After reading letters regarding the banning of pit bulls I had to shake my head at the uninformed or ignorant statements made about breeds and owners. No matter how well an owner believes she has trained a certain breed of canine, no matter how well he keeps the dog under control, there’s always a risk of unexpected behavior. I have heard the often-repeated phrase, “It isn’t the breed, it’s the owner who is at fault.” There may be some truth in this and there are irresponsible owners, but it’s dogma repeated so often that otherwise intelligent people believe it.
You rarely see headlines about a collie, Lab or St. Bernard attacking. It may occur, but it is less likely than attacks by pits. Pit bulls can be very sweet, well-behaved and gentle. Most will not attack, nevertheless the breed was originally bred for aggression. Most breeds are territorial and protective of their family. There are unexpected triggers to any dog’s territorial behavior. Because of genetic selection by breeders long ago, pits are pre-disposed to have enhancement of this trait.
I learned the hard way with a beloved companion. As he aged he became more intolerant to certain animals and people. I am not a “moron” as was suggested regarding some owners. Mine was controlled and well trained. I gave him some extra leash one day. A man approached. There was an incident. I called animal control and asked how it could happen given my dog’s good history. They said this can occur for what seems like no apparent reason. Worried about his changing temperament, I couldn’t take a chance. I miss him terribly, but it could have been a child.
To say it’s the owner, not the dog, is uninformed. I don’t think pits should be banned, but people should be sensitive to potential aggression.
John E. Carlson
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
