull and he picked the wrong one.  If Bryant couldn’t pick out a pit bull, how many innocent pets would be murdered who weren’t even pit bulls. 

Bryant suggests the media speaks for Ontario

Bryant also talks about keeping Ontarians safe, and that Ontarians are tired of being bitten by pit bulls.  During the First Reading of Bill 132 on October 26, 2004, Bryant said, “There is support across the province.  It’s not unanimous support, but let’s hear about some of it.  This is from the Hamilton Spectator…The London Free Press…The Toronto Star…Toronto Sun…The Globe and Mail…The National Post…”  When did the media begin to speak for all Ontarians? 

The next time the government needs an enemy whose it going to be?  Which pet will be targeted this time? The government has systematically been making the First Nations people the bad guy since 1492, with the new definition of terrorists it won’t be long before anyone who doesn’t fall into line will be “banished”. 

A Real Common Enemy 

If we need an “enemy” let’s declare war on irresponsible pit bull owners and dog fighters.  Kris McIndoo, 4-Legged Love Animal Rescue, writes, “Breed specific bans fail to target the problem: bad dog owners. Those who are causing the problems with their dogs will not care about the law. Either these owners will continue to own the breeds mentioned in any breed specific ban or will dump the dogs, get a new breed and continue the cycle.”

If Bryant was truly concerned with the Ellis’ or other people who had been attacked by any dog he would have come up with a solution that made sound and economic sense.  Instead, he stirred up emotions and created fear. The “sponsorship scandal” was all but forgotten in Ontario, and the focus became the innocent pit bulls who couldn’t defend themselves.  As it stands now, irresponsible owners continue to neglect, abuse, breed, and/or participate in dog fighting because the focus has been the dogs instead of the enemy truly responsible for dog bites.  

Let's end BSL ignorance

 “They are genetically predisposed to violence”

“Only good pit bull is a dead pit bull”

“Pits should have mandatory enforced sterilization”

“The average pit bull puppy is aggressive.”

“I love all animals but I would no more keep a fighting breed of dog around small children than I would a tiger, lion or cougar or a cobra or a rattler.”

How did people get such negative and hateful feelings about a breed? “For one thing, despite being illegal in all fifty states, dog fighting made a comeback in the 80s, and the pit bull is the dog of choice,” John Bastian, ‘How did Pit Bulls get a bad rap?’

The people who are afraid of Pits for whatever reason like to troll Pit Bull articles so they can argue with Pro-Pit peeps.  They like to recite “statistics” as facts and scare people by telling them tragic stories. 

In October 2014, Cheri DoNovo, MPP representing Parkdale - Highpark and a Pit Bull activist, wrote a great article in The Toronto Star, “To be more accurate, the data is from Toronto Animal Services (TAS), which is a highly unreliable source. TAS only gets a subset of dog bite reports, cases where they are actually involved.”  She cited the Toronto Public Health as a more reliable source for dog bites in Ontario.

As much hate ‘bad owners’ have inspired in people, the Pit Bull themselves have ignited people’s loyalty and compassion.  “Go beyond the stereotype and you’ll discover a smart, calm, and loving companion, just as I did 20 years ago,” Cesar Millan. 

“You need a loving and loyal dog to do some of the monstrous things people do with Pit Bulls,” Samuel Nieves, ‘Why Do People Hate Pit Bulls?’ On the Best of Dog website.  Pit bulls are fiercely loyal and will do whatever their human asks of them.  

Yes, Pits can be frightening like any other dog, yes they can do damage, like any other dog but they are gentle when asked and when taught well. 

BSL is bull shit legislation that doesn’t work and only drains resources from the community enforcing it.  Ontario has yet to wolf-up when it comes to this harmful legislation. 

  “In a recent interview with the Salt Lake City Weekly, Best Friends Animal Society senior legislative attorney Ledy VanKavage explained, ‘the trend is to go away from breed-discriminatory laws and pass comprehensive reckless-owner and dangerous-dog laws that are breed-neutral’…,” Jon Bastian, 5 Ways you can help your pit bull. 

Responsible pit bull owners need to ban together and not let Ontario forget about our rights.   

Rebuttal to Pro-BSL article in The Star

Marley in a basket

I've been very busy with my independent courses, so its' been a while since my last post.  I came across this article and I just had to post it.  Cheri DiNovo is an MPP representing Parkdale - Highpark wrote this article in response to an article in the Opinion/Editorial section of The Star, 'Ontario's pit bull ban is working and mustn't be repealed: Editorial' which ran on Monday October 6, 2014.  I wasn't able to find an author for this article, so if anyone knows feel free to let me know.

Don't ban pit bulls

Breed-specific bans are ineffective as numerous breeds are reported in attacks and fatalities each year.

By: Cheri DiNovo Published on Tue Oct 07 2014

Pretty Brittany 

The editorial on “Ontario’s pit bull ban is working and mustn’t be repealed” (Oct 6, 2014), cited the City of Toronto as the source of the data. To be more accurate, the data is from Toronto Animal Services (TAS), which is a highly unreliable source. TAS only gets a subset of dog bite reports, cases where they are actually involved. Toronto Public Health (TPH) is the go-to source for the number of bites in the city. TPH gets a report every time someone seeks attention for an animal bite and can easily extract the number of incidents by type of animal. Using TAS data alone paints an incomplete picture.

