Distorting Reality... (On the Pitbull Issue)

The group of people who are working hard to challenge and disrupt the proclamation of the Dangerous Dog Bill into law and who are calling themselves 'canine advocates' and 'dog lovers' are attempting to do so employing some of the most underhanded tricks in the book. First off, while the hastily banded together groups are made up predominantly of pitbull owners, they are very careful not to use the word pitbull in their names nor do they encourage members to bring their pitbulls to the group's rallies and other public events for some very specific reasons, chief among these being if they were they to name themselves Pitbull Advocates or Pitbull Lovers or to bring the animals out in all their snarling, ferocious glory they would get very little support for their cause. Working hard to distance themselves from the breed's reputation while simultaneously defending their right to own the breed, they risk being seen as a villainous organization everytime a pitbull mauls or kills someone rather than the benevolent protector of dogs they are trying to portray themselves to be. The fact of the matter is that THIS breed kills because the breed was bred to kill. It is no accident of nature or no unfortunate convolution of circumstances but by design that the most vicious aspects of a wolf's temperament was focused into this diminutive killing machine, and the fact that this animal does so well what it was created to do is not the issue here but the question remains, should these highly dangerous animals be allowed into society when the slightest mistake or oversight on their owner's part could unleash horror?

They infer some ulterior motive by the sate against all dogs through this bill, and by obfuscating the facts and telling the dog owning population that today it may be pitbulls but tomorrow it could be pompeks is as disingenuous as can be as no one has been trying to legislate dog ownership in this country prior to the introduction of this breed and the subsequent spate of attacks, maulings and killings that comes with its proliferation. Were it not for the ferocious temperament of this particular animal and the consequences of trying to fit into civil society a beast better suited for the jungle, would we even be having this conversation?

They go a step further in their misdirection campaign by insisting that 'all dogs' have the ability to attack and even kill and, while that may very well be so in theory, our experience does not justify this claim. What they hope to achieve by getting 'all dogs' included is to overwhelm the system required for registration, neutering etc. through sheer volume of animals and so prove the law unworkable. We need to stay focused and on point, and while I agree that all dogs SHOULD be regulated and controlled at some point, the ice cold back hand slap of reality is that most importantly and right now, THIS dog should. They further claim that breed specific legislation does not work, yet in every country that is considered developed and civilized worldwide, breed specific legislation (which was created to control and limit the proliferation of pitbulls and other similarly dangerous derivatives) is law and in this jurisdiction (which ought to be the prime concern of our lawmakers and law enforcers), the well being of our people when weighed against the demonstrated potential for destruction ought to be the underpinning fact.

The most ludicrous argument that they proffer is that this issue is about loving dogs. This is outrageously false and is about as much about loving dogs as snorting cocaine is to powdering your nose. This issue is ONLY about protecting the citizenry from a clear and present danger defined and identified as a threat to peaceful society and controlling if not removing the problem altogether.

Trying to paint it as an owner's rights issue is at best a sop designed to enlist the empathy of all dog owners to misdirect from the truth, that pitbulls are dangerous and unpredictable animals that should only be allowed in the care of specific owners for clearly defined and specific reasons under tightly regulated circumstances similar to those required to own a gun or any other such potentially dangerous device. We need to bring the conversation back to reality and call on the Attorney General to stick to his word on this issue and proclaim the Dangerous Dog Law now.