I was just over at Brent's place reading his excellent post about sources and how important it is to determine credibility before floating your boat on them.
It reminded me of something else that I find very difficult to understand about BSL.
In 2012, after a quarter-century of "breed" banning and restrictions, we have an abundance of data, reports, scientific papers, bite statistics, hospital records - a figurative mountain of good hard information just waiting to be mined. We have expert commentary, Committee hearings, debates in legislatures, court decisions and more. Compared with when I got seriously involved in 2004, the body of evidence is so huge as to be almost embarrassing in its richness.
The best thing about it is that it overwhelmingly condemns BSL as wrong-headed, unworkable, expensive, counter-productive and based on fiction.
Here's where I start doing 360s inside my head.
If you are a journalist and under pressure lately because the great leveler has allowed lowly pamphleteers to get their message out there with the big boys, wouldn't you want your work to be superior and unassailable? We all play in the wonderful soup called the internet these days, hit-and-miss, catch-as-catch-can, it's absolutely thrilling; I'm so glad to have been alive during its birth and growth that I am in awe a lot of the time.
Like most of us, I was just a dog owner when this started in Ontario, just a person who loved dogs, had dogs and knew a bit about them. One of the things I knew was that BSL was a crock and must not be allowed to stand.
But if you are a real, live journalist why on Earth would you want to look like somebody who is easily gulled by quoting crackpots and presenting their nonsense as "evidence"? Even Johnny Lowbrow is laughing at you and not only because you are way behind the wave on this one.
A greater mystery is why any public official, be they a town councillor, Congressman, MPP or Mayor, elected to be the voice of reason and manage affairs, would consider BSL to the point of even mentioning it to anyone. It has proved to be a failure everywhere it has been tried. So why would an elected officer tout a failed policy? Is there something wrong with telling a bite victim who is hot for vengeance because it always has to be somebody's fault and somebody always has to pay for every goddamned thing that happens to them in life, to chill out and move on?
If necessary, in serious cases, charge the dog owner, get restitution, whatever. Copy Calgary's successful program. Why would anybody deliberately bring on the inevitable shit-storm that follows this scourge called BSL around, when calmer heads can prevail and achieve better results?
Do they want to look like idiots? Or is Kory's letter having undue influence on them?
I don't know about you but I am totally fed up with talking about BSL. Can we move on? Do something positive? Ignore the whiners and ignoramuses for a change?
Maybe it speaks to not knowing who is a credible source. Maybe Brent is right.