Replies

The moment you make the argument that a type (or breed) should not be allowed, you have opened the door for someone who does not like *your* breed or type to demand to make that type or breed illegal.

I dont pretend to be up on breeds. My own dog is referred to as a rat terrier/chihuahua mix, and "rat terrier" is not accepted as a breed by the AKC, even though the type is distinguishable.

I do agree that any law that prohibits the breeding of certain breeds or types should have a rational, objective standard for meeting those criteria, and that markings aren't enough. The last I heard coming up with such a method is not always easy. The original article opposed to concept of breed specific legislation, which is much different than opposing the specifics as to how it is determined that a specific dog meets those criteria.

The moment you make the argument that a type (or breed) should not be allowed, you have opened the door for someone who does not like *your* breed or type to demand to make that type or breed illegal.

No, no more than making it illegal to have dogs with wolf in them. I don't like rottweilers. A friend of mine who owned one pretty much demanded tribute (usually ham) to let me pass from one room to another even though I was well-known to the household and wasn't particularly fearful. Eventually "Emily" took a nip at a little girl at a birthday party and the family had to dump the dog or lose their insurance.

I also recognize that properly trained rotts have a less awful track record, and serve certain functions very well. I don't like them, but would not want to ban them. I do take issue with the idea that making a distinction between the pit bull type and, say a Labrador or German Shepherd, is completely arbitrary.

You could, I imagine, make the argument, that if you could make all of the pitbulls go away, that the bad owners would just take rottweilers, dobermans and shepherds, and turn them into monsters and breed them for meanness. Maybe this is what happened with pitbulls, as I do not recall them being such a problem in the '60s.

I am not so attached to any particular breed of dog that I would have a problem with restricting ruined breeds or types. Punishment of bad owners beforte things got that far would be ideal.

BSL does not punish the “bad owners” any more than gun control punishes or restrains criminals.

Both are constraints on the liberty of the law abiding and the responsible.

BSL lists have a tendency to *expand*, and they provide a foot in the door for progressives, PETA, (and just wait until the Muslims get in on BSL—it’s their dream come true—a way to incrementally ban all dogs).

BSL by its very nature does not and cannot provide a “rational objective standard”. If you name physicxal features, you, of necessity, will target many breeds which share those features.

Rid America of BSL just as we work to rid it of gun control.

It is yet another encroachment on our liberty, and must not be allowed to stand.

Part chihuahua?

A breed stereotyped for being snappy, aggressive, high-strung, and not good with children?

Well, we can’t have that little ankle biter assaulting our dear government employees.

Let’s amend the legislation; I never liked chihuahuas anyway. I’ve known too many people who won’t control those things....besides, that PETA rep will be pleased with the news, and I’ll look more tolerant to the Islamic community....

</end BSL-supporting politician’s perspective>