I have read all that has been published about the new dog legislation. If I am correct, the dogs are to be separated into two main groups: the large dogs like pit bulls, group A, and the others, group B. The others being everything from Dobermans to dachsunds.I can understand completely the need for fencing, strong collars and leashes for the large dog breeds, as well as insurance. It is the only way the Government will ever be able to control this group.
Right now these pit bull-type dogs are being bred at an alarming rate, for profit, and some are being used by some of the worst elements in our society as watch dogs. These poor animals endure aggression training and are kept in the most appalling of conditions.
Any sort of legislation to free these animals from their sorry existence is to be welcomed. Yes, conscientious dog lovers also own pit bulls, but I'm sure the majority of them will be happy to know that the dog legislation should help free an enormous amount of animals out of dismal conditions.
I understand that only the owners of the group A dogs can be charged if their dog kills anyone. This is an anomaly. No matter what type of dog it is, if it attacks and kills someone, then the owner of that dog should be charged. They should be charged if it attacks and only bites someone. In this regard, the owners should be held equally culpable.
Over the years I have owned many dogs; only two ever attacked anyone, one male and one female. And they were both very ordinary pot hounds. They were both strays who wandered into my yard at very different times of my life. They had both been terribly abused and neglected and clearly never forgot. With me and my family they were loving dogs, but I warned all visitors to keep their distance.
People have forgotten that before we had pit bulls, the security companies used Rottweilers, Dobermans and German Shepherds as their dogs of choice.If the new legislation does not make it equally a crime when these dogs attack, maim, or kill, then I can see the resident pit bulls being abandoned in droves and these dogs being reinstated. We would be back to square one.
How you can enact legislation to supposedly deter someone from owning a dangerous dog, without addressing the more pressing problem of responsible dog ownership, regardless of breed, is beyond me. The two go hand in hand.
Anne Murphy,
via e-mail