Nanaimo, BC, Canada: Dog owners wage breed battle (2 articles)

Note: Nanimo already has BSL. Owners of “pit bulls” must follow certain restrictions that other dog owners do not have to follow. Nothing further has been officially proposed, but it should be noted that the media is pushing the idea of a breed ban.

Additionally, Nanaimo Animal Shelter manager Helen Roberts probably needs some education about “pit bulls.” Her comments in the first article: 

“Pit bulls are very different from other breeds,” said Roberts. She claims they have been bred to kill… Roberts argues that any pit bull has the potential for spontaneous aggression, no matter how good a dog it has been.

Nanaimo Animal Shelter: (250) 754-1397

http://www.canada.com/owners+wage+breed+battle/1983261/story.html

Dog owners wage breed battle

Dealing with bad dogs and bad owners is not simple

By Paul Walton, Daily News
September 11, 2009

Like taxes and politics, almost everyone has an opinion about pit bulls, the infamous dogs viewed both as relentless killers and sweet family pets by those who either revile or adore the breed.

The dogs have been linked to many highly publicized attacks on people and other dogs. In three separate incidents in Nanaimo in the past six months, the owners of dogs attacked by pit bulls have called on the city to put in place tougher dog restrictions and penalties for owners of aggressive animals. Among their suggestions is an outright ban on the breed.

It’s a drastic and controversial step that has been taken by the province of Ontario and a handful of municipalities across the country. Dog behaviour experts back up the contention of the breed’s supporters, saying breed bans are not an effective way of protecting the public. And although Nanaimo city officials say they have no immediate plans to change the current dog bylaw, some city politicians have said in the past that they will consider a tougher law if they are convinced it is the only way to protect public safety.

Nanaimo’s courts may soon be asked to decide if a local mixed-breed pit bull will be euthanized after attacking a Labrador retriever on Saturday. Witnesses had to pry the pit bull’s mouth open with a stick to get it to release its hold on the Lab’s hind quarters.

City bylaw officers have fielded complaints about the dog for seven years. The city’s current bylaw requires that all pit bulls and pit bull terriers be leashed and muzzled when off their property. The owners have unpaid fines for violating the city’s existing dog bylaw, said animal control officer Dale Rusch.

The dog will remain at the city pound for up to three weeks while city officials decide if they should ask a judge to order the animal be destroyed.

It was not the first pit-bull attack to hit the news this year. In June, a local couple was saddled with expensive vet bills after their silky terrier was attacked by a pit bull. A month earlier, the owner of a Staffordshire bull terrier had to move from his townhouse complex after his dog attacked a neighbour’s smaller animal.

The expensive attacks prompted some dog owners at the time to speak out in favour of tougher enforcement of the city’s current bylaw, or even banning certain breeds completely. But while a breed ban seems like a simple solution, not everyone believes it is effective.

One of Canada’s recognized dog experts, Dr. Stanley Coren, makes a distinction between dog breeds and breed lines in explaining vicious dogs. Coren, a professor in the department of psychology at the University of British Columbia, has written eight books about dogs.

“The data is clear. There are lines of dogs more aggressive than others,” said Coren.

Breed bans, said Coren, are ineffective. Dog breeds, he said, can have spontaneous aggression bred in or bred out of them, noting that was done with the doberman in North America by breeders who revoked papers on any doberman documented to have bitten a person.

In the case of the dogs named in the Nanaimo bylaw, what Coren said are “game-bred dogs” have created a line or strain within the breed that are dangerous. “Game-bred” is a euphemism for dogs trained to fight.

“This is a very hard form of genetic selection. The dogs become so vicious that a bitch must be separated from her litter at five weeks or she’ll kill them,” said Coren.

While not all dogs in those breeds may descend from vicious game-bred lines, he warns that without proper papers there is no way to know. He said there is a lot of “leakage” between the game-bred lines and others of the same breed.

Helen Roberts, manager of the Nanaimo city pound, is convinced that the dogs named in the current city bylaw are a real threat.

“I think our bylaw works very well. Pit bulls are very different from other breeds,” said Roberts.

She claims they have been bred to kill and does not believe changing the laws will be effective in controlling irresponsible owners.

