Pit Bulls
When my daughter was six years old, her face was ripped open by a friend's family dog - a previously docile creature who suddenly lost control for a moment, long enough to inflict 36 stitches' worth of damage in a single slash. Only a few species of dog can do so much damage in one bite; it takes a large, strong dog with long teeth. This dog was a near relative of the species responsible for approximately 70% of attacks on humans in Vancouver, a species which some will be disappointed to learn is not pit bulls, rottweilers or dobermann pinschers. (I won't say which species, because I don't want to provoke yet another genocidal crusade by bloodthirsty purveyors of niceness. Look it up.) I mention our experience mainly to establish my right to a strong opinion on the subject of "vicious species."
To balance my credentials, let me also confess that I spent my childhood in the company of pit bulls. My family lived in the country on a large property and all our family dogs were pit bulls. One in particular was my loyal companion through most of my growing years; he looked a lot like the dog "Spot" in the Our Gang comedy series (if you can remember back that far), who was also a pit bull. His name, well earned, was "Tuffy" and he was indeed tough on canine trespassers, though he never attacked a human. Now, I can't imagine owning such a dog in the city; even in those days pit bulls were not the sort of dog one could keep around other dogs, and I gather that the efforts of unscrupulous breeders have made them even meaner today.
I have a proposal for what seems to me a rational law regarding "vicious" pets, but first I have to comment on the politics of genocide. (What else do you call a "ban on the breed"?)
Many people seem to think that prohibiting firearms will put an end to violent crime. I find this implausible, but even if it were a valid strategy it is quite different from exterminating pit bulls to put an end to dog attacks. For one thing, a rather small percentage of attacks are perpetrated by pit bulls. For another, pit bulls are not objects like guns. They are animals with unique characteristics, only one of which is their propensity to viciousness. I have known pit bulls that were bone-stupid and mean; I have also known pit bulls that were among the most charming, intelligent beasts I have ever met. They are a lot like humans in this respect. And as different species of humans often do, they have become inconvenient to the dominant species (aldermen), who would now like to "solve" their "problem" in the time-honoured way. When other governments attempt to dispose of "problem populations," we express outrage. Not long ago, our own government put bounties on the heads of "varmint" species like wolves and coyotes that the "politically correct" majorities of the time agreed we would be well rid of; in retrospect, we express outrage. When rare species of wildlife are endangered by human development, we express outrage. Where is our outrage, where is our compassion, when Britain makes extermination of pit bull "devil dogs" the law of the land? No, we rush to follow suit. "It is time!" cries our alderperson, and ecstatic crowds erupt into frenzied cheering. Why does this seem so familiar?
OK, I have had my turn at innuendo. Now for a concrete proposal. How do we deal with the problem of boneheaded or vicious "humans" who don't have any better sense (or civic responsibility) than to keep a pit bull (or other "vicious" species - let us consider for example wolves) in our crowded city? I propose an incredibly simple law that anyone can understand (Not your average law, eh?) that will take care of the problem automatically. It reads like this:
That is to say, if your dog attacks a human, you will be guilty of assault and battery with a deadly weapon; if your pet cheetah kills your neighbor's child, you will be guilty of murder as if you had struck the blow with your own hand. What could be simpler? What could be fairer? If we start putting some responsibility back in the hands of citizens, perhaps we can remember how to rely on their good judgement and cooperation; then perhaps we can begin to restore some of their freedoms as well. And perhaps we can stop trying to railroad every issue that involves more than one set of values and therefore confuses today's righteously "correct" politicians.
Campaigns against pit bulls would have done nothing to protect my daughter, nor will it help protect the vast majority of dog-attack victims. Despite our wishful thinking, this is still a dangerous world where innocent people are injured, get sick and die; and it's going to stay pretty much that way forever, regardless of our fanatic efforts to make everything safe and nice. (I should mention that it is also a gloriously beautiful and delightful world most of the time.) As a parent I consider it more important to teach my children how to survive in a dangerous world (and how to enjoy a delightful one) than to encourage them to dwell in the fantasy that all its hazards can be eliminated.
