By Sloane Quealy-Miner
The Daily Republic this morning wrote “OUR VIEW: Another pit bull attack, and another day without an ordinance. We suppose it would sound sadistic if we said it’s unfortunate that a Mitchell police officer’s aim was off when shooting at a charging pit bull earlier this month.” They then go on to say “we are thoroughly weary of hearing of dangerous dogs within the city’s borders and wish dangerous breeds—especially pit bulls —would simply be outlawed in Mitchell.”
Clearly many people at The Daily Republic in Mitchell, South Dakota do not realize that aggression is a dog issue, not a breed issue and any dog can be trained to behave aggressively. The problem of dangerous dogs is not remedied by the quick fix of breed-discriminatory laws. All dogs can bite.
“Rather than breed-discriminatory restrictions, animal control laws should be enforced and if need be enhanced. For example Mitchell, SD should restricting tethering. 25% of all fatal dog attacks involve tethered dogs. And prevent reckless owners from owning dogs. Minnesota prohibits repeat reckless owners of dogs deemed dangerous from owning dogs in their state. Illinois prevents convicted felons from owning unsterilized dogs.
Any dog that is found to be “dangerous” should be required to be:
1. Spayed or Neutered. Studies have shown that more than 70% of bite cases come from animals that are not neutered. If a dog is found to be “dangerous,” it should be mandated that it be spayed or neutered.
2. Micro chipped. If a dog is found to be “dangerous,” it should be required to be micro chipped so there is a permanent identification of the dog. Dogs of some breeds are easy to confuse, especially if the owner has multiple dogs of the same breed.
3. Muzzled. All “dangerous dogs” should be required to be muzzled when in a public place, and walked by a person at least 18 years of age.
Breed-specific legislation is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership.
The article also talks about the banning of pit bulls in Denver, Colorado but it conveniently forgets to mention that while Denver, Colorado banned pit bulls in 1989, in the years following the ban, the city continues to suffer a higher rate of hospitalization for severe dog bite injury than the breed neutral jurisdictions in the state. The Denver incidents ALL involved dogs identified as other than pit bulls.
Call to Action: Contact the individuals below IMMEDIATELY and tell them you do NOT support any breed ban or any piece of breed specific legislation! Urge them to adopt “dangerous dog” laws that rightly target irresponsible owners and not an entire breed of dog. See our Talking Points on BSL and educate these people on why BSL does not work.
EMAIL BLOCK: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;firstname.lastname@example.org;email@example.com
The Daily Republic
120 South Lawler
Mitchell, SD. 57301
Company Phone: (605) 996-5514 Fax: (605) 996-5020
Mitchell, South Dakota Sheriff’s Office firstname.lastname@example.org