Dear Editor:
Re: City should be cautious about changing dog bylaw, Letters to the Editor, The Record, June 22.
Ms. Diane McQuade's letter is concerning on a number of points.
I have no doubt that there was some sort of interaction between her dog and the "150-pound bull mastiff" she wrote about, but I definitely hesitate to describe it as an "attack."
Granted, I was not present to witness this interaction, but it is highly unlikely that any dog would "attack" another without some sort of initial warning signs - in the form of body language and vocalization. Going by Ms. McQuade's account, her dog was "minding her own business" and was apparently "attacked" out of the blue.
Again, I acknowledge I did not see this interaction, but I wonder if it was possible that the other dog had simply seen her dog and then ran up to Ms. McQuade and her dog, giving them both a startle?
Sometimes people who own dogs actually know very little (if anything) about dog body language and dog culture.
I regularly come across people who have little to no idea whatsoever how to properly handle a dog, whether it's a yapping, biting, unsocialized little monster (and there are a great many of these!) or an exuberant, jumping pup that has yet to understand his/her guardian is the boss.
They do not know what their dogs' behaviours mean. I am not trying to pick on Ms. McQuade, but if a "150-pound bull mastiff" actually "attacked" her dog by trying to "rip out another dog's stomach," then her dog would be dead on the spot, plain and simple.
That her dog is alive points to the fact that it was not an "attack." Ms. McQuade indicated that both she and her dog "survived."
This strikes me as a likely emotional response to a misunderstood interaction. In a real attack situation, a dog will go for the throat of its adversary, not the stomach - and there are plenty of warning signs before this happens.
What may have happened here is that Ms. McQuade's dog adopted a submissive response to the bull mastiff by laying on her back, thereby exposing her tummy.
This behaviour is also common in puppies and is a signal of complete submission to the other dog - who will then sniff the submissive dog, and nothing more will come of the meeting. This is what I suspect could have happened here.
Finally, please also know that the bull mastiff was not bred as a fighter that would rip out the stomachs of other dogs (as Ms. McQuade appears convinced), but as a loyal guardian of country estates!
Perhaps Ms. McQuade was thinking of the English bulldog, a dog originally bred for the bull-baiting ring - and quite ferocious - when she accused the bull mastiff of being a fighting dog? Please note that unlike its forebears, the present day English bulldogs have long since had this "gameness" and ferocity totally bred out of them. If she was thinking of "pit bulls" (a general name for a variety of different breeds), yes, it's true that some people use these dogs for fighting.
Are the dogs all "vicious" because some of them have a life of horror and torment? No, certainly not. Please remember that it's the human "monster" who carefully tortures each dog so that s/he will fight in the ring. Remember Michael Vick - one of these "monsters" who ran a dog-fighting operation?
Of the 47 dogs that were rescued from Vick's possession, the vast majority have been fully rehabilitated and now lead peaceful lives - the epitome of canine "good citizens."
Some have even earned a therapy dog designation and work at bringing joy to people as true goodwill ambassadors to their breed.
So, please - let's get the facts straight, and let's rescind the "vicious dog" bylaw. The state of Ohio recently de-listed pit bulls as a "vicious breed," and rightly so. Breed-specific legislation isn't the answer; information, education and responsible dog ownership is the right way to proceed.
Let's not make "monsters" out of some dogs - as in the vast majority of cases, it's the humans who are the monsters!
B.E. Kendall, New Westminster
