Walking a Pit Bull is Like Carrying a Gun, Texas Legislator Says

cygnet1
Feb 26, 2009 4:30 PM CST

Children have no business walking pit bulls.  These are strong, tenacious dogs who tend to be (at least) dog aggressive.  If a pit bull attacks another dog and the person walking or caring for it is a child, what is that child supposed to do? 

But, ultimately, this isn’t the solution.  The solution is to make pit bulls rare and the only way to do that is with breed specific legislation controlling who can breed pit bulls.

Mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes and mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs would not hurt even a single responsible pit bull owner.  It would alleviate huge amounts of pit bull suffering and save the lives of (at least) several children each year.

Flag this comment

Paul the Magyar
Feb 27, 2009 4:44 PM CST

Pit Bulls were bred for aggression and power.  Why is anyone surprised when they are aggressive and powerful—and cause mischief because of their aggression and power?  Only an irrational person opposes needed protections.  But the irrational and the illiterate are all over the web opposing appropriate legislation to prevent tragedy.

Flag this comment

Michael S
Mar 6, 2009 11:36 AM CST

i think that it is wrong to ban pitbulls some are bred for agression yes but some people just are animal lovers walking there dog so i think that is bull shit

Flag this comment

Dana
Mar 9, 2009 9:00 AM CST

The problem with banning a breed of dog without regard to its temperament is it punishes the law abiding owners who properly raise and train their dogs, it wastes resources, and it simply does not work.  This type of law is based upon inaccurate media coverage (many times the media identifies a dog as a “pit bull,” when it was not a “pit bull” at all) and is against all reliable evidence.  Specifically, the ASPCA , American Humane , American Kennel Club , American Veterinarian Medical Association , The National Animal Control Association , National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors , Associate of Pet Dog Trainers , American Dog Owners Association , National Animal Interest Alliance , and many other well renowned animal groups and associations denounce breed specific legislation.  Indeed, many states have listened to these organizations and associations (who are obviously in a better position to understand animals than the politicians), and have banned breed specific legislations from the state.
It should be noted that a “pit bull” is not actually a breed of dog at all.  A “pit bull” actually comprises of several breeds of dogs, including, but not limited to, the American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.  These three breeds of dogs, on their own, are incredibly varied and could identify many breeds of dogs, “pit bull” or not.  Specifically, these three dogs’ specifications are as follows:

American Pit Bull Terriers are generally between 35 and 65 pounds, with a deep chest, flat muzzle, almond eyes, small to medium sized ears, smooth short coat, and of any color;
American Staffordshire Terriers are generally between 45-70 pounds, stocky, with a broad chest, well arched neck, short coat, and of any color; and
Staffordshire Bull Terriers are generally 24-38 pounds, medium build, stocky, short ears, round eyes, short smooth coat, and of any color. 

What this definition reveals is any medium sized dog between 24-70 pounds, of any color, with short hair, varying shapes of eyes, ears, necks, and chests, could be considered a “pit bull.”  Why not simply train officers to identify vicious dogs based solely upon its temperament and not its looks, especially with looks as varied as those defined above? 

BSL is a slippery slope.  Once “pit bulls” are banned- once next?  Rottweilers?  Dobermans?  Chows?  Hounds?  The list will only grow longer and longer.  Discrimination and stereotypes never work, and are never the right answer.

Flag this comment