This may have been covered elsewhere, so please refer me to another thread if you know of it. On NPR last night—maybe, I like to hear the range of radio politics—was mention of a proposed ordinance in San Francisco big surprise that would ban all pit bulls. There are something like 7K of them, 6% of that population representing 50+% of all dog bites in the city. There was omething about CA law allowing neutering requirements already, but I missed that.
Banning and controlling dog breeds has always made me a little jumpy for its distinct parallels to gun control. For instance, in some communities where pit bulls are vilified, the incidents of dog bites from other breeds exceeds theirs. (Rotts, German Shepherds, Dobies, etc.) Turns out that some major cities do already have bans on pits, including Denver.
And then there's the lousy breeding factor, where you just end up with junkyard dogs. Are their owners more liable, and should you have to show your AKC papers to get a pit bull license? There are better reasons to lie awake at night than this, but it's a vexing issue. Any thoughts?
Banning and controlling dog breeds has always made me a little jumpy for its distinct parallels to gun control. For instance, in some communities where pit bulls are vilified, the incidents of dog bites from other breeds exceeds theirs. (Rotts, German Shepherds, Dobies, etc.) Turns out that some major cities do already have bans on pits, including Denver.
And then there's the lousy breeding factor, where you just end up with junkyard dogs. Are their owners more liable, and should you have to show your AKC papers to get a pit bull license? There are better reasons to lie awake at night than this, but it's a vexing issue. Any thoughts?
