Breed Specific Legislation Also Doesn't Work in Canada

If you're interested in breed specific legislation, there are a couple of things you probably know. First of all, it's usually a lot more about politics and PR than sound policy. Second, there's a mounting body of evidence that breed specific legislation doesn't solve a single problem.

Now, we've got more proof against breed specific legislation coming out of Canada. Back in 2005, Ontario passed a pit bull ban, which has resulted in the euthanasia of "countless" pit bulls and similar breeds, according to the Toronto Humane Society. And what good has it done? Apparently, none whatsoever.

In 2005, according to a Toronto Humane Society study, there were 5,428 bites reported. Last year, there were (drum roll please) 5,345 reported bites. In 2007 and 2008, in fact, the number of reported bites was actually slightly higher. In no year was the deviation from the 2005 number particularly significant from a statistical standpoint.

The political party that instituted the pit bull ban isn't exactly admitting that they got it wrong. Instead, they're defending the status quo, and playing the public safety card. According to Premier Dalton McGuinty, "[we] put in place legislation which we think upholds public safety."

Malarkey. A law to protect public safety is only as good as its results, and McGuinty's party has had 5 years to prove that their law works. The numbers haven't budged statistically, leaving Ontario with a law on the books that hasn't done anything, except cause the deaths of a whole lot of innocent dogs whose only "crime" was being born with the wrong DNA.

Like I said, breed specific legislation is usually more about politics than policy. Politicians need a good election year issue; pit bulls make a good target. Generally speaking, you don't get a lot of pushback when you use words like, "inherently dangerous animals" and "ticking time bombs." That's how pit bulls were described back in 2004, when Ontario's provincial Liberal party first floated the idea of a ban.

We've talked in the past about the problems with the goofy stats that try to justify breed specific legislation. Visual identification of particular breeds is unreliable at best. Most dog bite stats don't take into account specific circumstances (i.e., an injured animal in duress who takes a nip at a rescuer is treated the same way, statistically, as an animal who attacks without apparent provocation). The Centers for Disease Control has problems with the numbers, which is why they haven't recorded breed information for ten years now.

But the biggest problem with breed specific legislation is that it's a cop-out. It punishes the vast majority of responsible dog owners (remember the "countless" dogs put to sleep in Ontario) in order to control a small minority of irresponsible ones.

It's sham legislation, designed to make politicians sleep a little better at night, content that they're protecting "public safety" and helping their re-election bids while they're at it.

Photo credit: stephpowell