Repealing it now is cold comfort to the ones already killed and the people who loved them.
[why don’t we “ban” the human “types” who commit the highest percentage of murders and deadly assaults? because it’s UNFAIR to judge one whole group of beings based on the atrocities committed by a few of their members, that’s why. /object lesson]
Agree. I was in CO when a pit bull ban was enacted in Aurora outside of Denver. TV news had segs with families trying to figure out what if anything they could do to keep their dogs. One family’s old dog, who had been raised as a puppy along with their kids, was subject to confiscation and euthanasia. Those who could move did; those who couldn’t had either to give dogs to friends outside of the area or surrender them to animal control for euthanasia. All because a few bad actors could not or would not train and appropriately confine their dogs.
Repealing the Denver ban now is better than not repealing it at all. Meanwhile, in municipalities across US, idiotic bans persist...Check out Fairfield, Iowa where no one can own a dog over 100lbs (There was a very large, super friendly Golden retriever male at my shelter a couple of weeks ago—I’d bet he tipped the scale at over 100lbs.) Of course, all bully breeds are verboten there, too.
In Windsor, Ontario animal control has seized dogs, being walked on a leash by owners, right off the sidewalk because AC thought the dog was a ‘pit bull’...recent case was resolved after DNA testing, oath by person who owned the dam, and evaluation by CKC judges that the dog was indeed a (poorly bred) boxer.