Letters to the Editor
-
Denial
Let's see...2 pit bulls BREAK into a home, maul a woman while she SLEEPS, and kill her dog. Hmmmm. Would one of the many pit bull defenders on this thread please direct me to a story in the last 5, 10, even 15 years with similar facts NOT involving a pit bull?
Come on, folks. This is a perfect example of the agressiveness of this breed. It IS the dog, not the owner. Sure, I have no doubt that these 2 dogs were more than likely abused and mistreated. But come on! Look at the facts. These dogs went out of their way to maul someone. A person who was sleeping for crying out loud. Please show me another breed that would do (or even has done) such a thing.
I have had dogs all my life, and I completely understand the devotion, and undying love and appreciation that pit owners have for their dogs. I truly do. But the facts are the facts. And for all the bluster from pit defenders that Jack Russels bite more, or chihuahuas bite more, or German Shepards or Chows, or whatever, for some reason there are never incidents like this involving those breeds. Banning pits makes sense. And if pit defenders think about it altruistically, banning pits means those pits who are tortued, who are abused, who are forced to fight, will never have to go through such an awful life.
And for those people who say, well, if you ban pits (and other breeds who have been SPECIFICALLY bred over generations to fight and or kill other animals) , then people will just find another breed to force to fight, I would say, really? Why hasn't that already happened then? We live in an unforgving capitalistic society - if money could be made forcing, say, golden retrievers to fight (obviously a favorite breed to cite by pit defenders based on this thread), it would be happening. Plain and simple, it hasn't happened because there are very few other breeds that have been specifically bred like the pit - to fight, and to be extremely aggressive. (I'm trying to think of that breed that was responsible for the mauling to death of the woman in San Francisco several years ago - another example of such a breed.)
You would be hard-pressed to find a bigger dog (or animal) lover than me. I routinely quote St. Francis to people who ridicule my love for animals, or who don't inderstand what the fuss is over animal cruelty or animal abuse. And I'm agnostic. My wife and I have rescued/adopted so many dogs/cats over the years, and found homes for them, that I have lost count. And I have known many pits who are the sweetest, goofiest dogs when around people. BUT, their breeding and inherent characteristics (it IS nature, not nurture), their unpredictability, and most of all their potential for incredibly serious and fatal damage should they decide to attack, all add up to a common-sense conclusion, that for safety reasons, the breed must be banned.
And I know that pit defenders will never accept this. Just as I probably wouldn't if someone told me that there was a ban in the works to to get rid of black and tan coonhounds (I have one). The difference? The stats and facts back up the banning of pitbulls, NOT the banning of B&T coonhounds.
I'm not sure who said it first, but facts are stubborn things....