Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
Should the goal not be the reduction of serious dog bites overall? A very narrowly focused ban is the easy route, you can get a bunch of people on board because it won't affect them and it's great for optics. Toronto managed to cut bites by pit bulls; great, so the ban mostly worked. Now, what it Toronto's plan to deal with the overall increase in bites? Is there evidence that if they had taken a different approach, that same decrease would not have happened? The ban did result in scores of needless euthanizations though.
Somehow in Calgary, we saw an overall reduction with no breed ban.
The other issue is that the data is generated when treatment is sought, there doesn't seem to be a distinction made, or a definition for, a serious bite. So right off the bat, the stats are flawed.
|
I don't know if it resulted in needless euthanizations. I know there was no mandate to put your dog down.
In general, I don't care if a dog bites someone. I do care about full on attacks. Goldens have the third highest number of bites by breed in some metrics. But who cares? They're not going to lose their minds and kill you. Most dogs bite and release. The ones that don't result in serious injury and those are a few specific breeds.
I think the reasoning for not having a breed banning law is that it punishes good owners, it's hard to enforce and it doesn't prevent all dog bites. Kind of sounds like the gun law argument in the States.