'So do pitbulls deserve the bad reputation they seem to have? The SPCA's Anita Edson says "no." '

Hell will freeze over before the dog industry tell the truth about pit bulls. They were bred for fighting: to attack without provocation, to hold on till one party is dead, to hold on in spite of grievous injury. The physical power and musculature to do this were bred into them too. The surprising thing is that more pit bulls do not do attack this way.

The SPCA kills many pit bulls that are surrendered to it, and pit bulls are frequently surrendered because of the type of person that is attracted by them. But the SPCA hasn't the moral fortitude to say out loud that pit bulls are high risk and shouldn't be bred because the average dog lover believes the maxim, "there are no bad dogs, just bad owners" and would howl at the SPCA for saying otherwise.

To say that pit bulls are no more inherently dangerous than beagles is imbecilic, but the SPCA hasn't the spine to risk angering all those uncomprehending donators.

Same for well-known Vancouver dog behaviour experts who have made disingenuous comments about cocker spaniels also biting, as though 30 lb cockers are capable of inflicting the same degree of damage as 50 to 75v lb pit bulls. These so-called experts know (they have access to all the statistics as well as all their first-hand experience) that dogs behave according largely to their breeding: that retrievers retrieve and hounds track and border collies herd etc. And yet experts in the dog training business have markets to protect too, and they don't want those same uncomprehending dog lovers mad at them either. So no one will risk telling the truth.

Almost no one, but not quite. Dr Moe Milstein of North Vancouver wrote the truth in this article:
The Vancouver Sun, January 20, 2003

It’s a deadly mistake to think dangerous dogs can ever be pets

By MOE MILSTEIN

This year, in North America, some five million people will be bitten by domestic dogs. Studies show a 70-per-cent likelihood the victim will be a child, a 61 – per-cent chance the attack will take place in the home or a familiar setting and a 77-per-cent chance the dog will belong to the victim’s family or a friend’s.

Fatal attacks average 17 a year in the U.S. and one a year in Canada. A 1999 study in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association reported that dog bites resulted in 6,000 hospitalizations, 330,000 emergency room visits and 17 deaths. The costs reached $164.9 million US.

Between 1986 and 1996, the number of dogs in the U.S. increased two per cent, yet the number of dog bites increased 37 per cent. The problem is obviously getting worse. Who is responsible?

DOG SELLERS: The demand for dangerous dogs is growing. In the hurry to profit from the fad, dogs are bred and sold without regard to temperament, suitability, or mental stability. In a 1997 study, 67 per cent of fatal attacks were caused by Rottweilers and pit bulls, a figure higher than their representation in the total canine population.

If questioned as to the suitability of these dogs as family pets, breeders will use euphemisms such as “one-person dogs” or “strong family loyalty” to describe a breed that has been bred over centuries to display maximum aggression, in a body that is designed to inflict maximum damage to another living creature.

To pretend that most buyers are looking for a gentle pet is to engage in disingenuousness bordering on criminal negligence.

THE BUYERS: Although the preferred breed changes with the generations, there is always a set of buyers whose motivation is to acquire the most dangerous dog they can. When I began my veterinary practice in 1974, Doberman pinschers were displacing German shepherds as the preferred menacing companion. Since then, the level of menace has escalated. Dobermans have given way to pit bulls, which in turn have been replaced by 50-kilogram Rottweilers that, now, are being challenged by 75-kilogram mastiffs.

Waiting in the wings, and already responsible for the death of a young woman in the U.S., are exotic breeds like the Presa Canario, a psychotic Spanish version of the English mastiff. A recent search in The Vancouver Sun classifieds found Presa Canario pups for sale for $1,500.

Who wants a dog like this? Many acquire these dogs as guard dogs.

While working for police force canine units, I have been impressed by the difficulty in producing a dog that can discriminate between permissible and prohibited biting. Most dogs fail to make the grade in spite of the time, expense and skill devoted to their training. For the average dog owner, the task is impossible and the goal a dangerous illusion.

The truth, that any dog can be an effective alarm system, is not the issue for these owners. It is precisely the degree of menace presented by the breed that attracts them.

HUMANE SOCIETIES: While humane societies share these concerns, they are often forced to play conflicting roles. This conflict has been thrown into sharp relief by the recent increase in no-kill shelters.

Facilities are often filled with aggressive breeds – often abandoned for that very reason – that can’t be destroyed. One wonders how animal welfare organizations can ethically send these animals to new families.

VETERINARIANS: Veterinarians know that to point out to the owner the danger of his choice will often lead to the owner’s abandoning the practice. Many veterinarians, witnesses to the delusion and denial engaged in by owners of aggressive dogs, despair of making a significant impact.

LAW MAKERS: Laws prohibiting certain breeds are difficult to enforce. Breeds cannot be distinguished genetically, mixed breeds abound and temperament is only partly determined by breed.

Nevertheless, it is through law that most effective change can occur. Calls for responsible pet ownership fall on deaf ears. Unscrupulous sellers will always be with us, especially when there are no legal sanctions to suffer.

Leash laws sound good, but three-quarters of attacks occur on the owner’s property where the pet is often restrained as well.

Legislation should reflect the danger to life and limb posed by keeping large aggressive dogs. Certain myths should be acknowledged and discarded. Good dogs do not inexplicably “turn.” In the recent mauling of Shenica White by two mastiff-Rottweiler crosses, neighbours reported being frightened and menaced by the dogs well before the attack.

Veterinarians should be encouraged to candidly make their concerns known to owners and to record their discussions on the medical file. An owner’s real or pretended ignorance of the nature of his dog should no longer serve to diminish culpability.

The no-kill policy of the shelters, while admirable in intent, must not apply to aggressive dogs. The reach of the law should be extended to every participant in the life of a dog that attacks a human. Sellers, shelters, veterinarians – all will usually be found to have had a role in the dog’s arriving at the tragic stage where a human life has been harmed. All are ethically liable. The law should reflect this.

Moe Milstein is a North Vancouver veterinarian.

Messages In This Thread

TRAFFICKING IN DANGEROUS DOGS - the AAS database tracks the breeders of 'protection dogs'
AAS -- Sunday, 26 January 2003, at 8:09 p.m.
It’s a deadly mistake to think dangerous dogs can ever be pets
AAS -- Sunday, 26 January 2003, at 8:19 p.m.
Bites that result in death
AAS -- Sunday, 26 January 2003, at 8:30 p.m.
Re: Bites that result in death
Lori -- Sunday, 26 January 2003, at 10:11 p.m.
CRUEL AND DANGEROUS - Would the City of Vancouver permit gun owners to keep loaded guns in their yards?
AAS -- Thursday, 13 February 2003, at 9:54 a.m.