Mon
Dec 3 2007
10:22 am

There are some problems with this, although I have to admit I'm no fan of this kind of dog...Problems like the fact that the term "Pit Bull" doesn't actually represent any particular breed of dog.

So what exactly would we be banning?

This is an emotional issue that I encourage the City Fathers to think about before they do anything. I don't know if their bark is worse than their bite, but sometimes our local lawmakers can give us a cure worse than the disease.

I absolutely agree, WC.

More often than not any legislation based on emotional response is a mistake. It could be especially so in this case, when there is not even such a breed as a "pit bull." Given that the experts in veterinary medicine tell us that only AT MAX 20% of the likelihood of a bite is attributable to breed of dog, that at least 80% of it has to do with environmental factors, and add to that the fact that we're not really even talking about a breed of dog, and it adds up to an emotional response. Period.

I'm not at all sure this "breed"-targeted legislation is a good idea. I'm pretty sure it's a bad idea. As the veterinary medicine experts mentioned in the piece in RCN, laws are better aimed at behavior of dogs and their owners than at breeds of dog.

I have no problem with a Mayor wanting to be proactive and enact laws that would protect the citizens of his town. But there is a vital difference in being proactive and jumping the gun.

WC's warning makes sense here - Rockwood needs be be very careful they're not providing a cure worse than the disease. Or providing a solution then searching for the problem.

RB

I think Brillo wants to do

I think Brillo wants to do good things, so don't get me wrong, but putting another vague ordinance in the hands of enforcement may cause more problems than it cures.

How do you ban a breed that technically doesn't exist?

And what about Rottweilers?

Or Pomeranians?

I'm sure Brillo intends well...

I don't doubt that. He wants to protect the citizens - and he wants to be proactive. That is fairly obvious from his statements in RCN. I just don't believe that jumping the gun with vague legislation is proactive - it's only jumping the gun.

Rottweilers. And Doberman Pinschers. And German Shepherd (I've seen a number of those turned mean). And Mastiffs. And those bastardly little nippy Chihuahuas. etc...

RB

Just a little info...

I am the owner of a full American Pit Bull Terrier, a Pit/Boxer/American Bulldog mix and a Sharpei/heeler mix. My family also belongs to an organization called Vol State Bulldogger Association. We gather every month in Lebannon where our dogs compete in sporting events such as weight pulls, hang time, treadmill races and conformation shows. The goal of the organization is to educate - owners on being good pit parents, the public on the good qualities of the breed, individuals who previously fought their dogs on better ways to interact with the breed, and governmental agencies on the ineffectiveness (is that a word?)of BSL (breed specific legislation). Bottom line is we already have the laws - leash law, owner responsibilty, vicious dog laws, etc. The problem is enforcement. Why pass more laws when we are not enforcing the ones we already have? I promise you people that already break the leash law will break the Pit Ban laws. It is a matter of social responsibility and respect for the legal system. There are some great on-line resources concerning the Pit Bull. Please google "Bless the Bullies" in Cookeville. Jodi has some great info on the breed. I will not deny the potential for problem, but the owner is the problem not the breed. I grew up with several Pits and have owned 5 as an adult. There has only been one that caused a problem. He was deaf and as he got old, he lost his sight. He would break out of the fence and fight with the neighbors dog. We tried everything to keep him in the fence. Finally, at 10 years of age, completely deaf and mostly blind, we had him put to sleep. He was a danger to himself and others. This was the responsible thing to do. I had been his mom longer than I had been mother to my son. It was not easy but it is what had to be done. I could not re-home him and take a chance that he would not be under control. I was not very popular when I commented that the owner of the dogs that recently killed the girl in West Knoxville should be charged and that they should be put down. The truth is that there must be consequences for the action. Not a removal of the item used. Example - drunk driver kills family of four. Ban cars and alcohol!

Makes no sense to me!
Wylamena

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid / TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.