Dear Editor,
So yet again the topic of banning pit-bulls and Rottweilers raises its ugly head.
Whenever there is a dog attack there is a societal outcry about banning so-called dangerous breeds.
A dog attack is terrifying and people have suffered horrendous injuries, even death.
At any particular time in recent history, certain dogs have been seen as dangerous. When I was a child it was German Shepherds and Dobermanns. Now it is pit bulls and Rottweilers. It could just as well be Huskies, Akitas or Rhodesian Ridgebacks
We are actually ignoring who is responsible.
Anyone taking on ownership of a dog owes it to the dog and their neighbours to ensure that the dog is well socialized with respect to people and other dogs. This is not a big deal. All dogs are highly trainable.
A dog that is untrained has the capability of becoming a “bad” dog. Unfortunately, some owners take pride in training their dogs to be aggressive.
People need to be made accountable for the actions of their pets. Ownership of a dog comes with the same responsibility attached to weapons. In my opinion, owners of dogs that carry out unprovoked attacks should be prosecuted for assault with a dangerous weapon.
The owners of the dogs that attacked Ms. [Angela] Simpson and the little girl savaged recently should be facing criminal charges involving punitive fines and restitution to the victims.
Unfortunately, our present legal system does not make individuals take responsibility for their pets. It becomes easier to invoke short-sighted zero-tolerance bans which only affect responsible owners of these so-called dangerous breeds.
There are many people who have well-behaved and well-loved pit bulls and Rottweilers. Is it fair to blame them and their pets for the actions of irresponsible members of society?
Buz Trevor
Denare Beach
