When I first started volunteering at Toronto Animal Services South, the anti-Pit Bull law in Ontario was not on my radar. I had no previous dealings with Pit Bulls and I didn't know anyone who had a Pit Bull. I'd heard grumblings, mostly from big media organizations, about what evil dogs they were but didn't really pay them a lot of attention - no more than I would've paid attention to news about, for example, hurricanes in some other part of the world. Yeah, it was a problem but it wasn't my problem.

That's not to say the constant negative media stereotyping against Pit Bulls didn't affect me at all. It did. Also, though I never had any direct dealings with Pit Bulls, I'd seen a few of them in the neighbourhood pulling around their crack dealing/using owners and gangsta wannabes and that certainly coloured my impression of those dogs.

My attitude back then towards Pit Bulls wasn't o-my-god-save-me-from-those-jaws-of-death but if I was given a multiple choice on the level of comfort I'd have with a Pit Bull in my house, I'd probably have chosen c. Sleep with one eye open.

Stereotyping is a funny thing. On the one hand, it enables us humans to make snap decisions about stuff so we don't have to approach everything like we're perpetual babes in the woods with no life experiences to draw upon whatsoever. For instance, tomorrow, I'm going to go to work and assume all the people there, even the ones I've never met before, speak English. That assumption makes things a lot easier and more pleasant for everyone involved.

On the other hand, stereotyping can blind us to reality. So sure, I'd read all those news reports about Pit Bull attacks but somehow I'd forgotten that any breed of dog, in the wrong circumstances, can be dangerous as well. And sure, I'd seen the Pit Bulls belonging to the neighbourhood machismo-seeking dirtbags but I'd also seen Pit Bulls heeling nicely beside couples in their matching Mountain Equipment Co-op Goretex jackets. Why had I forgotten about them? Or rather, why had I discounted the well-heeled Pitties and instead given more negative weight to the untrained, spike collared dogs?

I was lazy, that's why. I let other people's hysteria tell me how I should think. Instead of trusting my own experiences and coming to my own conclusions, I was swayed by someone else' fear and hate.

Defending the lives of innocent Pit Bulls is not an excuse for dangerous dogs. I would no more want dangerous dogs in my neighbourhood than I would want dangerous people roaming those streets. Actually, no, that's not true. I'd much rather face down a crazy aggressive Pit Bull than a crazy aggressive human and I've seen more than enough of the latter and almost none of the former.

You're probably a million times more likely (maybe I should fact check this number) to be squashed by a car driven by a lawyer who used to be a close advisor to the premier than to be involved in a dangerous Pit Bull encounter and yet we don't ban car drivers or lawyers or politicians. We wouldn't even dare suggest it.

We encounter death, injury and suffering from any number of sources but it's always the marginalized groups, especially those who do not have a voice, who cannot defend themselves, who are stereotyped the worst, assigned vastly disproportionate blame and receive the most undeserved punishment.

Because of that stereotyping, too many Ontarians applauded when politicians enacted their morally corrupt anti-Pit Bull laws as a mindless distraction to the many more real and pressing problems facing our province. Those laws have lead to the killing of hundreds, if not thousands of innocent dogs in this province by municipal animal control agencies based on appearances alone. And hundreds more, many taken away from their loving families, have been exiled to other more humane provinces because staying here would have been a death sentence.

In my book, there is something terribly wrong with a person who would try to gain political advantage by stereotyping, scapegoating and punishing the innocent. Isn't that what scumbag dictators do?

The provincial elections are coming up in Ontario. I'm not going to say you should decide who to vote for based just on this single canine welfare issue - of course our government is about much more than this - but please at least consider the unfairness of the anti-Pit Bull law, and those who created it and still support it, when deciding who you will support.

I'm not suggesting who to vote for but if you live in, say, Parkdale-High Park and this issue sways you to vote for, say, Cheri Dinovo (who is trying to get rid of the anti-Pit Bull law) instead of the other candidates (whoever they are) then good.

The following is a repost from October 2008.


B had a bad record. Her owner let her off leash at a park and B started a dog fight. The owner was warned by city officials to keep B on leash and muzzled when in public.

Maybe the owner misunderstood the instructions because he brought B to another park and let her off leash where she got into another dog fight. This time B was taken away from the owner. The owner wanted B back but before that could happen, he had to once again promise to keep the dog on leash and muzzled. Once he agreed to this and because there were also extenuating circumstances leading to leniency on compassionate grounds (for the owner, not the dog), B was returned to him.

He then took B to a park and released her off leash. B got into another dog fight. B was once again taken away from the owner and placed in confinement at Toronto Animal Services South where she was due to be euthanized. Generally, unless there are other more egregious considerations, dogs who get into dog fights, especially ones who get into fights because of irresponsible owners, aren't automatically given a death sentence but because B was considered a Pit Bull type dog, a death sentence was what she got. B was the first dog to be "tried" in court under the anti-Pit Bull section of the Dog Owner's Liability Act (DOLA) and someone wanted to prove a point.

But again the owner wanted B back and decided to appeal the decision.

An appeal can be very drawn out and since it didn't cost the owner anything, he delayed the process as long as he could by not returning phone calls, not showing up for court appearances.

So, B was kept at TAS for over three years. Her owner never visited her. She had no visitors at all and, due to her legal situation, she was never allowed outside. She spent almost all her time locked in a 1 meter by 2 meter concrete kennel. Occasionally, one of the sympathetic staffers or volunteers would take her into one of the empty rooms in the facility and play with her for a few minutes but other than that, B was kept in isolation.

I didn't know any of this the first time I accidentally stumbled upon her. I walked into the wrong room trying to find a vet tech and instead I saw what looked to me like a big Staff Terrier wagging its tail and quietly looking up at me as I walked up to her kennel. She looked like a mass of muscle stuck on four spindly legs with a football for a head. When she saw I wasn't going to leave right away, she wagged her tail harder and her hind end wiggled like a puppy's. I extended my hand and she tried to nudge it with her nose through the mesh of her door. I patted her nose a bit and then turned away to leave. Usually, when a person walks away from a kenneled dog, the dog will bark hoping for more attention but she just looked at me and kept wagging her tail.

Later, I asked about the Staff Terrier and got B's history as stated in the above. I wanted to take some photos of her so I asked if I could be there when she was taken out of her kennel for her next exercise period.

She turned out to be a playful dog, very happy to have someone keeping her company. B proudly carried around her only toy, a squeaky ball, and dropped it at my feet and waited for me to kick it so she could fetch it again. She was full of pent up energy and the only time she stayed in one spot was when I scratched her back and then she happily wiggled her hind quarters. When her time was up, she obediently followed the staff member back into her cage and only gave a single cry of disappointment when her cage door was shut.

I had a hard time reconciling the behaviour of this dog with its living situation. If I were left in solitary confinement for months on end with nothing to do except stare at the walls and floor, I'd go crazy. I'm not sure, but I think that holds true for most warm blooded animals. The grace with which B handled her isolation truly amazed me. Not only did she not go cage crazy, she remained calm and friendly and her constantly happy wagging tail was a sure sign of her resilient personality.

The case dragged on until, finally, it was discovered that the owner had left town with no forwarding address and had basically abandoned B to the city. The staff at TAS tried to get the kill order reversed, saying that B was not a threat to people and would be sent to a Pit Bull rescue facility where she would be properly supervised and kept away from other dogs. For a while, there was hope. But in the end, with political pressure to adhere to the breed ban, the request was turned down.

On a cold afternoon in February, after spending the last three years of her life in solitary confinement, B was killed.