Vicki
Administrator
June 16, 2010 by www.stopbsl.com
Delta currently automatically designates all “pit bulls†to be “dangerous dogs,†subject to the restrictions for dangerous dogs. Voice your support for removal of the breed-specific language: mayor-council@corp.delta.bc.ca
http://www.theprovince.com/life/owners+animals+problem/3160131/story.html#ixzz0r101fveO
Dog owners, not the animals, are the problem
By Jon Ferry, The Province June 16, 2010
Do pit bulls deserve a break? Well, it seems they do, at least in Delta.
While some governments around the world, including Ontario’s, have banned pit bulls, Delta is taking a refreshingly different tack — by putting more onus on their owners to keep the controversial canines in line.
After considerable community discussion, the feisty municipality is revamping its animal-control bylaw, which automatically designates pit bulls as “dangerous,†to replace it with one that refuses to discriminate against them.
This means, according to municipal solicitor Greg Vanstone, that pit bulls will no longer have to be kept in a special structure when on their owner’s property and leashed and muzzled when off.
It also means they can be treated like other dogs — unless, of course, they have been involved in attacks against other dogs and/or humans. In that case, their owners will pay higher dog-licence fees, just as the owners of other aggressive dogs do.
As longtime Delta Coun. Robert Campbell said in an interview Tuesday: “The problem is the people, not the animals.â€
The new draft bylaw reflects research showing there is no list of dog breeds that, according to a staff report written by Vanstone, are “more genetically prone to fight or kill other animals or people.â€
Indeed, Vanstone noted, in an 11-month period ending last November, there were 90 dog attacks reported in Delta.
Of these, 25 were by pit bulls or pit bull-like dogs. But 12 were by German shepherds, eight by bulldogs, eight by presa canarios, seven by labradors, seven by rottweilers — and 23 by “others.â€
Vanstone points out that animal behaviour is determined both by genetics and environmental factors. And one key environmental element is “the wide range of human behaviour that dogs may be exposed to.â€
Every dog has the potential to bite. Many have been bred to be aggressive. It is how we as modern humans raise and control them that is key. As with children, early “socialization†is vital.
For example, dogs that are tethered for hours or confined in a crate or other small living space become combative through a buildup of stress. And if an owner is aggressive to his or her dog, the animal will, in turn, become belligerent. It’s all pretty basic animal care, but it’s amazing how many dog owners fail to follow tried-and-true guidelines.
Campbell told me the draft bylaw should be passed by council this summer. It calls for escalating punishment for owners of dogs with a history of aggression, including fines of up to $1,000.
It’s all laid out in Vanstone’s excellent April 16 report on the Delta municipal website. Indeed, the only quarrel I have with the municipality’s new, non-racist approach toward dogs is that it doesn’t include a requirement for owners to undergo dog-handling training.
However, as the report explains, owners who wanted to avoid taking such a course might simply get their animals registered in a neighbouring city or town.
The issue really has to be addressed by provincial legislation. And the current B.C. government, still being bitten badly by the HST debacle, is unlikely to take on this contentious issue at this time.
But there really is an inequity here. Antisocial dog owners cause far more problems for society than their canine counterparts, so why do we require a licence for the one but not the other?
More from StopBSL.com...
Delta currently automatically designates all “pit bulls†to be “dangerous dogs,†subject to the restrictions for dangerous dogs. Voice your support for removal of the breed-specific language: mayor-council@corp.delta.bc.ca
http://www.theprovince.com/life/owners+animals+problem/3160131/story.html#ixzz0r101fveO
Dog owners, not the animals, are the problem
By Jon Ferry, The Province June 16, 2010
Do pit bulls deserve a break? Well, it seems they do, at least in Delta.
While some governments around the world, including Ontario’s, have banned pit bulls, Delta is taking a refreshingly different tack — by putting more onus on their owners to keep the controversial canines in line.
After considerable community discussion, the feisty municipality is revamping its animal-control bylaw, which automatically designates pit bulls as “dangerous,†to replace it with one that refuses to discriminate against them.
This means, according to municipal solicitor Greg Vanstone, that pit bulls will no longer have to be kept in a special structure when on their owner’s property and leashed and muzzled when off.
It also means they can be treated like other dogs — unless, of course, they have been involved in attacks against other dogs and/or humans. In that case, their owners will pay higher dog-licence fees, just as the owners of other aggressive dogs do.
As longtime Delta Coun. Robert Campbell said in an interview Tuesday: “The problem is the people, not the animals.â€
The new draft bylaw reflects research showing there is no list of dog breeds that, according to a staff report written by Vanstone, are “more genetically prone to fight or kill other animals or people.â€
Indeed, Vanstone noted, in an 11-month period ending last November, there were 90 dog attacks reported in Delta.
Of these, 25 were by pit bulls or pit bull-like dogs. But 12 were by German shepherds, eight by bulldogs, eight by presa canarios, seven by labradors, seven by rottweilers — and 23 by “others.â€
Vanstone points out that animal behaviour is determined both by genetics and environmental factors. And one key environmental element is “the wide range of human behaviour that dogs may be exposed to.â€
Every dog has the potential to bite. Many have been bred to be aggressive. It is how we as modern humans raise and control them that is key. As with children, early “socialization†is vital.
For example, dogs that are tethered for hours or confined in a crate or other small living space become combative through a buildup of stress. And if an owner is aggressive to his or her dog, the animal will, in turn, become belligerent. It’s all pretty basic animal care, but it’s amazing how many dog owners fail to follow tried-and-true guidelines.
Campbell told me the draft bylaw should be passed by council this summer. It calls for escalating punishment for owners of dogs with a history of aggression, including fines of up to $1,000.
It’s all laid out in Vanstone’s excellent April 16 report on the Delta municipal website. Indeed, the only quarrel I have with the municipality’s new, non-racist approach toward dogs is that it doesn’t include a requirement for owners to undergo dog-handling training.
However, as the report explains, owners who wanted to avoid taking such a course might simply get their animals registered in a neighbouring city or town.
The issue really has to be addressed by provincial legislation. And the current B.C. government, still being bitten badly by the HST debacle, is unlikely to take on this contentious issue at this time.
But there really is an inequity here. Antisocial dog owners cause far more problems for society than their canine counterparts, so why do we require a licence for the one but not the other?
More from StopBSL.com...