Jessie T. Wolf
|Date:||February 28th, 2005 12:20 am (UTC)|| |
There were a number of high-profile dog attacks in the news over the past year, so there's been pressure on the government to do something about it. Banning the dogs is easier than successfully passing laws to make owners liable for their behavior, and gets much the same political benefit from the masses, so it's what's being done.
This bill will almost certainly have passed in the Ontario legislature. About the only thing that could have stopped it, or that stands a chance of getting it repealed, is a truly massive letter-writing campaign (one hand-written letter is weighed as representing roughly 10,000 votes, apparently). The problem is you'll have people writing in on both sides of the issue, as I'm sure we both know people who think pit bulls are intrinsically dangerous dogs, and some of them will feel strongly enough to write about it.
|Date:||February 28th, 2005 02:16 am (UTC)|| |
But the fact still remains that banning the Bully type breeds is not going to stop dog attacks. People will just get substitute dogs. Rotties, Dobies, Akitas, Chows, German Shepherds, Mastiffs. And still, even if Ontario is successful in banning Pits and their cousins, there will always be backyard breeders, who inbreed their dogs, and that will make them even more crazy and prone to aggressive behavior, than if you bought a Pit Bull from a reputable breeder.
But the fact still remains that banning the Bully type breeds is not going to stop dog attacks. People will just get substitute dogs.
I realize that, and said as much in my original post: The purpose of this is not to stop dog attacks, or to punish the people who were irresponsible. The purpose of this is to do the option that gets the most political bang for the buck among the voters who are concerned about dog attacks. Banning pit bulls is easy, has enough support to pass, and presents the impression of doing something about the problem, and that's all that matters politically. That's why this is being done. The only way to stop it is to make it more expensive politically to do this than to attempt a more reasonable solution (or than to do nothing).
A very large amount of politics revolves around this principle (that appearance is vastly more important than effectiveness).