There are a number of politicians and private lobbyists who have been misled on the issue of dog bites, attacks and fatalities.  The usual reaction among those who do not have a good understanding of the subject is to 'ban' whichever breed or mixed breed of dog has been involved in a recent high-profile attack.  Unfortunately, keeping in mind the road to Hell, breed banning is the worst thing to do if there is a real or perceived problem in a community caused by irresponsible, incompetent or criminal dog owners.

Let's take the example of Nova Scotia.  It is a beautiful province, popular with tourists, artists and others who enjoy the laid-back atmosphere and impressive natural surroundings.  Under this benign, wholesome surface, however, there beats a heart of darkness.  Nova Scotia has a long history of racism and has recently found itself in a situation where racial tension is increasing..  In Cole Harbour, high school race riots occurred in the past and unless something is done, are likely to be repeated.  Yesterday, the leader of the NDP (and the MLA for Cole Harbour) was quoted in the Halifax Chronicle Herald as saying he personally supports the idea of dog breed banning.

What does this have to do with the price of beans?  Lots.

Targeting a particular phenotype, or shape if you prefer, of dog for restriction and  special application of the law with an outcome geared to death is nothing more than genocide and sublimated racism (not to mention a classist mentality).  Most people, when presented with this theory, react in a predictable manner.  This reaction includes denial, belittlement, outrage, statements to the effect that dogs are not human therefore cannot be victims of genocide, etc, etc.  I've got news for you - according to the definition of genocide, breed banning is exactly that: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

In Europe, they refer to breeds of dogs as races of dogs.  It is a fine semantic distinction and one which is certainly in line with the known attributes of dogs, namely, that all dogs are identical and that the only genetic information that can be ascertained in an objective and reproducible manner is whether or not a dog is descended from a particular set of parents or whether a dog carries genetic markers for disease or superficial characteristics.  That's it.  There is no other difference between races of dogs, which is very similar to evidence that there is no innate difference between races of humans aside from superficial elements such as hair colour and texture, skin colour, size, inherited disease, etc.

How is breed banning sublimated racism?  Racism, an attitude which is fairly common within certain subcultures, has a poisonous effect on social mechanisms in both rural and urban areas.  Racism is now widely condemned by enlightened members of society so those who practise it are forced to look beyond humans for a target.  Along come dogs, considered family members by their owners, already sorted into races, some conveniently hyped and overblown by uncaring media and political types.  Here is someone helpless to bully, insult and mock with no fear of retribution!  It's perfect for the ignoramuses among us.  Man's only friend, the dog, will not complain - he can't talk!  Dogs don't sue, dogs don't plot revenge, dogs can't read the papers or understand human language!  It's tailor-made for the cowardly and unsophisticated hater of all things bright and beautiful.  Let's face it, to come out of the closet, put on their white hoods and tell the world how much they hate would take courage.  History has shown us that one of the hallmarks of the bully is lack of courage (hate is fear).  Another is lack of intelligence:  when you target dogs you are actually targeting their owners, stupid.

So, how does 'classism' fit into the mix?  Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that proponents of dog extermination programs have a skewed view of dog owners in general and of the owners of certain races of dogs in particular.

"Gang Bangers" "Drug Dealers" "Trailer Trash"  "Bottom Feeders" "Losers" are some of the unsubstantiated epithets applied to the owners of certain types of dogs.  The dogs themselves have been dubbed "Ghetto Dogs" "Pit Bulls" "Killer Dogs" "Ticking Time Bombs".   In other words, dogs of a certain shape are owned by minorities, the poor, the disenfranchised, and the criminal - 'regular' people wouldn't want 'pit bulls'.

The mythical attributes of dogs referred to as 'pit bulls' by the uneducated are just that - mythical.  Locking jaws; endorphin addiction; cranial impermeability; invulnerability to projectiles, blunt objects, vapors or blades; inherited psychopathology; immense strength for their size; indomitability; random chemical secretion, predatory behaviour - the list goes on and on.  The 'pit bull' has replaced the 'bogeyman' in popular culture.  I often wonder if the gulls who swallow this stuff ever worry about annoying those who feel that 'pit bulls' make fine family pets.

Those familiar with the dog world and the dog fancy know that this is all poppycock.  Due to the hard work of committed individuals, that message is finally getting out to the public.  This is happening in spite of a relentless propaganda campaign against pet dogs promulgated by self-serving politicians (popular appeal) and mass market news sources (advertising revenue).  Dog owners are fighting back and the tide is finally turning in their favour after years of discrimination.

