A sign of just how controversial the [pit bull] issue can be, animal services officials refuse to allow the media to photograph or have contact with the condemned dogs in their shelters."Make the public very upset"? And why on earth shouldn't we be "very upset" that a good dog — a dog that has never harmed nor threatened to harm anyone — may be scheduled to die because of a brindle coat or a broad head? Why on earth shouldn't a family rage that a beloved, trustworthy companion was taken from them on the basis of a law rooted in ignorance and hysteria?
"All it would do is make the public very upset about that particular one dog and whoever might own that dog -- it would potentially cause them further upset," says animal services manager Eletta Purdy.
We should all rage against such criminal idiocy — and against the politicians capable of enacting such flawed legislation. Don't imagine that their judgment will improve or their knowledge increase when they turn to laws aimed at people.
The blockquote above was taken from an article in the Toronto Sun: an article so badly written that the reporter never mentions the total number of dog bites recorded each year; and never mentions the fact that Ontario's lone dog-attack fatality of 2007 did not involve a pit bull. No, Ontario is not safer.
But if we hide the cruelty, maybe we can get away with it. Maybe we can disappear a few breeds and make Michael Bryant and like-minded bigots happy. And if the public doesn't raise too much of a fuss — well then, we'll flex our power a bit more.
No, Ontario is not safer.