Quick post

So this is just a quick post. Good news on Edmonton's breed specific legislation! City Council recently voted to abolition breed specific legislation while retaining the "dangerous dog" legislation which only punishes repeat offender dogs of any breed!

Edmonton Breed Specific Legislation Update

Big news from the Edmonton Humane Society's Facebook page:

"The Edmonton Humane Society is pleased to tell you that the City of Edmonton's Community Services Committee has accepted City Administration's recommendation to eliminate Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) from the Animal Control Bylaw. We do not support BSL as we feel it is discriminatory. The next step is for City Council's final approval; the recommendation now faces all of City Council on October 17. We are hopeful that the Bylaw will be amended at that time."

To "Like" the Edmonton Humane Society, click here!

If you're from the Edmonton area, make sure to e-mail your city councillors and let them know what you think! 

You can find out who your Councillor is here!

Abstinence from a Christian Perspective

Teaching abstinence is something most people really fail at. They overestimate how much respect teenagers give adults who spew unsupported facts at them, they underestimate just how hard it is to work against their biological clocks and they seem to think talking down to people works. Abstinence only education just flat out doesn't work. It leaves kids vulnerable to ruining their entire lives over one stupid mistake.

As Christians, we should recognize that humans are sinful. We don't listen. So when it comes to our kids, we should teach them about things like condoms and birth control pills, and should encourage them to seek adoption should those fail and they get pregnant. But most of all,  we should tell them that abstinence is not only more effective, it's also what God wants for us.

But why is it? What's so special about sex that we should save it for our spouse?

Well, in the times before marriage ceremonies and vows, sex and marriage were one and the same. When you had sex, you were married. To prove it you showed off the bloodstained blankets after having sex. Virginity was important, and this hasn't changed. When you have sex, you're doing more than just procreating or having a good time. Sex is a spiritual act. It is the bonding of two bodies and two spirits into one. It is a sacred act, something God created specially for us. When God made Eve, he created her from Adam's rib. When we have sex, it is the act of these two bodies rejoining in to one.

Don't get me wrong, abstinence is hard, especially in this culture we've built up where sex becomes a rite of passage, something we do to prove we're adults. This simply isn't true, but rites of passage are important. It's a way for them to prove themselves to their peers and their families. As Christians, once your kid has finished Confirmation, you should start treating them like an adult. In the eyes of the Church, confirmation and it's equivalents are the rite of passage. If you don't treat your kids like adults, they'll find a way to get that respect from their peers, and everything around them is telling them sex is the way to do this.

That said, make sure your kids know about contraceptives. People make mistakes, we're sinful beings and we slip and fall. Make sure you're there to catch them and set them on the right path. Teaching abstinence only isn't going to make them less likely to have sex, it just makes them less likely to use protection.

What's So Bad About Breed Specific Legislation?

Greetings everyone!

You may have noticed that the very first post I put up on this blog was an open letter to Mayor Stephen Mandel concerning Edmonton's breed specific legislation. To the uninitiated, breed specific legislation seems like a good idea: Certain breeds of dogs are bred to be more aggressive than other breeds, therefore making those breeds illegal must reduce the number of bites and fatalities, right?

Well, okay. Let's follow through on that logic. What are some breeds of dogs that are bred to be more aggressive? Let's start with the most obvious: Hunting dogs.

Hunting dogs include any hound breeds, such as bloodhounds, coon hounds, and beagles. But wait! Beagles aren't particularly vicious, even though they're bred for hunting rabbits and foxes! Granted, you don't want to be on the other end of the leash if a bloodhound or beagle catches a scent trail, and heaven forbid you be near a coon hound when it's run a raccoon up a tree. But they have no more aggression towards humans than any other animal. Mind you, the animals they hunt aren't particularly known for fighting back, so we'll give them a pass.

Well, what hounds are meant for hunting vicious animals? Something like a badger? Well, that would be the dachshund, otherwise known as a weiner dog. They're bred to dig into badger holes and fight badgers. And dachshunds actually are known to bite a little more often than other dogs, because people often buy dachshunds without fully understanding that the animal they just purchased to be a beloved pet is, in fact, a rather stubborn hunting dog.

