|
I hate reactionary laws like this. They get voted onto the books by government hoping to placate the rampaging parental hordes after some toddler gets mauled or killed. It is a farce. It never gets featured in the story by the press, but my spidey-sense tells me that 9 times out of 10 the toddler who got mauled was probably doing something unsupervised with the dog that they should not have been. Come on, we've all seen some kids around dogs. They'll pull the dogs tail or grab ears or tufts of fur and yank. Some dogs will tolerate this, some dogs won't. There can be good dogs or bad dogs of any breed or any mix. The idea of killing dogs just because they are a certain genetic background is born of ignorance. We should be focusing on enforcing the laws that do exist. As a previous poster pointed out, the owner of a dog that mauls should be charged with reckless endangerment, etc.
Hopefully this will be stopped soon. And I am sure that the law is being enforced in a racially motivated way as stated by the vet in the article. I bet if a city councilman's family had a American Pit Bull Terrier it would be classified as a terrier and left alone. But dogs owned by minorities who are likely to give in to police pressure are certainly pit bulls and killed outright.
__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---
|