The Pit Bull Ban-Is it fair regulation…or are the pit bulls victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? 

By: Irena Papst, Editor


A 16 year old girl from Chatham need surgery after she was attacked by a pit bull. Constance Wilson said she nudged her boyfriends sleeping dog to get it to move out of the door way when it woke up and started mauling her. She said that a friend, Nathan Patterson, came to save her. He was sleeping on the couch when he suddenly heard a scream and came running out of concern. He tackled the dog and finally got it to get off the girl. Wilson was sent to the hospital with gashes to her legs that required 50-75 stitches to repair. Will Picard, owner of the dog, and Wilsons boyfriend, was given a notice under the dangerous dog bylaw. 

This is one of many pit bull attacks we have heard about in the past few months. It has held our attention and has been occurring with so much more regularity that our government has decided to take action. This, as well as many other similar stories, have caught Attorney-General Michael Bryant’s eye and he is now taking drastic measures. He recently tried, with success, to enforce a new legislation banning all pit bulls from Ontario.           

Many think that such a ban may work because of a similar ban that was implemented in Kitchener- Waterloo seven years ago. In 1996, Kitchener-Waterloo enforced a ban on ‘aggressive breeds’ of dogs  to avoid relentless dog attacks that were increasing at an alarming rate. This year Kitchener and Waterloo had no reported attacks, as opposed to 1996, the year the ban was implemented, when they had to deal with 16 different pit bull attacks. Although, on the surface, it looks as if the ban has reduced these attacks, the case of [Kitchener-Waterloo] cannot be used as proof as to why our ban can work. The ban that they enforced was an ‘aggressive breed’ ban,  not a ban which singles out one breed, such as the proposed and accepted ban Attorney General Bryant proposed. We cannot compare the statistics of an aggressive breed ban to a ban that only includes one breed because it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Simply put, they are not the same.

Just recently, right after the legislation on the pit bull ban was passed, a Rottweiler attacked someone in the GTA. Now that this legislation has occurred these types of new attacks, involving other aggressive breeds, will start to appear. Maybe then, the province and Mr. Bryant will see that a “one-breed ban” is not the answer.

Some people also like to think that perhaps if we educated people on this breed and how to handle them, these attacks would not happen. But, I don’t think that this is the answer to our problem either. In early September, a man was viciously attacked by his friend’s two pit bulls while taking them for a walk. The owner was out of town and had asked a fellow pit bull owner and friend to walk the dogs for him. Clearly, the victim had handled pit bulls before and knew how to handle them. In fact, he too had owned the pit bull that fathered the two attacking dogs. At about 3:30 am, as they were walking the area of Isabella and Church St, the dogs apparently turned on the victim and started mauling him. Residents who live in the area heard the victim’s screams in an alleyway behind one of the buildings. They tried to hold off the dogs as much as they could until the police came. As soon as the police came they tried everything to get the dogs off until they had to resort to gun fire to get the vicious dogs off the victim. And still, it took 16 shots before the animals finally surrendered. Unfortunately, the dogs did not survive. The victim was sent to St. Michael’s Hospital where he underwent lengthy surgery for extensive arm, back and leg injuries. The victim was released from hospital and luckily he did not have to have a limb amputated, as first feared. Despite his experience and his ‘knowledge’ of this breed of dog, he was still attacked for reasons unknown. Education and experience with the breed will not help.

It is obvious that after such gruesome attacks, the province must take action, but as to which one is the right one remains a very controversial topic. As previously described, some people think that the pit bull ban is the right answer. Some think that education is simply the solution. But I think it goes deeper than that. There are many unreported dog attacks that happen every month, and still the government turns a blind eye to them, pretending they don’t happen. Instead, our government focused on pointing the finger at pit bulls and their attacks. Their attacks, taking place at the right time caused our government to take action against them alone. Would they have taken this action against Rottweiler’s or Doberman’s  if they had been the attacks reported in the news? If the government is going to take action, they should address the issue of all aggressive dogs, not just ones that are in the news at the time. I think that they should propose and accept a muzzle and leash legislation as opposed to a discriminatory pit-bull ban. This legislation would ensure that it is mandatory for all dogs in Ontario to wear leashes and muzzles in all public places. This, at least would treat all breeds of dogs equally.

Also, we cannot forget that the physical and psychological harm that dog attacks have caused over the years creates emotional fear in many people. Those who have had a minor bite from a dog usually steer clear or avoid all dogs for the rest of their lives. Imagine how those, that suffered horrific maulings that required stitches and untreateable scarring  feel about. If we made muzzles and leashes mandatory in the province these people would feel much safer in their own neighborhoods. 

In conclusion, a muzzle and leash legislation would probably be the best solution for Ontario. It would be safer, and it would treat all dogs with the same fairness of regulation. We may never discover why pit bulls and other aggressive breeds attack random people. Until we figure this out, an aggressive breed ban or a one breed ban should never be the ultimate, most correct solution.