What about guard dog breeds? Bull mastiffs are huge dogs, but they aren't particularly violent, despite being bred to be guard dogs. Indeed, they're so big so that they can knock intruders over and sit on their stomachs (the traditional way to train a bull mastiff to guard) until help comes by. But unless you've specifically trained them, bull mastiffs aren't particularly vicious animals.

I've met many small dogs that have a vicious streak a mile wide, and many big bully breed dogs that are incredibly personable and the friendliest beasts you'll ever meet. In short, banning breeds won't keep bad owners from creating bad dogs. Only a education can do that.

What sort of a message are we sending young children when we tell them that certain breeds of dogs are evil just because of what they are? We're telling them that birth can determine if you're going to be good, or going to be bad. That simply isn't true.

As Christians, we have a duty in this world to watch over the animals and creatures God has put on this earth with the same mercy and justice that he watches over us with. God doesn't discriminate between black, brown or white. He doesn't care if you're tall and broad shoulders, or small and slight of frame. He loves us regardless of how we look on the outside. Indeed, He sent His one and only Son to die on the cross so that our sins might be forgiven. Isn't that a much better message to send our children?

If we begin to discriminate against dogs based on breed, it's a short road before we cause a dreadful tragedy when a beloved family dog is put down simply because of how it looks, like Lennox in Belfast. That sets a dark precedent for breed specific legislation. What sort of message are the kids who hear about Lennox going to take away from that? Is it one of love and understanding? Or is it one of ruthlessness and hate?

An Open Letter to Mayor Mandel of Edmonton, Alberta

Greetings everyone. I want to open today with an open letter I've sent out to Mayor Stephen Mandel. I'll include the response as soon as I get one.

Dear Mayor Mandel,

Edmonton is a city that tries to look forward, that tries to show that it is a growing city of tolerance, various cultures, and forward thinking. However, something is holding our city back. Archaic laws that encourage discrimination based solely on appearance. Laws that teach us that it really isn't what's inside that counts, it's what's on the outside.

I am of course speaking of Edmonton's archaic breed specific legislation that discourages people from owning the “pit bull” breeds: The American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit-bull Terrier. These laws come from a time of great fear in North American society of brutal vicious animals that roamed the streets late at night, with an anatomically impossible “scissor bite” that supposedly could only be broken by biting all the way through! Of course, hindsight is 20/20. We as a modern society now know that if a Pit-bull’s jaw really was designed like that, it would no longer be a dog and would be a completely new species of animal altogether. These laws have no place in our society today. I am shocked and appalled that the city who's Pet Stores carry almost exclusively shelter dogs and cats would keep such ridiculous laws in place.

These laws do nothing to keep dog fighting rings from cropping up. As breeds get banned, people who skirt animal cruelty laws will just pick new breeds, such as rottweilers, or cane corsos to fight instead. In some places, they fight roosters or rats. So how does banning one breed of dog prevent this? The answer is it doesn't.

These laws are especially ridiculous in light of a recent paper by the Centre for Disease Control which shows that no breed of dog is any more likely to bite and kill than any other. Indeed, it's findings indicated that number of fatal bites perpetrated by large breed dogs changed based on which large breeds of dogs are more popular at any given time (as large breeds are more physically powerful and thus their bites can be fatal much more often).

Breed specific legislation does nothing to reduce dog bites or to discourage fighting. Indeed, if you base a legislation solely around a dog's breed and appearance, you run the risk of causing horrible tragedies, such as the tragedy that recently occurred in Belfast, Ireland, where a dog named Lennox, a beloved family dog, was euthanized solely for resembling a pit-bull type dog. Is that the sort of thinking that you want the City of Edmonton to be associated with?

Calgary offers a credible and an ideal model for reducing dog bite fatalities. It is a model based around education rather than banning specific breeds. As such, it is my opinion that Edmonton should enact a similar legislation. This model is actually put forward by the CDC paper as being an ideal and effective way of reducing fatal dog bites.

In the end, the decision is up to the City Council: Should Edmonton associate itself with cities like Toronto and Belfast, Ireland and put forward and image of intolerance based on appearances and presuppositions of uneducated people? Or does Edmonton want to take a bold step forward in favour of animal rights, and do away with archaic breed specific legislation in favour of a new, more effective model based on education?

Yours Truly,

Benjamin David Wandio