Judge deems dog unsafe, must be put down
Tweets are mostly in favour of saving a Park Ex man’s pitbull. A euthanasia order issued by a judge Wednesday afternoon has sparked a demo at the borough offices on Ogilvy Avenue Wednesday evening. The Gazette even stretches to saying the animal is on death row, which I find both melodramatic and disrespectful to humans who find themselves in that situation. (Nor are dogs entitled to due process.) (Sadly, both these expressions are more typically American than local, too.)
Retweeted reports say Berger Blanc has refused to carry out the order, but I’m not finding that fact in any news story.
I find I can feel sorry for the dog’s owner while also feeling that I never want to tangle with a poorly controlled pitbull, anywhere.
steph 21:56 on 2012/07/25 Permalink
All of this was because a municipal by-laws give civil servants full authority to decide if an animal get to be euthanized or not, no training required for the position. I know now a judge has decided on the case, but court documents tell a story different from the Police report. I’d be enraged if this was my pet.
jeather 22:22 on 2012/07/25 Permalink
This person has an unlicensed dog who tends to jump on passersby, which he allows to happen? I don’t think the dog should be euthanised if it hasn’t actually bitten people (not that a single bite means euthanasia necessarily, but no bites at all?), but this sounds like a pretty crappy dog owner. I feel sorry for the dog.
Chris 06:22 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
Meh. It’s just a dog. Do you feel sorry for the chicken on your dinner plate? Seems like this dog has done more harm to society than any chicken.
Kate 09:57 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
Chris, you’ve posted comments here before in which you deliberately confuse food animals with pet animals, as if making some kind of gotcha moral point. If you don’t understand that we create strong emotional bonds with cats and dogs in ways we don’t with cows and chickens, you don’t get this debate at all.
I listened to CBC radio this morning and there was a very brief sound clip of some woman at Wednesday evening’s demo, saying something like “People have to learn to behave around our dogs.” I’ve heard this kind of thing before, and I couldn’t disagree more. I shouldn’t have to learn how to behave around your dog. Your dog needs to learn how to behave around people, including people with no experience managing dogs.
Mark 10:15 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
I agree that people don’t need to learn about dogs if they stay away from them. But people should learn to behave around dogs if they want to interact with them.
Kate 10:19 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
I shouldn’t need to know anything besides what my mother told me when I was small: don’t mess with strange dogs. Of course if I have friends with dogs and want to interact with them I take their advice, but I’m talking about simply walking in the city or through a park in the normal way without getting jumped on, let alone bitten, by a stranger’s dog.
Mark 10:22 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
Oh yeah, if she was really just walking by, that’s a pretty poorly trained dog (though should it be put down just for that? What if it were a poodle?). I wonder if there was more to it than that. I am also very curious if the dog was leashed.
Mark 10:25 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
Sorry, I should say that it shouldn’t be put down if it just jumped up on her. But I admit for someone unfamiliar with dogs, a dog suddenly jumping up on you could be pretty scary. It is also just plain weird that a dog would randomly do that; hence, I’m curious if there’s more going on. Sadly it’s pretty impossible to figure that sort of thing out in these situations.
Kate 10:26 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
We don’t really have a clear enough description of what happened with this particular dog to know. Nor do I know how different breeds rate in terms of jaw strength, although I gather that the problem with pitbull-type breeds is that they have strong jaws and an inbred tendency to bite and hang on, making them more dangerous than, say, a poodle. I do know there have been endless problems defining bans in terms of breeds in other jurisdictions, as “pitbull” is a category with imprecise edges.
Bill Binns 10:32 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
I have a dog and love dogs but really do not think that Pit Bulls belong in a city or anywhere else they may come into contact with people who are not their owners. This is a dangerous animal fully capable of killing an adult human. To make matters worse, Pit Bulls tend to be owned by the absolute worst kind of dog owners. They also clog up the shelter system and take up spots that could be used to house more adoptable animals.
Mark 10:33 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
BSL has lots of problems and no proven results. The proper solution is good dog-owner liability laws with at least a bit of due process, like what Calgary has. The only other solution, if one were really really concerned about this kind of thing, would be to ban all dogs about 30 lbs. But that would never happen, since it’s all about the image (good and bad) of particular breeds.
