October 22nd, 2010 by Editor
Editor’s note: If Councilwoman Lynch can say that “not all pit bulls are vicious” then is she knowingly seeking to propose legislation that would deprive innocent people of their innocent dogs? And as an aside, no breed (though “pit bull” is not a breed) is inherently vicious. That’s why people who know dogs repeatedly say “It’s the deed, not the breed.” Deed not breed means that dog owners (and their dogs) should be judged singularly by what they do, not by what it is thought they might do based on some arbitrary designation like the kind of dog they happen to own, and not based on false media stereotypes or urban mythology about so-called “pit bulls.”
Also, since there is no such breed as a “pit bull,” the three incidents Councilwoman Lynch cites as “‘pit bull’ attacks” could easily have been from three different actual breeds. As such, focusing on what she would define as “pit bulls” would be nothing more than an attempted catch-all to restrict the breeds that may or may not even have been responsible for the incidents in question. This is madness and as has been shown by the recent examples of Topeka, Kansas and Toledo, Ohio nationally (to name a few), and Ontario, Italy, the U.K., and the Netherlands internationally, breed-specific legislation touted as a catch-all for these so-called “vicious” breeds doesn’t even work. Worse, it severely punishes law-abiding dog owners while irresponsible dog owners (who are in the extreme minority) continue to disregard the law.
Please contact the Garden City Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation — whether an outright ban or restrictions — is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.
[Councilmember Jaylee Lynch] is looking for stronger measures in dealing with pit bulls in the community. Read the rest of this entry »