Sunday, August 21, 2005

Denver bans pit bulls, does that make sense?

Denver has joined a growing list of cities to ban pit bulls and other breeds considered dangerous to humans. Some people think all pit bulls are dangerous and other content that the dogs are not the problem, but that the people that train them to fight are to blame. With pit bulls, since they have extremely powerful jaws and when they do attack people (or even other animals) they can maim or even kill very quickly. These attacks often make the news, perhaps convincing people that the dogs are more dangerous than they really are. Any dog abused and raised to fight is a risk to the rest of society, so such a ban seems like it will not really solve the problem.

I think what would make far more sense is to make much higher civil and criminal penalties for raising such dogs to fight and also for fighting them. Otherwise, such bans will not really do that much good, since the people that are the problem are not going to care if they break such a ban and raise dogs to fight. If a few people are caught doing that and as a result spend 10 years in prison, then others may decide not to try it.

Here is the story from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pitbulls2aug02,0,7050662.story?coll=la-home-nation

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've never quite understood the logic of banning a particular breed of dog. Pit bulls are certainly capable of inflicting more damage than poodles, but a poodle could give rabies to someone. How would such an ordinance be enforced -- is there a test for "pit bullness"?

It makes more sense to punish people who use dogs for fights, like you suggested, or who refuse to control their animals, letting them run loose to go after people or other animals.

10:07 PM, August 23, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home