Reply To: Pitbulls…why?

Strega wrote:

In the Uk we banned pit bulls about 15 years ago. I don’t think much happened, and there were lots of claims that it was the owners responsibility, etc. To be honest, I think a certain type of person seeks a dog that reflects their image. If you took pit bulls out of the equation, another breed would replace it in terms of aggressive owners.

It’s more likely that if you enforced a leash law and added dog parks where they can run free if they’re safe, coupled with simply eliminating (putting down) dogs that are not on leashes and roam free to potentially endanger people, you’d go a long way towards reducing dog violence. Banning an entire breed is prohibition, and you guys don’t do well with prohibition.

It seems to me that the “It’s the owner that’s the problem” approach is doomed to failure from the start. It’s true that some breeds are more of a problem than others. Rottweilers come in second. Once you weed out the fighting breeds and guard dog breeds and the very large breeds, the public would be much safer. I’d much rather have to face a large golden retriever attack than a pitbull or rottie attack. People could be encouraged to get (or shamed into getting) progressively smaller dogs. Supposedly, people like dogs for their companionship. Is the companionship of a beagle or fox terrier less worthwhile than that of a pitbull, rottweiler, dogo argentino, or presa canario?

And let’s not forget: getting rid of a breed isn’t the same as causing the extinction of a species. It’s just getting rid of a certain set of traits in the species canis familiaris.

Many pitbulls are sweethearts their entire lives. Others are sweethearts until the day they maim or kill someone, often someone small or elderly.

Your ideas tend to handle take the approach of “solving” the problem after it’s happened. I’m more for preventing the problem in the first place.