Pit bulls do have strong jaws, though very little scientific study has been done there. One study showed German Shepherds as having the strongest bite. Golden retrievers are the source of the most bites (in the US, I think). Once upon a time, pit bulls (which include dogs without pit-bull-like names like the American Staffordshire) were just regular family dogs (e.g. Pete the Pup from the Little Rascals). Somewhere along the way they got a crazy reputation attached to them.
Mark 10:37 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
Bill: Rotteweilers, dobermans, huskies, German Shepherds, and a lot more breeds are fully capable of killing humans. Do you know how many Canadians are actually killed, or even hospitalized, by dogs every year? I think the number would surprise you.
Pit bulls do *not* tend to be owned by the worst kind of dog owners. (You could *maybe* argue the other way around, that “the worst kind of dog owners” might be attracted to pit bulls, again, on their reputation, but so are they to other breeds with bad raps). Most pit bull owners are regular folks.
steph 10:50 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
I think the motto “Punish the Deed, Not the Breed” does leave us with something to think about. Like it’s been said in this thread already, punish the dog owner.
Kate 12:05 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
The problem is that a deed is done, you act only after a dog has hurt someone. Banning a specific breed is meant to prevent trouble, but whether it’s effective I do not know.
Mark 12:38 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
Dog-owner liability laws are also meant to prevent trouble the way that most laws are: as a deterrent. They give clear, official legal recourse for victims and governments when a dog attacks someone. Your dog bites someone, you are fined or imprisoned. Most places currently have a hodgepodge of ineffective and unclear rules about this sort of thing.
When there was a dog attack in NDG some time ago (a pit bull or mix attacked another dog and a person got bitten while trying to stop it), Councillor Peter McQueen initially called for a ban. When a number of people protested that BSL is unscientific and ineffective, he educated himself and withdrew his suggestion (remarking something to the effect that he didn’t want troublemakers to just switch out pit bulls for rottweilers and dobermans). His main concern was that there was no recourse, nothing legal that could be done to punish the guy who let his aggressive dog run around with no leash and out of control (the dog was later put down). Liability laws are intended to fix this.
In Ontario, when they enacted BSL in 2005, there were more than 40 professionals, ranging from vets to SPCA workers, who argued against the bill when the legislation was being debated (versus one supporter on the government side: a “professional dogwalker”). Virtually no animal groups support BSL (except, oddly, PETA). The number of bites, and as far as I know the severity of these bites, has not decreased in Ontario in the 7 years since.
It’s my opinion that the Ontario government passed this law just as a PR stunt. Pit bulls get a lot of press (studies show that local stories about pit bull attacks are much, much, much more likely to get national coverage than those involving any other breed), and the government could easily look like it was addressing an important public safety issue, rather than real, difficult problems that affect many people every day.
There’s no scientific evidence that a pit bull is more likely to bite, or is more dangerous, than any other dog of its size. BSL is total hype, a reaction to a media frenzy every time some dog that looks like a pit bull does something bad. Unfortunately too many people mistake frequency of newspaper articles for real statistics and bad reporting for real analysis.
Mark 12:43 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
Full disclosure: I am a pit bull owner (well, he’s probably a mix but we aren’t sure, since we adopted him when he was 3ish). I am a software professional, my wife worked in IT, and we have a baby girl. We also have cats.
I had no interest in dogs until I met my guy. In the first few months that we had him, I completely fell in love with him. He’s the best, most lovable dog in the world–but we are always careful with him around strangers (and of course around the baby). I would be the first to argue that there are certain precautions any dog owner should take, regardless of the fact that the vast, vast majority of dogs of all breeds never harm anyone.
Philippe 12:48 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
@Mark: There’s evidence pit bulls are a more likely to be linked to fatal attacks on humans than other breeds. You’re a pit bull owner so you may correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me pit bulls are not a very common breed. There’s not much a leap needed to conclude that if a fairly rare breed is one of the primary offenders in terms of dog attacks on humans, that that breed may itself be problematic.
Mark 13:01 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
Philippe: Yeah there are indicators that pit bulls, or mixes, or similar breeds, have killed more people than other breeds. Note that rottweilers are also mentioned in that article, yet I haven’t heard much press on them in a long time.
But we’re in Canada, so how about this report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/ 28 fatalities in 17 years. 1 was from a pit bull breed.
(Also worth putting into perspective that you have a higher chance of being killed by lightning than by a dog of any breed.)