“The problem is the people who train their dogs to be vicious are not trainable themselves,” said Roberts.

Nevertheless, Roberts argues that any pit bull has the potential for spontaneous aggression, no matter how good a dog it has been.

“When they attack, it’s unexpected,” she said.

Leon Davis, manager of the Nanaimo SPCA shelter, said nothing is achieved by targeting breeds and said he’s never seen a spontaneously aggressive pit bull. He said the problem is with owners who seek out breeds they believe will be more aggressive than others and train them to be vicious.

“You can train any dog to be aggressive,” said Davis. “The only animal we worry about and deter people from having is a wolf-cross.”

While Coren cited a U.S. study in which pit bulls, Staffordshire bull terriers and the American Staffordshire terriers accounted for 46% of all fatal bite incidents, Davis said he has seen far more bites from small dogs than large ones, adding that he has yet to see a pit bull in Nanaimo euthanized for being aggressive.

Davis said the SPCA is focused on education, but agrees with Roberts there is a segment of the population they are not going to reach.

“There’s always going to be that tough-guy mentality,” he said.

Nanaimo Mayor John Ruttan has said he thinks the current bylaw is sufficient but says their priority is preventing attacks against people.

But if attacks like the one that happened last weekend continue or increase, Ruttan said, “We may have to rethink our policy.

“I think it is time to insist that people who chose to have a certain type of dog must be responsible for not allowing that dog to escape from their yards,” Ruttan said.

Coun. Loyd Sherry said it’s an issue council members don’t hear about often.

“I personally receive very few phone calls from people wanting to ban pit bulls but if it were to come before council, we would have to consider it,” he said.

Breed-specific bans are worth discussing if the constituents push the issue, says Coun. Merv Unger, but agrees that the onus needs to remain on the owners.

“Can we really blame the dog though when a lot of the responsibility should be put on the dog’s owner?” he asked.

Coren believes that any municipal-licensing regime should focus on training and require a certificate of training when an owner seeks a dog licence.

“Generally speaking, we find that dogs, when given a basic obedience class, are 89% less likely to be involved in a dog-bite incident,” he said.

And since children make up half of all dog-bite victims, he said they also need to be taught about safe ways to interact with dogs. By training dogs and educating children, he said, the amount of dog bites can be decreased by 95%. That doesn’t mean he opposes appropriate laws to keep people safe from aggressive dogs.

“Any dog above a certain size and age without obedience training should be muzzled when outside,” he said.

He also proposed that when a dog attacks a person that the breeder as well as the owner face consequences. The problem, said Coren, starts with breeding aggression into certain lines of dogs.

“When we breed dogs, we also create their temperament. You can make them edgy or you can make them very soft through selective breeding.”

PWalton@nanaimodailynews.com
250-729-4230

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

We want to hear from you. Send your comments on this story to letters@nanaimodailynews.com . Letters must include your first and last names, your hometown and a daytime phone number.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/news/57618887.html

Kennel club targets dog education

By Toby Gorman – Nanaimo News Bulletin
Published: September 07, 2009 3:00 PM

Upcoming seminar to discuss bylaws, responsible dog ownership.

With the dog days of summer slipping away, the Nanaimo Kennel Club is ramping up efforts to ensure dogs and owners begin the new season safely and responsibly.

Sandi Malcolm, a member of the club, said the organization is planning a forum on responsible dog ownership and will be asking city hall to declare the week of Sept. 20-27 as Responsible Dog Ownership Week.

“We’ve noticed the incidents of dog bites in Nanaimo increasing, as well as incidents of irresponsible dog owners who permit their dogs to be off leash in places they shouldn’t be,” said Malcolm. “Our goal is to educate people so their pets can lead happier and safer lives, and reduce unwanted confrontations.”

On Sept. 26, the Canadian Kennel Club will hold its second annual National Responsible Dog Ownership Day, with dog owners across the country walking with their dogs. It will also be declared Responsible Dog Ownership Day in Nanaimo.

The purpose is to interact with dog lovers, but more importantly, to educate those unfamiliar with dog bylaws and responsibilities dog owners have.

Helen Roberts, manager for the Nanaimo Animal Shelter, said dog bites are a common occurrence in Nanaimo.

