Pitbulls

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When Montreal City Council recently passed a ban on pitbulls (and then temporarily rescinded it after a significant outcry) UBCProfessor-Emeritus Stanley Coren wrote a lovely essay in the Globe, basically expressing his doubts about the decision, based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.