National Post Pit Bull Slip up?
2012/08/01 § 17 Comments
I really don’t like to get involved in the great pit bull debate, but there are times where I must step in and say something.
This morning, the National Post’s Barbara Kay posted an article addressing Ontario’s Pit Bull ban. (Bill 16)
This blog post isn’t going to address all the horse-poop quoted in the article, but the fact that when first published, the photo included atop was this:
The photo has since been changed, but not before many commenters had pointed out that the dog pictured on the right, is in fact, a boxer.
This is the problem with breed bans; what actually constitutes a pit bull?
A pit bull as defined by Bill 16, The Dog Owners’ Liability Act, is quoted as such:
“pit bull” includes,
(a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); (“pit-bull”)
So really, a ‘pitbull’ can be any breed of dog that looks ’substantially similar’ to breeds (a) to (d).
There you have it.
If Mrs. Kay wants to describe the dog on the right as a pit bull, she has every right to. She obviously believed the dog looked ‘substantially similar’ to the Staffordshire Terrier sitting on the left; enough so to post the photo in an article without a second thought.
Therein lies the problem…