The Pit bull Debate
Many of us admit we are sick of all articles saying, 'Pit bulls are safe in the right hands.' There are many bullies that have been rescued from fight rings or criminals that have turned into loving pets. It's true that many of the fight rings and back yard breeders, breed for aggression and alter their genetics, but that isn't their typical dispusion.
Even back in the days when they breed them for fighting other dogs in the ring, they still had loving personalitites towards their families. Any that showed aggression were shot in the head immediately. That disputes the theory of what they are saying today of bullie attacking children and adults alike.
Letters in today's Globe and Mail:
"The pit-bull debate"
CASEY CONKLIN
Toronto -- Must we keep having this ridiculous argument about breed-specific legislation? John Barber (Pit Bull Ban Could Be Just A Start For A Safer City-- Toronto edition, Jan. 24) rightly points out that virtually every organization that has anything to do with dog breeding, training, welfare and safety is against such laws, but he fails to point out why. It's because, despite many such bans around the world, there is no evidence that they actually improve safety or reduce the number of dog-attack incidents.
More to the point, we know there are other working models, right here in Canada, that have greatly reduced the number of dog-bite incidents without instituting breed-specific laws. By strictly enforcingexisting bylaws regarding dog ownership (i.e. leashing and licensing) and instituting an educational campaign about responsible dog ownership, Calgary has seen adramatic decline in dog-bite incidents. Programs like that may not be as dramatic and politically expedient as breed bans, but they are very effective.
LYNN KAVANAGH
Toronto -- We've all heard the argument that pit bulls are dangerous dogs. A more thoughtful article would have explored the fact that most aggression on the part of pit bulls is the result of human interference and would have investigated what we can do about it.
These dogs are the victims. Some are brutalized and used for underground dog fighting and are bred for aggression. This has resulted in a distorted image of the breed as a whole.
Furthermore, the culture of machismo among some young males includes acquiring pitbulls.Many pit bulls are gentle and loving and can be socialized as such. A more appropriate and compassionate policy (but perhaps one less politically popular) would be to address the issues of breeding, training and the keeping of unneutered dogs rather than the quick fix of banning ownership of pit bulls.
RICHARD E. AUSTIN
Toronto -- John Barber's column pokes a hole in the old argument that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners.
A pit bull you see today on the streets of Toronto traces its genetic line back to a dog that managed to survive at least one battle with a bear. The logic of those who defend breeds known for their aggressive and dangerous disposition is beyond me.
Arethere not other breeds that offer the same companionship and joy but that don't carry within thema genetic time bomb?
KARIN APFEL
Bradford, Ont. -- Sure, why not increase public safety by banning dogs from cities? While we are at it, we can ban skateboards, bicycles and sharp, pointy sticks, all of which assuredly cause more injuries than dogs.
4 comments:
Karin Apfel seems like a person I would get a long with.
All these overly opinionated journalists are just in it for the attention they can gather for themselves by talking about controversial topics. Which in turns inspires them to write more "controversial" topics because they like the reaction they get. Wouldn't it be nice if no one ever wrote in and gave them that attention?
But the problem is, that too many people don't know the truth about dogs (or animals in general) and they are lead to believe that these journalists actually KNOW what they are talking about... And if a few responses can change a mind or two isn't that worth it? As long as they (the responses) are written without any passion that the journalist can feed off of and turn around afterwards.
*shrugs* it's a difficult balance I think.
You're exactly right Sharon. Stir the pot and wait for all the responses. If you've never read his articles before, I bet they will now.
Remember when news were facts of events that happened? Now they have to make news to hold peoples interest. Not enough Pit bull attacks to grab hold of so let's not let sleeping dogs lie. grrrr...
If your argument were true, then ALL dogs must be banned, for the ancestry of all dogs began with the wild dog, which is the most fierce, aggressive dog known. I too, was a little skeptic of pit bulls until I owned one. She is truly the best dog I have ever had. She has not an agressive bone in her body, however, her build is pure muscle and incredible. She loves all animals and people and I know there are many more of her out there that are never given a chance. Before you or anyone else out there condemn a breed, I challenge you to get to know one. Then you can make your decision.
Sharon and I were discussing that very same thing in an email one time. She wants a bullie.
Her fiance' was NOT a bullie liker and saw nothing in them that would make them appealing to anyone.
I told her that once he actually met some, they would win his heart and she wouldn't have to do a thing.
Well, he did meet some and it held true. He now wants a bullie because he has finally 'seen' the real side to them and not the propaganda the media fills peoples heads with.
If more people would really open their minds just to actually see what the bullie breeds are really like, they too would be won over. It might not be their dog of choice, but their minds and attutudes about the breeds would definitely change.
Post a Comment