Re: Pit bull will never be man's best friend

An Open Letter to the Editor of the Calgary Herald,

I am surprised that the Calgary Herald is now inviting such vicious articles based on so few facts as the opinion piece by Naomi Lakritz that was published on December 22, 1998.

Clearly Ms. Lakritz's piece is designed to sensationalize her topic, and one can conclude that this may help sell papers. Good journalism, however, it is not. Ms. Lakritz presented facts in a highly skewed manner to support incorrect and false conclusions. And that irresponsible, heavily biased journalism is not the type of piece that I would expect to find in the Calgary Herald.

In her article, Ms. Lakritz wrote:

"It is true that any kind of dog can and will bite under certain circumstances and even chihuahuas can inflict nasty damage. While dogs of other breeds may indeed be aggressive, the difference is that aggression is the pit bull's raison d'etre.

The word "pit" in their name says it all -- the place in which they were expected to act out that aggression. And when they grab onto human flesh, as the dog who attacked Percival did, they don't slash and run off but latch on and hang with all their might.

If Percival's case were an isolated incident, it could be passed off as just the actions of one bad dog. But gruesome pit bull-attack stories have been making the news for years and other Canadian cities have either banned the breed outright or restricted ownership by putting heavy leashing, muzzling and liability insurance requirements on the dogs."

1. First of all, "pit bulls" are not even a breed of dog but rather a 'type' of dog, which could include everything from the purebred 'bully breeds' to the UKC registered American Pit Bull Terrier to any mutt with features resembling an American Pit Bull Terrier, such as black lab crossed with a great dane.

2. Secondly, anyone with the smallest amount of historical knowledge of the bully breeds - knowledge Ms. Lakritz clearly has not researched - will realize that one of the foremost quality of these animals is their intense loyalty to and love of people. For the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which is known in England as 'the nanny dog', this quality is written directly into the breed standard:

   "Temperament:
   From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws his character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with his affection for his friends, and children in particular; his off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes him the foremost all-purpose dog."

3. And finally, while many cities across North America have considered breed specific bans, many - like Calgary - decide against those bans after a close look at the fact. Those facts show that banning specific breeds is not an effective solution to the real problem at hand - the dog owners.

The problem that Ms. Lakritz completely missed is the problem created by dog owners for whom certain dog breeds become trendy. This small segment of owners, who may be criminals, or may simply be criminally ignorant and unwilling to properly look after/contain their dogs, are independent of a specific dog breed. They are also the real problem with dog attacks. Banning certain breeds and types of dog - whether they are Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, 'Pit Bulls' or Chihuahuas, will not solve the real problem, because these owners will simply switch to a new type of dog if they are prevented from owning the old.

That is why any smart city council would not pursue a breed specific dangerous dog law. The best example recently was Toronto's city council decision on this issue. In Toronto the mayor was pushing to have 'pit bulls' banned in his city. However, when the facts were closely scrutinized this route was declined. Why? Because breed specific laws do not solve the problem, and in the interim the same people, whose safety Ms. Lakritz is concerned for, will still be at risk. Just as the car is not at fault when a drunk driver kills a pedestrian, the dog is rarely at fault when it attacks a person. Generic laws with the teeth to give authorities the ability to contain any dog - purebred or mutt, large or small - that has shown signs that it is a dangerous animal are the answer to this problem. And most of all, laws should be pointed at their owners, who need to be held as responsible for owning any dog as they would be for driving drunk down city streets.

And for the record, in her attack Ms. Lakritz has maligned many wonderful dogs that contrary to her depiction, are not people aggressive. In her article the journalist has already revealed her bias, implying that only 'pit bull' owners will defend their breed and that those defenses warrant no attention because, of course, an owner will defend his or her beloved pet. How foolish a claim. First off, who better to learn from about the true nature of the breed than those that live with them, and even more appropriately those that breed them. Secondly, there are people across the world who would happily write in to factually destroy the poorly supported argument that Ms. Lakritz passed off as journalism, and many of those owners would not be 'pit bull' owners, but would simply be dog people with a much greater depth of knowledge than your reporter.

Yours truly,

Julie King
Dogwatch.Net

To send your opinion to the Calgary Herald, write to:

Editorial Page Editor, Peter Menzies
menziesp@theherald.southam.ca

Naomi Lakritz, lakritzn@theherald.southam.ca

Letters Editor, letters@theherald.southam.ca

To tell the main advertiser on the Calgary Herald's website what you think of them supporting this type of reporting write to:
askibm@ca.ibm.com

 
home | bsl alert | strategy | liaisons | myths | ambassadors | links | about us | membership