The Animal Kingdom

Nature's animals are variously endowed.  Humankind thinks of itself as inhabiting the highest end of the scale of animal evolution.  Presumably we do, although we share a good deal with other animals, from emotions to intelligence.  We are, undeniably endowed with a greater intelligence than all other animals, and perhaps because we are, we are infinitely more responsible, or should be, for what it is we do to other animals.

There is a great bond of affection and mutual need between humans and canines.  Our respect for and companionship with one another creates long-lasting bonds of reliance and trust.  Sometimes humans renege on the unspoken contract between the two, and they take possession of a dog for the purpose of training it to be offensively brutal, in reflection of the psyche of the human itself.

Any animal can be taught and trained to be mean-tempered and dangerous.  There are many people who deliberately transform an inoffensive character into one charged with animosity toward others, reflecting their humans' values in respect to others.  And when one takes a breed of dog that is physically powerful and capable of effecting great physical harm when it is ordered to do so, we have a deadly combination.

The human who has corrupted the dog may be responsible, but the dog is held to be the dangerous one of the two.  And it is, invariably, the dog that follows its human's orders that suffers in the end.  Because pit-bull breeds have been seen to be involved most frequently in violent encounters with humans they have been banned in an effort to keep society safe from danger of bites and other violence they are capable of inflicting.

Animal lovers protest the unfairness of a ban that outlaws a specific breed, claiming that bites and maulings take place only when an animal has been abused and taught to be violent.  "Responsible dog owners are not going to train a dog to be vicious.  Can any dog turn out to be vicious?  Absolutely ...   If you want a dog to be nasty, you will train it to be nasty", says a spokesperson for the Humane Society.

The trouble here is that not every dog owner is responsible.  And it is the immature, irresponsible ones that are implicated in teaching and abusing animals to be threats to society.  Those who love and respect dogs abhor the mind-set that would set pit-bulls apart and ban them.  It is an unfair judgement.  On the other hand, it is one that seems to be validated by studies now emerging.

Though the discrimination against certain breeds rubs us the wrong way, and we would far prefer some method of inhibiting people from maltreating dogs, new studies appear to identify a drop in the rate at which people attend hospital emergency rooms for treatment after dog bites.  In the journal Injury Prevention, a study of cases from 1984 to 2006 seems to agree that bans lessen the likelihood of bites.

A new study out of Texas found a large proportion of dog-bite injuries treated at a trauma centre to have been inflicted by pit bulls.  Some of these attacks were sometimes the cause of severe injuries, hospital admissions and even death.   And a new Canadian study seems to indicate the controversial breed-specific bans are working.

The overall Ontario rate of bite-related hospitalizations dropped to 2.8 per 100,000 people from 3.5, a significant diminishment since "breed-specific legislation" was implemented in a number of municipalities.  Oddly enough, there was no lessening of numbers in one of the first cities in North America to crack down on pit-bulls; Winnipeg.