Article content continued

Dangerous-dog legislation comes hard, and repeal often comes easy

Legislation comes hard because the battle over BSL is lopsided. Pro-BSL are: attack survivors, epidemiologists, medical professionals and a tiny cadre of engaged media people like me, who see demonstrably high-risk dogs as a public health issue that can be easily and humanely addressed. (I am often accused of wanting to kill pit bulls, but I have never asked for anything more than a phasing-out of the breed through sterilization.)

Anti-BSL: advocacy groups and industry stakeholders philosophically averse to breed discrimination. Their spokespeople are well-financed, seasoned lobbyists, marketing the pit bull as a victim of baseless prejudice. It is likely far more of them will be represented in the committee presentations to Premier Doug Ford than pro-BSL advocates.

Pit bull advocates are motivated by love of the breed for their intelligence, enthusiasm and work ethic, and/or a misguided understanding of canine “rights,” and/or the erroneous belief that “bad owners” and a lack of “training” are the primary drivers behind overwhelmingly skewed dog attack figures, rather than pit bull-type dog genes.

Photo by Postmedia News

Yet, according to a new study involving owner assessments of 14,000 dogs, in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, researchers from four American universities reportedly find that for traits such as chasing and aggression, DNA accounts for approximately 60 to 70 per cent of variability between breeds. Most honest dog trainers didn’t need this study to tell them the pit bull is not only more aggressive, but inflicts greater damage in assaults than other breeds, partly out of innate pleasure in demonstrating the peculiar talent it was bred for, but as well because of its distinctive, well-documented “kill bite,” which can quickly rend flesh to the bone.