Should Certain Dog Breeds Be Banned?
Liberty Saturday, September 24th, 2011
By Buck Sexton, The Blaze
There has been a surge of highly-publicized dog attacks this week, including one that was nearly fatal for a toddler in Maine. Yesterday alone in San Diego, three people were hospitalized for pit bull attacks, as was a toddler in Massachusetts after being mauled.
And today in the Portland Daily Sun, a writer titled a piece “How We Could Ban Pit Bulls.”
All of this raises the question: is it ever right to completely ban a breed of dog?
It’s a more complicated issue than it seems at first. Some states don’t allow municipalities to enact breed specific bans, while cities such as Miami and Denver already have blanket bans in place. Given the recent headlines and opinion pieces, dog breed bans are up for discussion across the country.
There are over 78 million owned dogs in the United States, and 39% of households own at least one dog, according to the Humane Society. Of that massive number, there only a few dozen fatal dog attacks in the U.S. each year.
But dog-kills-man stories get major national headlines, and that alone can result in bad laws. Even in generally freedom-loving Texas, legislation was prepared earlier this year that would have made owning a pit bull a felony (it did not pass). The bill was named ”Justin’s Law” after a young boy who was tragically mauled to death by two pit bulls in 2009.
To read more, visit: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-certain-dog-breeds-be-banned/
Short URL: https://reteaparty.com/?p=3462
Here are four scenarios:
1) bad dog + bad owner
2) bad dog + good owner
3) good dog + bad owner
4) good dog + good owner
Scenario #1 is of particular interest. It’s a lot easier and more effective to just eliminate the breed to take care of scenario #1. That way we could all walk around and not have to size up dogs when we cross their paths.. it would be one less worry in life… With scenario #2 there is no guarantee that the dog will be good all the time if it’s BRED TO BE BAD!! Scenario #3 sucks for the dog but at least it doesn’t endanger toddlers and old people. Scenario #4 exists all over the place but Scenarios #1 and 2 mess it up… Essentially, if everybody wants to be “free” to allow scenario #1 then I should be free to go after the bad owner any way I want to, even before the dog attacks somebody and that is barbaric…
Max – There’s no such thing as the scenarios you presented since there’s no such thing as a “good” or a “bad” dog. There are simply dogs that are either well trained or not. Some breeds are instinctually going to do what comes to them naturally if they aren’t trained or are poorly trained. Change the scenarios to “bad child” + bad parent or “good child” + bad parent. Doesn’t work, does it? It takes a person who cares about the well being of the animal to make it be considered “good” the animal is always going to be simply themselves without proper training.
Two scenarios only…
1.Dog / Bad owner
2.Dog / Good owner
I think people should be banned from having ANY dog after their dog attacks someone. It is owner culpability…not dogs that are the problem.
Here is the website for the American Kennel Club list of dog breeds.
http://www.akc.org/breeds/complete_breed_list.cfm
There is no such breed as “pit bull.” Kind of tough to ban them.
My son and daughter-in-law own a “pitty”. I was reluctant at first, because of the bad press these dogs get, but I have come to love that dog. She is one of the most loving animals I’ve had the pleasure to know. I never thought I would be comfortable being near a “Pit Bull”, much less allow one to lick my face, (one of her favorite greetings).
It really does come down to ownership. Any dog can be aggressive under the right circumstances.