02-02-2009, 11:30 AM
I feel that this bill has good intention but poor foundation. It is reactionary at best. This bill's main propulsion is fear. Unfortunately fear may once again prevail over people's rights.
My mother has worked for both the SPCA on the continent and the Humane Society here. Yes, pit bulls have gained notoriety in the past couple decades. Deservingly so? I cannot say for sure. I have seen the sweetest pit, to the meanest pit. But I have not seen anything in a pitbull that I have not seen in many other breeds of dogs ( minus the ability to lock it's jaws). Can we really say that without pitbulls people won't train other, equally as dangerous dogs to fight, attack or terrorize? Will the absence of pits suddenly change the minds of the unconscious people who use these animals in abusive, dangerous ways?
Owner accountability is a dire need for many animal issues, especially dog attacks, but the dogs are no more to blame than the thousands of responsible pit bull lovers.
I do not own a pit and never have. Do I want to take away an other's right to own and care for one? No. Do I want pitbull and other animal owners to be held more accountable, responsible? Of course.
I have some friends with the nicest, most well trained pit bull you'd ever wanna see. I feel as comfortable with my children around this dog as I do with them around our own dogs. This dog, this pit bull by the way, is like my friend's child, seriously. Now if this bill should pass, my friends would be asked to basically give up their child or be criminals. Unlike our state legislature, I cannot ask anyone to make sacrifices that I myself could not make.
All out bans on natural, living things has proven calamitous.
Lets take some responsibility for our own actions as grown human beings and realize to fix so many of our problems means fixing us, not nature.
Now sure, snakes are illegal here and they are animals too. But dogs are known for their closeness and companionship to man and their ability to communicate with us emotions and intellect. Not to mention dogs are well established here.
Is there not even a grandfather clause here for the thousands of "good" owners?
My mother has worked for both the SPCA on the continent and the Humane Society here. Yes, pit bulls have gained notoriety in the past couple decades. Deservingly so? I cannot say for sure. I have seen the sweetest pit, to the meanest pit. But I have not seen anything in a pitbull that I have not seen in many other breeds of dogs ( minus the ability to lock it's jaws). Can we really say that without pitbulls people won't train other, equally as dangerous dogs to fight, attack or terrorize? Will the absence of pits suddenly change the minds of the unconscious people who use these animals in abusive, dangerous ways?
Owner accountability is a dire need for many animal issues, especially dog attacks, but the dogs are no more to blame than the thousands of responsible pit bull lovers.
I do not own a pit and never have. Do I want to take away an other's right to own and care for one? No. Do I want pitbull and other animal owners to be held more accountable, responsible? Of course.
I have some friends with the nicest, most well trained pit bull you'd ever wanna see. I feel as comfortable with my children around this dog as I do with them around our own dogs. This dog, this pit bull by the way, is like my friend's child, seriously. Now if this bill should pass, my friends would be asked to basically give up their child or be criminals. Unlike our state legislature, I cannot ask anyone to make sacrifices that I myself could not make.
All out bans on natural, living things has proven calamitous.
Lets take some responsibility for our own actions as grown human beings and realize to fix so many of our problems means fixing us, not nature.
Now sure, snakes are illegal here and they are animals too. But dogs are known for their closeness and companionship to man and their ability to communicate with us emotions and intellect. Not to mention dogs are well established here.
Is there not even a grandfather clause here for the thousands of "good" owners?