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
No comments:
Post a Comment