Owners of aggressive dogs must be made responsible

Stephen Hume
Vancouver Sun

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

After yet another spate of savage dog attacks, Ontario Attorney-General Michael Bryant now appears prepared to address the problem of aggressive pit bulls and their irresponsible owners with new legislation this fall. In Vancouver, Coun. Tim Stevenson says he wants a bylaw banning pit bulls outright.

Good. Either alone or running in packs, out-of-control pit bulls are undoubtedly a problem. Even a cursory survey of news files shows them mauling a mother helping her daughter deliver papers; ripping off most of a seven-year-old's scalp, and killing an eight-year-old boy. But files also show a mastiff tearing out an eight-year-old girl's throat; four Rottweilers killing a four-year-old; a Doberman savaging an 18-month-old toddler; a six-year-old's face torn off by a Japanese akita and serious injuries from attacks by German shepherds, chows, huskies and Great Danes.

The appalling list of dog carnage goes on and on. Do we have a problem? Statistics show that over the past five years around 1.5 million people in Canada and the United States required hospital treatment for dog bites. Sixty-four per cent were small children who are four times as likely to be severely injured.

And this problem is growing. The dog population has increased only two per cent, but dog attacks requiring medical attention have increased by 37 per cent.

Whether you agree with the idea of banning a specific breed or not -- opponents argue it's ineffective, proponents point to Winnipeg where pit bulls were banned and attacks dropped from 25 a year to zero -- it does seem clear that something must be done.

Frankly, given the propensity of some breeds to inflict horrendous damage, I begin to think that certain dogs belong in a city about as much as bears or wolverines.

Look, if I wanted to keep a pet grizzly in my back yard and walk it on the playground, everybody would object. However, let me choose some huge dog whose breed is known for dismembering children and everybody suddenly gets dewy-eyed over the inalienable right to own whatever pet one selfishly desires.

Oh, I know, pit bulls and Rotties are just big old softies. Except how do strangers distinguish between the friendly family cuddle-bunny and the psycho dog that will rip off the lower jaw of their little daughter, as happened in Winnipeg? They can't.

So fear rules and legislators have an obligation to deal with all dog breeds with a history of seriously injuring people.

I will now get torrents of abusive mail from pit bull fanciers and Rottweiler fans who can't seem to grasp that public safety takes precedence over their selfish personal pleasures.

Don't blame dogs for irresponsible owners, some say. Fine. Let's deal with owners by finding ways to make them accountable and responsible. Legislators should resist the inevitable do-nothing propaganda blitz from the dog lobby. They should develop tough regulations with onerous penalties.

What might we do? License and microchip all dogs according to size and for breeds with a statistically significant history of attacking people so ownership can be tracked -- we already do this for cattle. Make it a criminal offence to possess an unlicensed restricted dog, as we do for certain weapons. Make owners responsible at all times for securing their licensed restricted dogs. Make obedience training for large dogs compulsory and require proof. Put down any restricted dog that shows aggressive behaviour toward any humans. If a restricted dog injures someone, the minimum penalty should be jail time for the owner. If it kills someone, the penalty should be commensurate with criminal negligence. Require third party liability insurance as we do for drivers. Levy a fee on all dogs to cover the social cost of irresponsible owners as we do with motorists to cover the costs of under-insured drivers.