I was shocked to hear Dr Roger Mugford's comments about breed specific legislation, when he spoke at a BCSPCA seminar this past weekend. He said that a British law aimed at Pit Bull owners has proven to be a disaster, and that there is no evidence that Britain's 1991 Dangerous Dog Act has reduced the number of attacks on people.

In my opinion Dr Mugford is wrong. Britain's legislation is not a ban on a specific breed, it is "must be muzzled" legislation, and no, that does not work because owners of dangerous dogs refuse to muzzle them. Banning the breed is not the same as banning the existence of a breed, it is controlling where the breed is permitted to be owned and there is good evidence to show that this legislation HAS worked.

Winnipeg banned Pit Bulls in 1990, and the number of attacks has dropped from 25 per year down to only 1-2 per year since the ban was enacted. Kitchener-Waterloo banned Pit Bulls in 1997, and their attack numbers have dropped from 18 during a two year period before the ban, to only 4 attacks over five years since the ban. No scientific analysis needed there, just plain, honest, factual results.

After telling the audience that he is against breed restrictions, and that "there's no objective reason to do that to Pit Bulls", Dr Mugford then goes on to contradict himself by saying that "genetics and a dog's upbringing are what will determine whether a dog is aggressive".

Genetics is precisely why so many are in favour of breed restrictions. The genetic make-up of some breeds makes them pre-disposed to attack humans and/or other animals, and you cannot change genetics.

In my opinion, it is irresponsible of so-called "experts" to present incomplete theories and make such contradictory statements when given a microphone, a podium and a captive audience.