I'd argue it is ignorant to see it that way, if you're not going to see all other breed in the light of their breeding. It's completely unfair to see the pit bull or the like as a breed of criminals, while ignoring the breeding of Shepherds or Collies or Retrievers - all selectively bred for very specific tasks which are by and large part of the wild dog's hunting behavior. Dogs bred for companionship are by far the exception and not the rule.


But the right of my kid to not get eaten at the playground outweighs by far the right of the steroid doing, Foghorn Leghorn pant wearing, creatine eating juice-monkey's right to own 3 rottweilers so he can look even tougher on his walk to the gym.
Foghorn leghorn looking types indeed. Or perhaps women looking for a breed known for it's affectionate nature as well as it's tenacious loyalty and protective instincts? 40% of all dogs are purchased for protection, you know. It's tempting to give in to stereotypes, I know, but it isn't wise any way you look at it. Do you really want to stand on that slope?

I wonder if it's even reasonably possible to conduct a study of how many crimes and violent assaults those dogs have prevented merely by their reputation. I have to wonder, if perhaps, society is on the whole safer because of pit bulls, rotties, and their reputations. But how does one gather statistics on how many women haven't been raped and murdered because they had their faithful, lovable, face licking pit bull by their side?

I daresay it is absolutely silly to cast any judgment on the breed until there is major research done into it's benefits. If 'dangerous breeds' cause 40 deaths a year, but prevent 50 murders and 100 rapes, isn't society, on the whole, better with them? I think this is something worth major consideration.



As for the playground...your children are more likely to be killed in your car while you drive them to the playground then eaten by a dog once they get there. About 400 times more likely, in fact. If you walk them instead of driving them, the chance of somebody else running over them while you walk is still nearly 20 times that of being killed by a dog at the park.

In fact, your children are more likely to be struck by lightning on the swing at the park then killed by a dog there.

Considering that death from falls on the same level are still 10 times more likely then getting your kid eaten, I'd probably stay at home. Well, at least I would until I saw the death by home fire statistics.


Sorry to tell you this, but you may think you have a right to take your kids to the park safely, but basic statistics begs to differ.


And this is all before the much more mundane and practical considerations of BSL. What, exactly, is a pit bull? An American pit bull terrier? How about a Staffordshire? What about a half PBT, half Collie? Quarter PBT, 3/4 beagle?

Do criminals, when faced with BSL, actually follow it? Is it enforced? Animal Cruelty laws are pretty laxly enforced as is. What's the chance of this achieving actual enforcement even if we do make it law?

And even if it IS enforced, what's to prevent the criminals to switch to some other breed? It's not like dog breeding magically stopped a thousand years ago.



Ultimately, I'm going to say Breed Specific Legislation is little more then a knee jerk play on emotions. I'd say it was poorly thought out, but to be blunt, I don't believe it was actually thought out at all.

If you want to do the world some good, protect it from the evil, man eating dogs that are less dangerous then your average bike ride, fine. But do it the smart way - go to your local shelter, find some pit bull in desperate need of a loving home, and give it to him. Or her. You'll have one less 'dangerous' dog in the hands of those criminals, and a little hit into that reputation of being 'badass' that makes the breeds attractive to those criminals in the first place. And the good karma will do you some good.