“There are an ongoing, steady stream of dog bites,” she said. “And it is a problem because dog bites can be very painful and uncomfortable and in some cases traumatic. And it’s not just dogs biting people, dog-on-dog bites or dog-on-cat bites are also problematic.”

The kennel club will also host guest speaker Bill Bruce, the director of animal services and bylaws for the City of Calgary, for a free seminar from 7-9 p.m. Sept. 23 at the Beban Park Social Centre.

Bruce has instituted one of the most successful bylaw programs in North America and frequently speaks across the continent to encourage other municipalities to employ similar methods of dog control.

Bruce said 90 per cent of Calgary’s dogs are licensed and accounted for. By funneling licensing fees back into animal control programs, Calgary can control rangy Rovers with no cost to the city or the owner.

“Rather than take a lost dog to the pound, where it may stay for days, Calgary bylaw has all of the information it needs to return the dog safely to its owners within hours,” said Malcolm. “At no cost to the owner. It’s a way to keep people’s dogs safer.”

The City of Calgary’s dog blog indicates that in 2008 there were 145 dog bites among 240 aggressive dog cases. Prior to Bruce’s system, in 1985 there were 621 dog bites among 1,938 aggressive dog complaints, despite a much smaller population at the time.

Nanaimo doesn’t keep dog bite or aggressive dog statistics and Roberts said it is impossible to know what percentage of dogs here are properly registered with the city.

“Dogs come and go, some die and others have litters. We have no gauge to know what percentage are licensed,” she said.

With city council considering adding more off-leash parks in Nanaimo and with an increasing number of households owning dogs, Malcolm said responsible ownership is more important than ever.

“Dog interactions are only going to increase and with breeds like pitbulls and American Staffordshire terriers being banned in places like Ontario, so-called dangerous breeds are moving west. Now is the best time to encourage people to be more responsible for their dogs,” she said, noting that some breeds, including the Staffordshire terriers, get a bad rap due to bad owners.

Malcolm added that kennel clubs are excellent resources for people who have questions about dogs and dog etiquette, and that the organization is currently working on a hotline for people to call NKC members with non-medical dog-related questions.

She also said that by participating in kennel club activities like agility and flyball, dogs learn to become socially adjusted.

For more information on Responsible Dog Ownership Day and local events, please visit www.ckc.ca.

reporter2@nanaimobulletin.com


6 Responses to Nanaimo, BC, Canada: Dog owners wage breed battle (2 articles)

  1. mansbestfriends says:

    You know BSL is within the rights of a community. However, the dogs already in the county should be grand-fathered in and only pertain to new dogs.

    I am as big a dog lover and activist as they come.

    How would you like it if someone said, hey you can no longer voice opinions against your government as it is no longer supported by the 21st ammendment? When you push anti-BSL you are paving the way to destruction of our 21st ammendment, unalienable rights as citizens of the USA.

    • StopBSL says:

      Thanks for the comment. I have no problem with you voicing your opinion; yet you seem to have a problem with me voicing my opinion. Could you explain that incongruity?

      Further, your argument is unclear. The 21st amendment repealed prohibition. Please explain how protesting BSL “paves the way to destruction of our 21st ammendment” [sic], i.e. our ability to legally make and buy alcoholic beverages.

      Arguments against BSL don’t require any mention of the U.S. Constitution at all. BSL costs a lot to enforce, and in the end, it doesn’t improve public safety. In many cases, dog bites increase after BSL is passed. BSL is the wrong choice for a community to make, plain and simple. Many people, like myself, speak against BSL based simply on this information. We expect and deserve laws that work, not laws that “feel good.”

      Of course, if you want to bring the Constitution into it, I could mention that our society has decided it is not okay to discriminate (legally) based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. I wonder, how is it that you can conclude that it is okay to discriminate (legally) against a person based simply on the shape of his/her dog’s body?

  2. mansbestfriends says:

    I do not know where I was saying I had a problem with you actually giving your opinion. I simply disagree with it and felt we could actually get a conversation and a dialogue going on this.

    I cant believe I wrote 21st when I am clearly referring to the first amendments rights of free speech. I just think if enough of a community band together with intentions of making public policy it should not only be accepted but encouraged. That is one of the few distinguishing factors of our country.

