Since
I retired, I've been able to walk a lot, frequently and most
agreeably accompanied by dogs. Readers of the blog will recognize my
two principal walking companions: Robin and Mike's “Eli”, a husky-cross rescued from a shelter in Yellowknife some 12 years ago,
and, less frequently, “Pumpkin”, the Carswells' 6-year-old standard poodle, who was preceded by “Koda”.
They're
both lovely dogs, and very different although about the same size and
weight. Pumpkin is a purebred; his ancestors may at one time have
been retrievers, but he was bred to be a companion dog:
good-tempered, sociable, beautiful, and rather useless. He's all
of those.
Eli,
on the other hand, was bred to be a Yellowknife dog, their standard
sled dog, which you see everywhere there chained to their shelters or
roaming the streets. He looks a lot like the wolves who are not very
remote in his ancestry, and frequently exhibits reminiscent
behaviours, particularly when interacting with other dogs or when
hunting. Fortunately, and after a rocky start, he's socialized
brilliantly with the people in his life.
I've
had years of watching and thinking about them both.
(Bear
with me: we're getting to the pitbulls!)
When
Montreal City Council recently passed a ban on pitbulls (and then
temporarily rescinded it after a significant outcry) UBCProfessor-Emeritus Stanley Coren wrote a lovely essay in the Globe,
basically expressing his doubts about the decision, based on the
available facts. Coren has written a number of books on dogs, and
knows more about the species and breeds than anyone could require.
He's undoubtedly correct about the facts of the case, including the
rather essential one that these bans don't actually work anywhere
they've been tried.
That
said, I still think his article rather misses the point.
Maybe
it helps to remember that all dogs were once working dogs, even if
that work merely involved being carried about by someone to
demonstrate wealth and prestige. So we humans have, for example,
bred and developed terriers that kill rodents and dig out rabbits,
hounds that chase down foxes, and deer, and even elk, retrievers that
recover ducks, and geese, and other fowl, mastiffs and chows that
guard buildings and people, dogs that track, dogs that herd, dogs
that race, dogs that bait bulls and bears, and even dogs bred
specifically to fight other dogs.
We
call all these purpose-bred dogs “dogs”, implying they're all the
same. But we
all know, even those of us who love all dogs, they're
not. Similarly, Coren refers to various “dog bites”,
as if they're all the same. Again, anyone who has seen the results of
a pitbull attack knows they're not: most breeds bite and let go;
pitbulls bite, adjust, and hold on.
(It's
one of the reasons I carry bear spray when I walk with Eli or
Pumpkin: I don't want to have to try to break the dog's jaw if
they're attacked by a pitbull. Yes, cougars are the other reason!)
Any
dog breed can bite, and there are unfortunate examples of individuals
of most large breeds that have killed, including such unlikely ones
as St Bernards, Great Pyrenees, and even Labradors. As Coren points
out, however, “...if we focus only on the most severe dog bites
(those resulting in someone dying), the dogs generally described as
pit bulls account for approximately half of these, despite the fact
that such dogs only account for 1 to 2 per cent of the total
population...” This suggests there is a specific issue with
pitbulls that manifests itself only very occasionally in other
breeds, and I suggest that this is because pitbulls have been bred to
do exactly what is aberrant and highly unusual in other breeds.
It's
also a bit misleading to refer only to human death-by-pitbull as a
way to evaluate risk. Most pitbull problems are actually about their
interactions with other dogs, which is understandable, given their
breeding. Dogs receiving pitbull attention hardly ever do well, and
the fact that they are both “dogs” is really no excuse: other
breeds may injure, but will almost never kill.
Many
people like to say, “It's not the dog; it's the owner.” Granted,
but irrelevant; it's pretty hard to control owners or to make them
responsible dog-owners. I've occasionally encountered a hostile
pitbull or bulldog, outfitted with the standard studded collar and a
chokechain that could actually do the dog damage, and I've always
appreciated the statement being made, no different, except in degree,
than the tattooed thug wearing his gang colours aggressively. I get
that I'm supposed to be frightened, and don't understand why we have
to cater to that owner's feelings of inadequacy and power, or accept
the implied threat.
So
I don't trust pitbulls, and wouldn't have one. I'm sure most are
lovely dogs, and family pets, but that in itself doesn't satisfy:
there are literally hundreds of breeds and mutts that would be
equally lovely, and don't present the same potential hazard. We
already control the keeping of all sorts of potentially-dangerous
animals as pets, and I don't see why controlling a dog which has been
bred specifically to engage in an illegal activity (remember MichaelVick?) is very different.
So
here's a solution that beats Mr Coren's unworkable and very expensive
one: We could solve this in one generation if we just sterilized all
the pitbulls and bulldogs in circulation today. No unhappy families
losing their family pet, no euthanasia, no export to another
jurisdiction, just control of a breeding program that has become
obsolete.
I'll
happily contribute my share of the costs.
