In a follow up article in the Mississauga News, January 8, 2008 09:43 PM - Despite the pleas of animal lovers far and wide, the City of Mississauga is taking the proper route of action in the way it is handling the Rambo case. Here is a link to the full story.
I would like to give kudos to the reporter at Mississauga News for not choosing the sensational side of things.
It is interesting to note there were many letters and emails most criticizing the legislation that will ultimately be the demise of Rambo.
The most profound statement in the article, in my opinion anyway, was this;
The legislation came about because of regular reports of pit bulls attacking other dogs and people. Ultimately, too many came to fear the dog.
To my knowledge, this statement has never before been revealed by mainstream media. This statement slices to the very core of this issue!
How is it that a legislation can be based on regular media reports? Of course, when all people hear are stories about alleged 'pit bull' attacks, they are going to equate these are the only dogs that actually attack. Would it not make sense then that if this is the only type of dog you hear about in the news, they should be something to be feared?
So, the logistics of this situation may be reduced to this. Main stream media regularly report of 'pit bulls' attacking. People become fearful of 'pitbulls'. Remember this is a long media campaign, not just in the past few years. Every dog has had it's day.. The government them pick up on the fact that 'pitbulls' are something people are fearful of, so let's create a legislation that targets an undefinable type of dog through a ban. The public will then in turn be fooled into thinking public safety was being threatened but the government has taken the public under it's mighty wing and provided protection from dog attacks.
That my friends is the foundation behind breed bans! No science, no data, no fact and certainly no sense! The Mississauga News nailed it. Rambo and his owners are yet another victim of this unfair, unjust ridiculous legislation.
Did the owner have fault in this situation? Yes, I believe she did have fault in acquiring a dog that was a prohibited dog (born after Nov 29, 2005). Yes, she did fail to contain him, therefore he was picked up by animal control. Remember, had this dog been of a different shape or coat type such as longer hair, wire hair etc., this owner would at worst had a fine and pound fee. Likely the animal control officer would have been in the Christmas spirit and both owner and dog would have been home for turkey dinner, getting off with a warning. Unfortunately for Rambo, he fit someone's description of something that 'they at Queen's Park' don't want around anymore...