By gosh I think they've got it...

Banning pit bulls would be pointless because the breed does not exist
Vancouver SunPublished: Thursday, August 21, 2008

The seizure of four pit bulls reportedly involved in a series of attacks has led to renewed calls for a ban on the breed. Yet legislation banning pit bulls would be wrongheaded for many reasons, not the least of which is that there is no such breed.

When members of the public and the media speak of pit bulls, they're generally referring to mutts -- cross-bred dogs -- rather than to a breed recognized by the Canadian or American kennel clubs. Pit bulls are therefore identified not on the basis of their genetic makeup, but rather on how they look. Now, a dog's appearance is hardly a reliable indicator of its disposition, but appearance is all we will have to go on if we decide to outlaw pit bulls. That means that any such law will include many dogs that are not dangerous and exclude many dogs that are.

Indeed, dangerous dogs exist among every breed and cross-breed: The Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) studied 278 dog attacks requiring hospital admission, and found that they involved 50 different types of purebred dogs and 33 cross breeds. German shepherds were responsible for the most attacks, followed by Rottweilers and cocker spaniels.

That cocker spaniels had the dubious distinction of tying for second place shouldn't really come as a surprise, since many small dogs can be aggressive. And while dogs that people call pit bulls can inflict more damage than small breeds, small, aggressive dogs such as dachshunds have killed people.

Suffice it say, then, that banning dogs based on how they look is hardly a rational or effective way to protect adults, children or other dogs. For these reasons, many organizations, including the Canadian Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the National Companion Animal Coalition, the Canadian Safety Council and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control all oppose breed bans.

Instead, these organizations argue that our laws and policies should focus on dangerousness. Dogs that have attacked people or other dogs should be euthanized or confined, and dogs trained to attack, such as guard dogs, should similarly be confined. Significant fines, and where appropriate, criminal charges, should also be levied against the owners of dogs who attack. Of course once a dog attacks, the damage has been done, so we should work to reduce the chances of attacks occurring. Ethical and responsible breeders -- including those who breed dogs that some people call pit bulls, such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers -- do not breed for aggressiveness, and people who do breed or train dogs to fight should be dealt with harshly.

Confinement laws, including leash, muzzle and running at large laws, can also reduce the likelihood of attack, as can spaying and neutering. Owners should also be encouraged to ensure that their pets are properly socialized, receive proper veterinary care and complete obedience training. And people who abuse their dogs should be banned from ever owning another pet. Everyone, whether they own dogs or not, should know never to tease a dog, or to approach a strange dog, particularly if it's tethered, since it may attack out of fear. Children, especially, should be taught these things, because, as the CHIRPP studied found, children often act in ways that dogs find threatening.

This type of approach represents the best way to protect people and pets, because it requires us to focus our laws, policies and behaviours on eliminating dangerousness. And it's certainly a lot better than trying to eliminate a breed that doesn't exist.

- I could kiss the author of this letter... well done!!