Large Fierce Mammal

Wherever in the world you may be as you read this, please make your thoughts known to the people listed in this notice.

In the wake of a recent, heavily publicized case involving a woman who was mauled by an alleged “Pit Bull Type Dog”; publicity I might add that fails to adequately explain why the woman entered the residence containing the dog, in the owner’s absence, in the first place; the cry has once again been raised for the banning of specific dog breeds on the grounds that they are innately “dangerous”. The Town of Yarmouth is considering adopting a new bylaw that, according to a 15 April 2011 article in the Yarmouth County Vanguard,

“… immediately sets out to define a “fierce and dangerous” dog, saying it is any dog that “is a Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier; Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler or any dog of mixed breeding, which includes any of the aforementioned breeds.”

The draft of the proposed, misguided bylaw is here. The breed specific portion that defines a dog as “fierce and dangerous” purely based on its breed represents ignorance of the worst kind, and has been proven not to work elsewhere, yet banning things remains the go-to plan for people hell bent on turning the world into a child proof daycare center where no one is accountable for their actions. As of this date, only Calgary has gotten it right, and they are to be applauded for it.

Photo credit - "Ottawa Citizen"

As professional dog behaviourists, Mrs. LFM and I stand by the absolute assertion that human handling, motivated in whole or in  part by laziness, ignorance, stupidity, or malice, can be relied upon to create a dog that is at higher likelihood to bite, and the breed of the dog has nothing to do with it. Yesterday’s incident in an Ottawa area Home Depot involving an employee who had her nose severely mangled by sticking it too close to an unrestrained and clearly uncontrolled Shih Tzu is a case in point.

The newspaper announcement at the top of this article is reflective of something wrong with our society that is far worse than any dog bite – the fact that people believe that officially banning something will fix the evils of the world. Murder, robbery, rape, animal abuse, child pornography – they’re all banned too, but they happen every day with alarming regularity. Worst of all, banning something as inherently dangerous sidesteps one vital component – human accountability.

I own firearms and am exceptionally skilled in  their use. To own them required that I obtain appropriate training, demonstrate my competence to a National standard, and conduct myself in a responsible, forthright manner thereafter. If I ignore safe storage regulations, load one of my guns and leave it cocked with the safety off on my dining room table, in the absence of human interaction with that gun, all it’s going to do on its own is rust. It is not, in itself, dangerous, but it can be made so by human negligence, irresponsibility, and malicious intent. Much in life is like that, including the juggernaut I strap on every time I enclose myself in an automobile and start the engine.

Unlike machines, dogs are sentient creatures, but their behaviour and its consequences to the world around them will inevitably be a reflection of the human handling they receive. A dog will always act the way it feels it must. It is neither a walking anti-personnel mine nor an animated piece of furniture, and most especially not a playmate for the kids, and yet somehow for much of the population, what a dog actually is has been terribly garbled in the 14,000 years since dogs and humans got together. For more on that, read my 24 June 2010 article titled The Road To Dog Hell is Paved With Human Misconceptions.

As I see it, I am 100% responsible for every action and inaction that results from every thought that passes through my head, as well as for the results of actions that should have been taken but never were out of negligence or neglect. I also hold others to the same standard. That being the case, I will not silently sit by and watch the criminalization of anything on the grounds that it’s too dangerous for anyone to own, because to accept that is to accept human irresponsibility as the socially accepted norm.

We already have laws that will inflict crippling financial and legal consequences up to and including jail time for people who demonstrate callous disregard to law and order or public safety. We need no more bans on anything other than heavy handed, misguided legislation and the people who perpetrate and clamor for it. History from other jurisdictions shows that irresponsible dog owners who have a dog of a breed being banned, and who subsequently lose that dog, will get another dog of another breed, and the cycle will repeat itself. The dog owner is the common item here, not the breed.

Of a certainty, there are people who will ignore this latest foray down the road to banning dog breeds because they either don’t own a dog at all, or their breed of choice is not affected, but the banning mindset is a voracious monster that is never satisfied. There’s an old bit of verse that applies here –

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out.

Mrs. LFM and I will be outspoken critics of this latest steaming pile of bullshit and will be watching and reporting on it with a vengeance. Wherever in the world you may be as you read this, please consult the announcement at the top of this article and make your thoughts known to the people listed there. E-mail addresses and other relevant means of contact are listed on the official Town of Yarmouth website here.