Finally, someone has approached the "bad dog" issue with reason and understanding.
In this week's New York Times Magazine, Charles Siebert explains that he, too, once shuddered every time he saw a pit bull saunter down the street. His attitude changed after a stray decided to adopt the New York writer. Siebert disagrees with the notion of banning "bad breeds" from cities, arguing that banning a dog breed actually makes it more alluring to the worst pet owners:
"...What the proponents of bans of specific dog breeds fail to recognize is that a given breed is incidental to the cruder human impulses it is made to serve: the illicit thrill of bloody fighting rings, or of simply having the baddest dog on the block. Ban one breed, and there will be another to take its place. Ban, or at least crack down on, the human abuses of these animals by enforcing more strictly the existing laws against such abuse, and all breeds revert to their better natures."
I've noticed the looks that my friend's German Shepherd gets when he walks down the street, even though her dog is a submissive former guide dog in-training. I wonder if anyone realizes that the now ubiquitous Boxers and loyal Akitas used to be viewed with the same irrational level of fear.
In almost every case of a severe dog attack, the human trainer is usually to blame. Bad dogs have bad owners, no matter what breed they may be. If we educate pet owners to understand what kind of breed they are really prepared to handle, the much maligned pit bulls and Rotties would see a brighter day.
Respond to this posting
Back to top