Of the 50 or so pit bulls recovered from Michael Vick’s dog-fighting ring, only a few (3 I think) couldn’t be rehabilitated. The rest were eventually placed with families and several have won awards. Pit bulls rank fairly high on dog behaviour indexes as well.
Mark 13:09 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
This is also pretty interesting, from a GP Solo, a publication of the American Bar Association.
Philippe 13:45 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
That first link does say pit bulls were ranked first in terms of non-fatal bites in a study conducted in Edmonton. It also says their findings were in line with the commonly held notion that a few large breeds are responsible for a majority of reported dog bites.
I’m not very familiar with the BSL that have been written into law or are being proposed out there, what do they do with the breeds? Eliminate or regulate? I think it’s hard to argue against regulation of these types of dogs in a urban environment.
Mark 16:29 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
To my knowledge there is no BSL out West, or at least none that I can easily find. Calgary does, however, have a very strong dog-owner liability law, and some studies indicate that it has led to a drop in dog attacks.
I think it is hard to argue against *some* sort of dog-owner legislation but easier to argue against any *breed-specific* legislation. I don’t think it’s clear at all that BSL is needed or effective anywhere (indeed it has been repealed in many places).
It is hard to square the statistics on dog bites vs. breed with animal behavioural studies and the testimony of professional animal organizations (kennel clubs, veterinary associations, anti-cruelty orgs, etc.) that oppose BSL. It would seem that there are some external factors that influence dog bites beyond breed.
If we wanted to approach the problem carefully, I think a lot more data would be needed on the situations surrounding dog bites. For starters, as one of those articles identified, it’s often difficult to identify what the breed even is if the dog isn’t seized or known to the victim. Due to media hype, it’s really easy to jump to the conclusion that the dog was a pit bull when it could have been any of a number of similar-looking dogs–or not even that similar looking. There was a controversy in Ontario a little while ago when a boxer was seized because someone thought it was a pit bull. Then there’s the whole problem of classifying mixes.
Another extremely pertinent issue that is generally ignored in these statistics is the owner. How was the dog treated? Was it left chained up a lot (chained dogs are responsible for a lot of bites)? Was it abused? Did the owner have other dogs, and how were they treated? To be sure, a human-aggressive dog should generally be put down; however, without answering these questions and controlling for variables, it’s impossible to know if dog attacks are really related to breed or if irresponsible owners gravitate toward certain dog breeds. I think the latter is certainly worth investigating, and there might be even more factors.
Finally, since dogs like Rottweilers and German Shepherds are also often mentioned near the top of dog-attack statistics, it would seem only logical for BSL to apply to them and other large dogs as well. However, it rarely is–again pointing to the idea that BSL is just a response to public hysteria fed by the media.
Oh and by the way, in my area of Montreal, I would say that pit bulls and similar breeds are more common than Rottweilers and Dobermans, maybe on par with German Shepherds. They are of course far less common than smaller dogs.
Anyway thanks for a rational calm discussion. Emotions run high on both sides of the debate, but I think careful analysis weighs against BSL (but in favour of other, breed-agnostic legislation).
Chris 21:31 on 2012/07/26 Permalink
All this discussion of having rules based on breed, differences between breeds, etc… there aren’t many animals left in our city, but if it had been a raccoon or skunk that had bitten some people, would there be so many crying out against this euthanization? I get that people are emotionally attached to domesticated animals, but shouldn’t our laws be rational? We put down bears and wolves that attack people, I don’t see why the line should be drawn at dogs. The deed is the same. In fact the deed is worse: a wild animal knows nothing, dog owners should know better and have leashes & lessons, etc.
Kate 10:27 on 2012/07/27 Permalink
Chris, as I understand it the case of Wicca was not well established – it was unclear whether she had bitten someone or just jumped up on someone. The latter is not great and people should have their animals under better control, but I don’t think most people would countenance putting down someone’s pet for jumping up on somebody. It seems to be one of those bureaucratic snafus where charges are made and there’s no mechanism to stop the silliness before the final decision is made (and I say this as someone who’s never owned dogs and doesn’t like out-of-control dogs around).
As for the comparison with wild animals, one of the main distinctions you’re ignoring is that usually we know a pet animal has had its rabies shots. On the whole, if a wild animal bites you, what you want is to have the animal killed, not from vengeance (ideally) but so it can be tested for rabies.