Pit bull ban is wrong answer to animal control
Our view: While councilman Jones' idea to strengthen dog laws in Redding is worthwhile, placing a ban on all pit bulls doesn't point the goal in the right direction.
City Councilman Patrick Jones has undermined a worthwhile objective by suggesting that Redding consider a pit bull ban.
His statements came after the high-profile case of Soldier, a violent pit bull that met a bloody end in a confrontation with police.
Jones is right about strengthening the dog laws, but wrong to bring a breed ban into the discussion.
Yes, pit bulls bite people. So do labs, poodles and Jack Russells.
Perhaps while the city discusses a breed ban, it can also talk about a ban on axes and any other implements that can be turned into weapons and used in crimes.
After all, a man allegedly robbed two motels just last Saturday using a "clublike" object, and on Monday night, another man used a modified ax handle in an assault, police say.
While they're at it, city officials should also consider banning Labradors.
According to 2006 statistics from Redding Animal Regulation, labs bit people 22 times, seven of them serious. Pit bulls accounted for only 13 bites, just four of them serious.
Even if there are more labs than pit bulls, does that matter? Remember, the goal is to protect the public by banning breeds. Getting rid of more labs would simply protect more people.
The logic of such bans only gets more tortured. What constitutes a pit bull? Is it a mutt with 50 percent of the blood? Seventy percent? And who proves whether it is a pit bull? And how exactly is a breed ban carried out? Mass execution? Deportation?
We applaud Jones for wanting to do something about dangerous dogs. We hope his prompting will lead the council to consider putting new teeth into animal control regulations that are too easily flouted.
But heavy-handed punishments for abusive and negligent owners would be a better use of everyone's time than this ill-advised talk about banning pit bulls.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment