AAS began writing about four years ago that legislation which discouraged the owning of some breeds of dogs was inevitable. We stopped participating in the debate because Pit Bull defenders were illiterate, illogical, blinkered, and so obsessed that they would "swarm and attack" anyone who didn't agree with them. Logic indicated that the problem was increasing as the size and power of the dogs increased, as the numbers and combinations of breeds increased, as crime increased, and as dog-owning in general increased. Logic dictated that society would have to take legislative measures.

An increasing public safety problem will be reported in the media, complained of by victims, and finally, dealt with by legislators, and it was clear that the problem of increasingly fatal/severe attacks by dogs would not be any different. Nor was it likely that legislators would address the problem from the aspect of the frequently inhumane treatment that protection/fighting breed dogs suffer - even though banning yard dogs would go a long way to ensuring public safety - as legislators exist to represent their human constituents, and they believe that the SPCA exists to represent dogs. Only when legislators understand that the SPCA has not represented yard dogs do they start to do this themselves, but only in response to a loud demand from their constituents. AAS was successful in its campaign to add some "humane treatment of dogs" standards to many municipal bylaws because of the loud support we rallied. We accomplished this in spite of the SPCA discouraging the adoption of these bylaws behind the scenes to municipal staff.

When the loudest voices say not to control named breeds, legislators react to those voices, as Vancouver recently did by saying the issue was a provincial responsibilty. When the voices in favour of controls of named breeds are loudest, then breed controls will result. The voices against breed controls are mostly illiterate and illogical. There is a growing body of voices from the police, emergency wards, statistics, and other credible bodies that say protection/fighting breeds must be controlled. They are the voices that are ultimately going to be heeded by legislators. Breed defenders are fighting a losing battle, and, I believe, they are losing for the right reasons: the breeds they are defending were produced to fight other dogs or attack humans. Both those reasons for the existence of a breed ought to be rejected by a civilized society; they are hold-overs from more savage times and places. I feel shame for our society when I see a guard dog in a yard or dog on a chain or in a pen or I hear about the dog-fighting that is so prevalent in BC.

I see no defensible reason for the existence of powerful dogs bred to fight and attack. There are over 400 breeds of dogs, and if a dog-lover can't love a safe breed, what exactly is their reason for wanting a dangerous breed of dog?

I am accused by breed defenders of not "loving dogs". I have never met a dog I didn't like. It is some breeds I object to, not some dogs. The world will keep turning without the existence of killer breeds of dogs. Historical precedent is no defence; some of these breeds are new combinations and even the Pit Bull is not an old breed. The illogic of defending these breeds is revealed when defenders are asked if they would approve of 300 lb, 6' tall Pit Bull/Mastiffs and won't answer. There has to be limits and there will be limits.

I believe that banning yard dogs, though not the whole solution, is a win/win approach, but legislators have to see, as the City of Vancouver recently acknowledged by approving "Standards of Care for Dogs" bylaws, that the SPCA is not speaking against the keeping of dogs in yards, so that local legislators, mayors and councillors, will start to consider their obligation to respond to constituents' demands to prevent cruelty to dogs as well as to prevent injury by dogs, in their municipalities.