Replies

"Besides, the PETA folks are more likely to give the dog the house and the keys to the pantry and euthanize the humans."

Dr. S., you've been on this board for some time, and I've always found your commentary to be well informed and insightful, but in this case, you know not of what you speak. PETA and a number of their affiliates have been huge advocates of breed specific legislation. They view it as an incremental step to ultimately banning human ownership of animals altogether. Of course they choose pitbulls because it's an inflammatory subject and people can be easily swayed on an emotional basis.

But once the pitbulls have been banned, there will no doubt, be a new *most dangerous* breed, be it Rotts, Shepherds, Dobies, Chows, etc.

Give them an inch, they will eventually take a mile.

PETA and a number of their affiliates have been huge advocates of breed specific legislation. They view it as an incremental step to ultimately banning human ownership of animals altogether.

I am aware of their desire to get rid of pet ownership altogether. This is from my post #41:

When dogs are brought to them, they kill them, because they don't particularly like any animals in captivity. In my example, I had PETA giving the dogs run of things with no humans involved. PETA would be okay with that, especially if the dog could ultimately turn feral.

I was not aware that they specifically endorse BSL legislation as low-hanging fruit. That in and of itself doesn't make that bad legislation, as there have always been restrictions on animal ownership in populated areas. The PETA folks are certainly disgusted with the ideas of "breeds" in general. In another above post I did note the possibility that new bad breeds may be targeted as bad owners will latch onto something.

Dogs are in a funny position. The owners are almost always mainly to blame when there is a problem, but unlike guns and SUVs, they are quite capable of acting on their own volition.

But don't think I don't see potential dangers, and not just from the bad behaved dog side. What if, say domestic cats, who are more and more the focus of legislation from the PETA types because they are outside the feral world but still kill birds because it's what they do, are treated like cigarettes or peanuts because some people are VERY allergic? I could picture cats being banned from apartment buildings, severe restrictions on them getting outside where they could spread germs, toxiplasmosis and dander to people's front porches and gardens, not to mention the aforementioned bird slaughter. Maybe mandatory spaying of long-hairs ... etc.

When I ran for state rep in CT, the Dem in the district adjacent to mine, Mary Mushinsky, wanted to make it a crime to feed a stray cat. Oh how i wish I had lived in her district. I could have had a LOT of fun with that proposition. That was over 15 years ago, and things are worse now.

The BSL language in England has been in place over 20 years, and similar legislation has been in place stateside in various jurisdictions, and in Ontario for a shorter period (where it is routinely ignored).

Once we allow the state to put restrictions on animal ownership (e.g. breeding, where you can bring them, selling , etc.) based on them being dangerous or a health hazard, I don't believe you can say that the state (in the U.K., the whole country; stateside, individual states) does not have the authority to enact specific legislation that could extend to certain types of dogs.