Replies

I agree with you up to a point, but at the same time, a maltreated shiatsu is not going to cause the same amount of damaged as an maltreated pit bull. The breeding that pit bulls have had seems to give them much more of a propensity to "snap". Pit bulls are also genetically aggressive dogs, and will do what they were bred to do, kill, as opposed to golden retrievers which are arguably one of the "friendliest" breeds around, and much more docile.

I agree that any animal owner that treats their pets badly should be punished, and held responsible for their dogs actions. Unfortunately, many owners of aggressive dog breeds are not exactly the finest examples of the human race either.

Unlike vilified SUV's and guns, an aggressive dog breed is a living creature, and cannot be fully controlled, and therefore lumping them into the same category as inanimate objects just doesn't fly.

Pit bulls have their place, but I think they should be owned under a special license, such as those given to people who own lions, and bears, etc... So that it would ensure they are properly taken care of, and far less likely to escape and cause damage.

It's a good thing it wasn't a toddler that was ripped apart here. All the same, I feel bad for the mother cow defending her calf. If a pit bull ever wanders onto my property, I will immediately shoot it. /end rant

I own a Staffordshire. This breed is noted for its love of people and is one of the most popular breeds in this country. They are certainly not classed as "pit bulls", which are not allowed into this country. However, in Canada and the US the lovable Staffy and American Staffy are classed as "pit bulls" and are part of the dog genocide. Lovable and friendly dogs should not be banned simply because they had a distant ancestor used for fighting. Afterall, all dogs are descended from the wolf. However, if a dog is clearly aggressive and unfriendly, there is a case for banning it, irrespective of the breed. In other words, BAN THE DEED NOT THE BREED!