A study by the Toronto Humane Society in 2010 showed that Ontario’s “pit bull” ban did not result in a significant decrease in the number of dog bites in the province. There were 5,428 dog bites reported in 2005, the year the ban came into effect and every year since the ban, the numbers have remained steady — 5,360 in 2006, 5,492 in 2007, 5,463 in 2008 and 5,345 in 2009.

The Ontario Veterinary Medical Association conducted a thorough review of research on dog bites and the use of breed-specific bans and concluded that breed-specific bans are ineffective as numerous breeds are reported in attacks and fatalities each year.

What the “pit bull” ban has resulted in instead is the unnecessary euthanasia of thousands of dogs in Ontario — many with no history of violence against people or other animals. These dogs were children’s pets, senior’s comfort and family members. It’s the deed, not the breed.

Research shows that there are more effective approaches to dealing with dangerous dogs. Calgary has created the gold standard for Canada — and the way we should be approaching this problem. Their model focuses on responsible pet ownership, with a tough licensing program and strong enforcement, thus promoting safety of both humans and animals. With a population of 1.1 million people and 125,000 dogs, Calgary only had 0.1 per cent of dogs involved in an incident in 2011 and very few of those were with serious injuries.

Mizz Gorgeous

Breed-specific legislation has never worked in any jurisdiction it has been tried in and many jurisdictions across the United States and Europe have reversed their breed specific bans. Eighteen states in the U.S. have gone further and prohibit breed specific legislation.

Last year, Obama and the White House came out against breed-specific legislation citing 20 years of research from Centre for Disease Control which showed that bans based on breeds are largely ineffective and a waste of public resources.

As Cesar Milan (The Dog Whisperer) said, “first it was the German shepherd, then the Doberman, and then the Rottweiler — when will we start looking at the human owner’s behavior?”

Cheri DiNovo is the MPP for Parkdale-High Park.

 I started this blog because I love my dogs and wanted to help by being part of the solution and not the problem.  After a great deal of research, I have learned so much about what is right for my dogs.  Quite honestly, I never really gave it much thought.  I mean it’s just a dog, right?  No, not right! They are a part of my family and they are completely dependent upon us to take care of them.  Once I understood I decided I have responsibility to educate people with as much patience and conviction I can possibly muster. 

In my quest, I try to stay “calm” as Cesar Millan suggests, it’s a great mantra.  Although, there are times when people’s stupidity creates in me the sudden urge to back hand someone.  Breed specific legislation (BSL) reminds me of the KKK’s mindset: narrow and arrogant.  One such person asked me if I was stupid for thinking a dog’s life is comparable to a humans, simply because I equated BSL with racism.  I, apparently, hit a nerve. 

We know racism is born from fear, fear of the unknown and fear of self.  I, myself, am deathly afraid of spiders.  I’m not just a little afraid, or a bit creeped out.  I am down right arachnophobic.  I am freaked out even typing about them so let me get to the point.  I understand unrealistic fear.  Fear allows me to mercilessly step on a spider and to want the total destruction of the entire species without remorse.    

Fear can be an overwhelming, stick-to-your-ribs emotion if not dealt with effectively.  An otherwise rational and reasonable person no longer has control over how they react to triggers.  With that being said, as a pit bull enthusiasts I need to remember, I am neither obligated nor qualified, for that matter, to help people deal with unreasonable fears. 

Nowhere is fear more evident than a comments section after an article about pit bulls.  In one such article, Why I Love Pit Bulls by Cesar Millan, a statistic filled debate, regarding Ontario’s current pit bull ban, ensued when the article asked if the reader lived in a BSL region and what they thought of that.  The very first comment was “BSL is working”.   

At first I didn’t understand why she was reading the article considering part of her argument was pit bulls are obviously “defective”.  As I read on, I understood her pain didn’t allow her to remain safe in her home, she needed to seek and destroy before it destroyed her.

When I first began my research, I was a fence sitter with an underlying fear of dogs in general. My husband was the pit bull lover, as such, I was forced to deal with my fear. In turn, living with our pit bull Ruby, motivated me to learn more.  Unfortunately, the only information I had was what I had heard in the media which contradicted my own experience with our pit. 

Admittedly, when I read that 539 deaths were caused by pit bulls I resurrect the fear.  Then I read there are 11 419 deaths every year from guns in the USA.  Next I remember the population of the USA is well into the 200 million making death by dog statistically probable at a rate of 0.000002695.  I have a better chance of getting pregnant while on the pill and using a condom than I do of getting bitten by any dog in the USA. 

What does this all mean?  It means a great deal of work needs to be done, and maybe I have been going about this all wrong.  Instead of trying to soothe fear that I am not qualified to deal with, maybe I should educate in a way that encourages responsibility and accountability. 

We need the kind of education that helps pet parents become more responsible and accountable for their pets.  Education that in no uncertain terms states;

·         It is no longer acceptable to buy a dog and leave it on 3 foot             chain, and throw food at him every once in a while.
·         It is no longer ok to partake in the barbaric act of dog fighting. 
·         It is no longer ok to kick and beat your dog just because you’re human.
·         It is no longer ok to buy a dog and throw her puppies into the river.  (YouTube Video)
·         It is no longer ok to buy a dog just for status.

The pit bull is the most abused dog of all dogs.  I would bite someone too if they abandoned, neglected and abused me on a regular basis.  Dogs have no way of knowing that every human is different, and that the human who does not have ill intent is not going to hurt them.   The only thing BSL does is put the onus on the dog, when it needs to be on humans.