Hardly a month goes by without some story about a child or elderly person being mauled by a pitbull. If it were alligators or ostriches, there's be laws passed banning them and everything would be done to exclude them from contact with people.
It wouldn't be "It's not the alligator (or ostrich) that's the problem, it's the owner."
But when a pitbull kills someone's toddler, dog lovers will say "It's not the pitbull, it's the owner that is the problem."
Well gee, that mental bumpersticker sounds great but it's something you say after a dog has done something horrific.
The dog owners who say that never really follow the platitude up with a proposed solution. Why? Because none of the obvious solutions are possible as long as people will blindly defend a breed that has the instincts and hair trigger reactions this breed has.
What would be the negative consequence of this breed disappearing from the face of the earth? And, please, let's remember it's only a breed—a very recent and artificial one—not a species. If every pitbull were replaced with an Irish Setter or Yorkie, even if they bit, a lot less damage would be done.
Another problem is that all too often, the worst elements of society seem attracted to this and some of the other large, aggressive breeds.
If you're willing to admit that we have a problem here, what is your solution?
Ok, so you want a ban on all large dogs. So that would include labrador retrievers. For instance, you would like to take away my labrador retriever. Her name is Googie, like google but without the L. She's six, hasn't hurt a person in her life except maybe by hitting them with her constantly wagging tail. She brings me joy and happiness, and has never been anything even resembling a paracite. You'd like to take her away from me, just because some other dogs attacked someone? Oh yeah, and did I fail to mention that she's my guide dog?
If you are really serious about this little ban idea, I want you to come straight out and say on this board that you want to take away the dogs who help the blind, the deaf, the wheelchair bound, the mentally disabled, those with neuological disorders. Say that you want to take away the police dog that tracks the criminals, the rescue dog that finds the lost hikers or the trapped victims, the drug dogs, the bomb sniffing dogs, and all the other working dogs. Come on, cop to it if you really have any balls about this ban. You want to ban a breed, you'll have to ban all of them.
Oh, and in case you want to try this route, I'll tell you right now, no you can not use little dogs as guide dogs. They have to be big because they have to be able to stop a person. A yorky can't stop a person with their body. If I am going to be hit by a car, my dog will, and has, throw herself against my legs to push me backward. No little dog can do that. No little dog could stop a criminal either, or reach light switches for a whellchair bound person.
So, before you continue with your diotribe, please make it clear to all of us that you want to take away all the service dogs in the world, simply because of thirty-five attacks by a breed that doesn't even exist.
Any policy would have necessary exceptions. Police dogs, dogs for the blind, etc. However, those dogs can be trusted to be under someone's strict control. Right now, anybody can have a large potentially dangerous dog no questions asked. Not so much as being required to post a bond or go through a training program or facing huge criminal penalties for a dog they can't control.
What's you plan to put an end to vicious dog attacks?
You have still yet to paint the entire breed as vicious and you will not succeed cause you have no valid evidence