Letters to the Editor
-
Your Article Made Me Cry
Last week, at age 11, my parents’ dog died – a Pit Bull/Amstaff Mix and reading the article made me think of him.
Jack was the BEST DOG EVER! Sweet, happy, friendly, huggable. He loved everyone. Any guest in the house was likely to find Jack sitting on their lap (somehow this 70lb dog had the ability to sneak onto your lap – and you didn’t have to be on the sofa – you could be sitting on something as small as a lawn chair). And it wasn’t just people he loved. He slept with the family cat and enjoyed the company of other dogs (including my mini- daschund who he allowed to steal food out of his bowl while he was eating – wagging his tail at her while she did it). And as he got older, all he really wanted to do was (1) sit on your lap while you read or watched TV, or (2) take a nap with you, sleeping under the covers with his body touching yours the entire time. He was such a baby.
It makes me sad that I’ll probably never own a pit bull. For while I don’t mind the comments from strangers (their loss), there are practical concerns like homeowners insurance that will likely keep me from getting one. And while I am happy with my wiener dog and my big hairy mutt, my best friend was a pit bull.
-
response to Bagley - city issues, continued
Like I said, I like dogs fine. Unfortunately, as many have pointed out here, many dog owners, sharing a special relationship with their dog, lose perspective on the tax dogs place on others around them. I think that's more acute in a city environment, though I can see why unleashed dogs could be a special problem in the country.
As for dogs' own happiness, no, I'm no expert and I don't think I struck that tone. That said, you make a bit of my point for me: to be well acclimated to the city, dogs require an awful lot of human support, more than many people are prepared to give. Place blame how you like for that, it's still the fact.
And that is the heart of the problem, for dogs generally and powerful dogs specifically: too many people underestimate a dog's needs and impact on others, and overestimate their own commitment. Maybe that's no different in the city or country. But my hunch is that in cities the demands on owners are higher, and thus less regularly met.
-
Why does everyone assume BSL means extermination?
It's weird how so many people treat breed-specific legislation (even some reluctant proponents) as legislation to actively exterminate all members of a breed.
But even this article says that much/most/all of it is nothing of the kind. If that's the case, I simply find opposition towards BSL impossible to defend.
Why not mandatory training classes to owners of dangerous breeds? How about mandatory sterilization of dangerous breeds unless the owner is a licensed breeder? How about required registration for dangerous breeds? How about required animal control protocols for complaints or incidents involving dangerous breeds that are more rigorous than those with say, a Dachshund?
The problem with regulating all dogs using the above is that it is simply violates common sense to regulate a Toy Poodle as if it is dangerous. But it does not violate common sense to treat a Pit Bull that way.
I agree with the anti-BSL arguments that a lot of people want to just reflexively ban Pit Bulls without looking at the facts. Fine. Let's compile the facts and look at them. Let's take a gander at reported significant attacks (say, attacks requiring an emergency room visit), ratios of significant attacks by breed, etc.
We might find all sorts of things. We might find that dog weight has a far stronger correlation to dangerous attacks than breed. We might find that house confinement has a stronger correlation to canine violence than breed.
Let the chips fall where they may. Maybe, in defiance of common sense, Pit Bulls will turn out to be misunderstood-- lovers not fighters, exemplars of everything that is good in dogdom. It could be that Beagles will turn out to be vicious child maulers, responsible for an inordinate amount of fatalities.
Any resultant BSL/canine legislation should reflect those realities. And if Pit Bulls turn out to be animals that cause an inordinate amount of human damage, maybe, just maybe, we should let municipalities do the job that people expect of them-- enacting laws to protect their citizens.
-
Pit bulls
This article is a little over-simplified, like most things that people write based solely on their personal experience. Like a lot of articles on Salon.
I am the owner of a 9 year old pit bull I have raised from 8 weeks. She is aggressive toward other dogs, lunges at kids on scooters, and wants nothing more than to sleep under the covers. She is one of the best things that has ever happened to me, but I am fully aware of her unpredictability, strength and capacity to do harm. I reduce the risk of her hurting anyone or anything by walking her on leash only. I'd buy insurance if I needed to in order to obtain a license for her.
It's true that people cannot be trusted to own anything responsibly. Some people let their liscensed pit bulls run in their yards or go to dog parks (notice that's the context of the attacks); some people leave their licensed semi-automatic weapons lying around so their kids can shoot each other.
However we live in a society that chooses individual liberty over regulating choice in the interest of common good in many cases even where the risks are massive. Like climate change, for instance. SUV ban or gas tax anyone? Most of you would likely say that if you are willing to pay the price you should get to keep the car that is contributing to the destruction of your own children's patrimony.
Calm down, advocate spay/neuter laws, insurance and responsible ownership programs and prosecute breeders and people who fight dogs. And if you own a dog, no matter how small and harmless, walk it on leash and by all means cross the street when you see a pit bull coming.