One crucial fact is ignored by proponents of breed bans:  Bans do not target dogs.  They target dog owners.  They result in an inequal application of the law, the removal of rights from otherwise innocent citizens and are nothing more than the installation of terror.  Despite the obvious fact that it is impossible to determine the heritage of a randomly bred dog and that the purebred dogs often on the death list have such a low incidence of biting that their inclusion is ludicrous, the primary problem with a ban on a shape of dog is that no one is authorized to identify a dog's racial makeup.  No veterinarian, animal control officer, CKC judge, dog owner, neighbour or wag on the street can accurately attest to the lineage of a mongrel dog.  For that matter, the only way to prove that a purebred dog belongs to a particular race is with a kennel club certificate of registration, a legal document.

I sometimes wonder what sort of fool believes that banning a shape of dog will stop dog bites.  I have only to look to the Ontario Legislative Assembly for my answer.  It is unfortunate that hundreds of thousands of dollars had to be spent by dog owners in defense of their Charter rights in Ontario.  Equally unfortunate is that the amount spent by the provincial government on defending the indefensible is likely ten times that amount.  A fact of life is that when breed bans are implemented, lawsuits soon follow.  Dog owners won't sit back and allow their friends and family members to be systematically persecuted by the ignorant, be they hiding in legislatures, editorial offices or neighbourhoods.

A much better idea, and the first step that should be taken by animal control officers everywhere, is zero tolerance dog ownership licensing.  I mean going door to door and asking to see dog tags.  I mean heavy fines for non-compliance.  I mean a benefit for those who do obey the law and a penalty for those who do not.  Zero tolerance for scofflaws, hoarders, backyard breeders, neglecters, abusers and all the rest.

As dog ownership licensing has been considered trivial by authorities across the country, the Average Joe politician or citizen really has no way of knowing a) how many dog owners live in a community b) what number, type, size or colour of dog they own c) how many purebred versus random bred dogs exist and d).whether the dogs are spayed/neutered, obedience trained and the recipients of routine veterinary care.  Obviously, the origins of the dogs are also unknown:  are they pet shop (puppy mill) dogs, deliberately or accidentally backyard bred, produced by ethical breeders or obtained from shelters/rescue clubs?  Are they immunized?

Another major problem with attempts to isolate a shape of dog for special treatment is  the complete lack of any kind of reliable data with which to support the position.  Licensing is running at about 10% compliance in most places.  There are no bite registries; no one is counting dog bites.  The few databases which do exist are inadequate as they do not tell us anything about an incident.  We don't know the severity of a bite, the relationship of the dog and victim, the location, circumstances, health of the dog or anything else of value.  Nothing, nada, zilch.  The 'breed' of dog is actually the most irrelevant fact one would need in order to formulate policy, unless the goal of government matches that of  animals rights fanatics:  to outlaw pet ownership.  All dogs bite.  Most dog bites are trivial.  Fatality, the most extreme outcome, is the only one recorded.  Fatalities are so rare that it is impossible to predict a trend, formulate policy, isolate a series of events or predict with an iota of accuracy when, where or how a dog bite-related fatality may occur.  Were this not true, an entirely different shape of dog would be targeted for special treatment.  The usual suspects would not appear on any list, anywhere in Canada.

In my opinion, the entire issue of garden variety dog bites has been so overblown as to be ridiculous.  Yes, there have been some unfortunate incidents, no argument there.  Statistically it is unlikely that there are any more dog bites today than there were when I was a child many decades ago.  There are more people, there are more dogs but I doubt that there is any trend upwards in the number of incidents involving dogs.  Hype with subsequent breed banning creates the impression of political action in the face of a crisis and sells papers - unfortunately, I think that's about the size of it.

To take a simmering pot such as a densely populated mixed cultural area and add the catalyst of a ban on a race of dogs is irresponsible.  It displays an inability to address an issue, real or perceived, using logic and reason - supposedly the attributes which differentiate homo sapiens from the other dominions on this planet.  If a human is unable to use reason on a foundation of fact, then he is handicapped - the instinctive social rules native to other species have been suppressed to the point where modern humanity appears to be unable to differentiate between right and wrong or good and evil.

Breed banning, canine genocide, canicide if you prefer, is most definitely wrong.  And evil.