To the editor:
On Sept. 30, a B.C.-wide rally will take place protesting breed specific legislation (BSL), it seems in response to three recent attacks on B.C. children, and the renewed talk among local legislators and the how’s and or why’s of breed specific legislation.
There are many communities in B.C. that have varying degrees of BSL, which can include something as simple as muzzling statistically more dangerous and powerful breed/types while in public, and signage on homes where certain breeds/types are housed. Ontario is well known for its complete ban on pit bulls.
Since my child was attacked by a pit bull in 2011, I have worked closely with a grass roots organization that has members across the globe, one result of our work, is the inaugural Walk for Victims of Pit Bulls and other Dangerous Dogs, taking place in Tucson, Arizona Oct. 27. At this walk will be many who have lost a loved one to a pit bull/dangerous dog, as well as many others disfigured—both children and adults. I will be attending the walk as both a guest speaker and to walk to support those who lives have been figuratively and literally torn apart by a type of dog and their advocates.
My child, and the other recent three, escaped with their lives. Now is indeed the time for B.C. legislators to enact good, strong, responsible legislation directed at those who make what could be a very dangerous consumer’s choice.
Walks like the protest against BSL offer nothing more than an attempt to improve “image,” no solutions to the increasing problematic pit bull issue are offered. Attempts to improve the image of this breed/type, or owners of this breed/type attempting to publicly justify their choice of dog, does nothing to help ensure public safety, but good strong regulations can, and that should be first and foremost on the minds of our elected legislators, public safety, not guarding a “consumer’s choice.”
Owning a pit bull comes with a controversy that reeks, and in my opinion, owners need to get used to that smell. With the number of pit bull attack victims growing, many in society grow weary of the comparisons of pit attacks to the bite of a poodle or chihuahua. Then, of course, there is the “it’s the owners” argument. If it is indeed the owner, why do we hold them responsible retroactively? Why not hold them responsible proactively—you want to own this type of dog, then you own all that goes along with it, and that is your chosen burden.
Pit bulls are owned by a minority group of dog owners, and I always wonder why, why own a type of dog that is so capable of such destruction, especially with so many other breeds out there, breeds that offer the same love and loyalty pit owners claim to get from their dogs.
As the mother of a child forever scarred by a pit bull, I would gladly shake the hand of a pit bull owner who erred on the side of caution, and muzzled their dog while in public. They would show me, my child and the public that they understand the power at the end of the leash, which is the direct opposite of fluffing it up with a decorative bandana at a walk.
An excerpt from a social media site promoting the walk, states that owners should bring muzzles, and tie a yellow ribbon to an anxious or excitable dog, and that each owner is responsible for their own dog’s actions. I find it truly ironic how pit owners will protect one another from each other’s pits at their own event, but choose to stand for these same considerations to not be part of ownership outside this event?
Yes, I do care about all dog bite victims, it’s a horrific thing for a family to experience, but it seems the inherent difference, is that pit bull owners seem inclined to organize walks to protest simple safeguards.
This video is a sampling of some souls lost or scarred by a pit bull or other dangerous dog, watch the video, maybe then you’ll understand why BSL type regulations can be a positive step. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=924-e6o6zQc
Here are details on the Walk in Tucson, on Oct. 27. http://walkforvictimsofpit bulls.blogspot.ca/