Survey: Owners responsible for bad dogs

Valley Press on ^ | Monday, October 1, 2007.

[BenLurkin]

The Valley Press, in this week's completely unscientific but utterly democratic "Have Your Say" feature, asked voters: Cities such as Denver have enacted bans on pit bulls. Would you favor a ban on pit bulls in the Antelope Valley?

Of those who responded, 77, or 27.5%, said "yes," and 203, or 72.5%, said "no."

Survey responses included:

\uE06F

Too many people get pit bulls and train them, for whatever reason, to be mean. They attack innocent people if left alone and they are very unpredictable. I think they should be banned in the entire state of California.

D. Green

Palmdale

\uE06F

I would favor a ban on pit bulls bred without full papers. What I see these days is one male or female being used to breed many litters of inbred puppies. This kind of irresponsibility leads to puppies bred with more negative qualities. Add to that they are being taught to fight, which the pit bull will do naturally.

If you are a breeder who checks pedigrees for mutual relatives, does health checks on their animals to ensure no negative traits and breeds responsibly, I have no problem with it.

But backyard breeders who sell to anyone and fight their dogs? Yes, I would favor a ban.

Alice Rice

Palmdale

\uE06F

Pit bulls are not "born mean." It is the irresponsible owners who make them mean. I think the dog owners should be made accountable for what their dogs do. If your dog gets loose and bites someone, you just lost your dog and you get a substantial fine. If there is a second occurrence with another dog, you lose your dog again and can never own another. It's time to hold the people accountable.

Greg Dougherty

Rosamond

\uE06F

[BenLurkin]

More debate about the threat posed by the infamous ghetto dogs.