Reply #35: The problem is

[Pithlet]

Irresponsible pet ownsership is pretty broad across all the breeds, and of course, even non pure bred dogs. But, when the irresponsibility is rampant amongst the stronger, more powerful breeds, the consequences for society are deadly. I don't agree that breeding is not an issue, not 100%. I do think that some breeds were used and bred specifically for activities that make them dangerous. Some breeds WERE bred to kill, even if the intended target was another animal. In the hands of resonsible owners such as yourself, those same breeds can make great pets. But too often they don't fall into responsible hands. I gues the way I feel about it is I am perfectly willing to stay away from a particular breed even if it may appeal to me, if it means saving lives. I just don't agree that perpetuating and maintaining a breed that can be so dangerous in the wrong hands is the right thing to do. Particularly when there are so many unwanted dogs who's only crime is they aren't pure bred. They are passed over in favor of the "dog of the month". Of course, I think that should be the choice regardless of whatever breed was considered, but particularly the big, powerful ones that were bred specifically to kill.

I'm not sure that breed specific bans are the answer to any of those problems I addressed. It doesn't cover dangerous dogs who aren't pure bred, for example. But, I don't think that certain breeds are 100% harmless, and only have a bad rep because of bad people. Thre are too many instances of maulings and serious injuries to account for that. Instances where the dog never hurt anyone before. Sometimes I think the owners of dogs who have killed are are well meaning people who didn't know what they were getting into. And it was too easy to do as the breed is so easy to get, because of their popularity. I just can't get behind anyone acquiring them and supporting that.