Dear Editor:
Let's think the pit bull-banning issue through first.
The attacks we hear of are brutal and sometimes fatal, but compare the number of "bad" pit bulls to the vast majority that are well behaved and socialized properly and you'll see that the good dogs far outweigh the bad dogs.
By banning them you will take them away from responsible owners who care for them, take them to the veterinarian when they are sick and take time to walk, exercise and socialize them. You will give them back to those who use them for protection, dog fights and a bad-boy ego boost.
These people will not be able to medically take care of them because they are not supposed to own them, meaning many a dog will suffer in pain or be put down in the cruellest of ways or left on the street. Also, those who secretly keep these dogs will have no way of getting them vaccinated. This could help spread some common and easily cured canine diseases around.
By banning them, the dogs will remain unlicensed, meaning if one does go bad there is no tracing them back to the owners. Not a big deal unless you cannot find out if the dog has had its rabies shots.
I am a longtime dog owner and the first one to admit I'd never own a pit bull, but that is because I don't think I have the skill to properly train and control such a strong dog. But banning them isn't the fix. Once you ban a breed, those who want a dog they can "train" for aggressive reasons will resort to another breed.
More useful would be an aptitude test for all current and would-be pit bull owners and have someone from the SPCA or a similar organization come check where the dog will be housed and who the dog shares its life with - and then twice-yearly checks to make sure all is going well.
Tom Cattermole North Vancouver
