2008 Woodie Awards
Should legislation be passed to address dangerous dogs?
Local government should have final say over attacks by aggressive dogs
April Havens
Editor in Chief
Issue date: 3/5/07 Section: Opinion
Tougher regulations and higher owner accountability for dog attack cases in Mobile would be more benificial to citizens than restrictive of personal dog ownership rights.
Opponents to pit bull bans and special regulations often cite concerns that the breed is being stereotyped for very few isolated incidents involving attacks, which are often perpetrated by neglected animals in the first place.
This is correct, but I'd rather see a few breeds stereotyped than a few infants devoured like Scooby snacks.
While I do not call for a blanket ban on entire breeds, I certainly encourage special regulations and punishments for the owners of more aggressive breeds of dogs.
Even though bulls are not scientifically proven to be more aggressive by nature, one cannot help but notice the rate of attacks are higher in certain breeds, including variations of the bull.
Regulations and punishments can include hefty fines for owners guilty of neglecting the animals or attempting to train the dogs as attackers.
Dogs are kind of like children. If an abusive father raises an angry son who goes on to assault or kill someone, the police don't come after the father, even if his initial neglect might have been the cause of the son's violent episode.
Realizing that bulls do not have the rationality of a person and therefore cannot be held as wholly responsible for attacks, I still believe a dog that has attacked once is likely to stir trouble again.
Short of sending attack dogs to doggie rehab, the best way to deal with vicious animals is to eliminate them. Yes, eliminate means to terminate, to kill, or "murder" (for the extreme animal rights activists reading this).
In cases where a dog acts out violently against a person, the local government should have the ability to determine the dog's fate, whether it be requiring the owner to constantly restrain the animal or death to the animal in cases where recurring attacks are expected.
I am more apt to believe, however, that promises made by most dog owners to keep dogs fenced, chained, etc., are not sufficient once someone has lost blood.
In short, keep your ugly little dogs if you must. Just keep it away from me, and don't go whining to the court if you find yourself being held responsible for the unruly actions of your beloved pup.
And always remember, your right to own a pit bull ends as soon as it mauls my face, ankles or any other protruding appendage.
Opponents to pit bull bans and special regulations often cite concerns that the breed is being stereotyped for very few isolated incidents involving attacks, which are often perpetrated by neglected animals in the first place.
This is correct, but I'd rather see a few breeds stereotyped than a few infants devoured like Scooby snacks.
While I do not call for a blanket ban on entire breeds, I certainly encourage special regulations and punishments for the owners of more aggressive breeds of dogs.
Even though bulls are not scientifically proven to be more aggressive by nature, one cannot help but notice the rate of attacks are higher in certain breeds, including variations of the bull.
Regulations and punishments can include hefty fines for owners guilty of neglecting the animals or attempting to train the dogs as attackers.
Dogs are kind of like children. If an abusive father raises an angry son who goes on to assault or kill someone, the police don't come after the father, even if his initial neglect might have been the cause of the son's violent episode.
Realizing that bulls do not have the rationality of a person and therefore cannot be held as wholly responsible for attacks, I still believe a dog that has attacked once is likely to stir trouble again.
Short of sending attack dogs to doggie rehab, the best way to deal with vicious animals is to eliminate them. Yes, eliminate means to terminate, to kill, or "murder" (for the extreme animal rights activists reading this).
In cases where a dog acts out violently against a person, the local government should have the ability to determine the dog's fate, whether it be requiring the owner to constantly restrain the animal or death to the animal in cases where recurring attacks are expected.
I am more apt to believe, however, that promises made by most dog owners to keep dogs fenced, chained, etc., are not sufficient once someone has lost blood.
In short, keep your ugly little dogs if you must. Just keep it away from me, and don't go whining to the court if you find yourself being held responsible for the unruly actions of your beloved pup.
And always remember, your right to own a pit bull ends as soon as it mauls my face, ankles or any other protruding appendage.
Be the first to comment on this story