    A law is only as good as it is enforceable. If the majority want it, it should be. So many times big interests get in the way of public desire.

    I would never vote for BSL but I also would not vote against freedom of speech. If you dont see the correlation then maybe you need to take a step back. I know you have the best intentions and I do not desire to argue with a fellow pet lover. We just need to make good moves right now to foster an attitude of personal responsibility when it comes to pets.

    Timing is everything. We must first make people realize their responsibilities through enforcement agencies such as the police and National Guard Reserves..stiff fines and jail time come to offenders and get people to be much more cautious when adopting and breeding pets.

    • Dozer says:

      I’m certainly open for dialogue. I’m afraid I don’t understand your argument that approving of BSL is approving of the right to free speech. I think you’re probably a little unclear on this point.

      What I hear you saying is that “majority rules” should drive our laws. But “majority rules” is not the same as free speech. Consider the legal actions that have historically been taken under the “majority rules” mantle in this country: slavery, Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment camps, Native American resettlement, and so on. Essentially, “majority rules” puts a minority group at risk of oppression–not always, but sometimes.

      The whole point of our Constitution, which allows us not only the right to free speech but also other basic rights, is to avoid the “majority rules” mindset that could lead to unequal treatment of a minority. In many cities, especially the smaller ones, “pit bull” owners are in the minority–even if they got their “community” (pit bull owners) to “band together” to fight the majority’s push for BSL, they will inevitably lose under your “majority rules” scenario. Further, it has been documented in several communities that “pit bull” owners who dare to speak out publicly against proposed BSL have been subsequently retaliated against by city leaders and animal control. Talk about oppression of free speech!

      I believe strongly in free speech. I also believe that BSL is, in fact, a violation of basic rights; it is legalized discrimination. It is the oppression of a minority–the stifling of that minority’s right to speak their minds and live their lives–for no reason other than that their dogs “look scary” to the majority (and yes, BSL is entirely appearance based, and has nothing to do with actual behavior or genetics). It’s not okay for towns and cities to kick out minority groups based on the color of their skin. So, again, I wonder: why do people feel that BSL–a form of legalized discrimination–is something that cities and towns should have the right to implement if they want to?

      You are right: We must foster an attitude of personal responsibility for pets. BSL doesn’t do that–BSL actually takes the responsibility off pet owners by virtue of the dog’s purported breed.

      The best move is always to oppose BSL. That doesn’t mean “do nothing.” There are plenty of non-breed-specific alternatives to BSL that, properly implemented, will do the job just fine (and certainly better than BSL). If you want to make a “good move,” which is admirable, why not push these non-breed-specific laws instead of telling BSL fighters to hush up (i.e. by claiming that people who are anti-BSL are destroying our Constitution, per your first post)?

  3. Janice Richards says:

    I recently had my dog tempted out of his yard by Bull Mastiffs with owner. No leashes. My small breed now has two neck disks squished from a 15 second tangle while the owner just stood by and watched as I was running to get my dog.
    Bull Matiffs off leash. Being walked by owner who thinks they are gentle. And no alpha control over the scenario.
    My life is upside down, I am in debt with vet bills, my dog is in huge pain, his life, our life will never be the same. I need to call someone to help me but I know not who.

    • stopbslcom says:

      Janice, I’m not a lawyer or an animal control officer, and I don’t know exactly where you live or what your leash laws are, but based on your description of the incident, both you and the other dog owner are probably considered at fault. All of the dogs were at large, including yours. You didn’t have “alpha control” (whatever that means) over your dog either, or else your dog wouldn’t have been charging out of the yard to confront a couple of bigger dogs (“tempted out” is a bunch of bull, sorry… unless those Bull Mastiffs were standing there holding a couple of raw steaks going “here doggy doggy.” Your dog made the decision to leave the yard, and you had no control over whether he did or not.). That’s the cut and dry. If you want to discuss the incident with someone that is in a position to do something, you can call your animal control department and talk to them about what happened. Be prepared, though, if they say that they would have to cite you and the other dog owner alike for having dogs at large.

      That said, I’m sorry about what happened to your dog and I hope he heals up quickly. And I hope your story is a valuable lesson to other dog owners: keep your dogs properly and safely contained.