Whenever a “pit bull” tragedy happens, there seems to be a public outcry which follows. More so than any other dog attack. It astounds me every time. People come out of the woodwork on both sides of the debate. The resulting arguement seems to go round and round. It can be summed up in the following way:
Pro pit bull side: “Pit bulls are awesome, it is all in how they are raised.
”Anti pit bull side: “Pit bulls are vicious, look at their history”.
Both sides: “Educate yourself, stop being so ignorant”.
Honestly, it is enough to give one a headache.
Like most arguments, it can get very passionate, eventually devolves into a utterly futile childish endeavour which benefits nobody and the truth can lay somewhere in the middle.
That is sad because discussion needs to occur with both sides coming to the same table.
I have been saying all along we need to be looking for ways to create a safer environment for both people and our canine companions. For that to occur, discussion needs to happen. Unfortunately, that message often gets lost when one has to change the focus and defend pit bulls in general. The type of discussion needs to change.
I was asked to speak to a number of the media outlets and this section of my website was born. I specifically created it in an effort to share credible scientific research and counter the tripe that some present as fact.
Make no mistake, there is an overwhelming amount of scientific proof that pit bulls as a group are no more inherently dangerous than any other dog out there, that BSL does not work and there are much better ways to address the danger dogs present to the public than instituting a ban on pit bulls. On the flip side, one would be hard pressed to come up with scientific proof that pit bulls are the monsters some make them out to be. Remember, I am speaking about scientific proof…not anecdotal evidence, not blogs masquerading as credible research, not citations from questionable groups who make up facts to suit their arguments.
Because I have spoken out so strongly in this regard, some have labeled me as a pit bull advocate and dismiss the information I am presenting. I have been accused of “white washing the danger that pit bulls present”.
To that I respond…
1. I am an animal advocate. That means I will advocate for any animal who is being treated unjustly. In this case, that includes pit bulls.
2. I am a firm believer that the current legislation needs to be supported with available resources so that both the public and animals can be protected. Principles such as “Responsible Pet Ownership”, “Dangerous Dog Laws”, “Anti-tethering Legislation” need supporting resources to be made available. These ideals need to be more than just catch phrases.
3. I support tougher laws being brought into affect including legislation which addresses subjects of responsible pet ownership, anti-tethering practices, and dangerous dog laws…however, that legislation needs to be breed neutral for it to be effective. If not breed neutral, it is just presenting the fallacy of addressing issues of public safety and is not representative of reality.
4. I firmly believe that if a dog is assessed by professionals as being a danger to the public and the risks cannot be mitigated, euthanasia is the responsible response.
Further to number 4, science has already provided us with tools to help assess the risk a given dog presents. Tools like this Dog Bite Scale and this Modified Scale are a great place to start. They give users a benchmark. There are more. All are similar and can be used easily. A decision to euthanize should never be taken lightly but sometimes it is necessary when weighed with the presented risks.
5. If you accuse me of “whitewashing” the danger of pit bulls, I reply quite simply…”Show me where I am wrong”…”Present me with your facts”…if you do so, I promise to listen. I just ask the same consideration be made to me AND I expect your facts to be backed by quality scientific sources. My statements and thoughts on the subject are quite clear and are public for all to see.
Accuse me of being a “Pit bull lover”…I have been called a heck of a lot worse. It does not make me wrong though.
Accuse me of pushing an agenda to the detriment of the public safety”, shame on you. I have no agenda other than to attempt to enhance the public safety. Other trainers and animal professionals have reflected the same.
Therefore I say AGAIN, let’s stop the insanity, change the discussion and focus it where it should be. Let’s listen to what science is telling us. Let’s devise legislation and practices which aid beneficial change happening. Successful models already exist. Let’s avoid a model like Toronto’s that has been in effect since 2005 yet has seen an increase in reported dog bites. Let’s use a model like Calgary's which implemented breed neutral legislation that resulted in over a 70 percent drop in dog bite incidents.
To do otherwise is counterproductive and is an exercise futility.
