Re: [PyrNet-L] Debate

[Magic Moment <magicm@ameritech.net>]

> My worry about a breed-specific ban is that it becomes the "wedge" that is
> later used to justify ever increasing restrictions.  As someone with big
> dogs, I fear that one day I'll be either prohibited from keeping such a
> large dog in the city, or that I'll basically be forced to take my dog in
> public only when he's shackled and muzzled.  The trickiest part up here was
> that the Pit Bull is not a CKC recognized breed, so our Kennel Club didn't
> fight the ban too much because our charter doesn't actually cover non-CKC
> recognized breeds.  That was a mistake, I think.  We did have a
> representative on a board that was convened to adjudicate decisions on
> whether a dog was a Pit Bull, or whether Pit Bulls already owned by
> residents were considered "safe enough" to remain.  A dog was "safe enough"
> if it passed a Canine Good Citizen test.  There were a few places making
> some bucks by holding CGC tests in the weeks before the adjudication
> deadline.
> 
Breed specific is a problem - first "Pit Bull" is a term, not a breed(at
least here)
I feel that a vicious dog law non specific to breed is much more
effective. I know a few dogs around here that are of breeds that never
come up in those laws that are truly viscious but, would not fall under
the law.


> While I don't think that we should allow people to have vicious dogs that
> they can't control, I can't see banning a breed because of the problems of a
> few representatives of that breed.
> 
This is a case of one or two bad owners ruining it for the rest. The
city I live in tried to ban virtually the whole working group - was neat
when a bunch of us walked into city council withour "pussycats". This
was after a man got bit by a GSD and ya know GSD's weren't even on the
banned list.

Lisa
Magic Moment