petorama

Ask Yvette

It seems there is some foot stomping going on in the animal world. But this time around, we are somehow back to the hot topic of Pit Bulls. Why? Were they not, “Banned, banned, banned?”

Over the past few years, there has been a task force examining animal welfare in London. The report of the changes to date was released recently.

The area that has many people hot under the collar is a small blurb pertaining to Pit Bulls. It appears that the Provincial, Dog Owner's Liability Act that includes a Pit Bull ban is expensive to administer.

When the government proposed this legislation, it was presented as something that would decrease in cost over time. After all, if Pit Bulls were banned, should they not disappear? It seems this is not the case. Frankly, I am not at all surprised. Several years back, I wrote a column and estimated the annual cost to taxpayers. Here is what I said:

“We know from various U.S. municipalities that a breed ban alone will cost at least $100,000 per year to administer.”

It appears with kennel upgrades and a reported ten Pit Bull complaints per day being investigated, my initial estimate is not too far off the mark. As expected, some people do not follow laws.

At the time, I also stated that, “you can expect to see appeals and legal battles.” This has also happened. The Dog Owner's Liability Act has been challenged in court. Two key areas of the law have been found unconstitutional. The word use, “Pit Bull,” seems to be too vague. People cannot be expected to follow a law they cannot understand or define. Secondly, veterinarians must go to court rather than submit a letter to indicate breed. This increases enforcement costs.

At this point, it appears the judge has several options. Either way, the unregistered muscle dogs that everyone is worried about cannot be defined. What exactly is being banned then?

How much has this legal battle cost? I do not know, but expect it to be very high. You, as a taxpayer will pay for that too.

To make matters worse, this law did not prevent the death of Korie Lyn Edwards recently. It was not a Pit Bull. The law does not regulate breeders who create aggressive dogs. The people who breed these animals often don't care if they are put down. They just breed more. So the problem continues, and we pay year after year because people keep creating danger. Aggressive dogs do not choose to breed themselves. Humans breed dogs.

I am hoping that my last prediction does not come true. At the time I also stated that BSL, “did not result in a decrease of dog bites. In fact, the BBC states that in England there was a 25% increase of dog bites requiring hospitalization from year five to year ten after a ban was put in place.” With the death of Korie Lyn Edwards, I think we have been given a rude awakening. Dog maulings are not going away.

When the City of London says that enforcing DOLA is expensive and cuts into other programs, I am not surprised. Experts across Ontario said this would happen. People, who follow the law, always did. People who create problems, likely never will.

Yvette is an award winning pet writer and pet behavior columnist. She also is the author of Meeting Milo, a North American dog bite prevention program to reduce the approximately 2 million children bit by dogs annually. She is the owner of AwesomeDogs.ca and works as a behavior consultant in London, Ontario.

This column was originally featured in The Londoner
See more of Yvette... www.awesomedogs.ca
www.meetingmilo.com

Yvette has 2 dogs of her own, KIKI and KAYA. Take a look...

Previous Questions

• Dear Yvette, We were told to crate train our p...
• Lead In Drinking Water Might Be A Problem For Pets...
• Dear Yvette, How do I get my dog to bring the ...
• Dear Yvette, Our puppy Samson has attitude gal...
• Last week, we discussed why many dogs do not under...
• View All Questions