The reasons I thought most people opposed breed specific legislation are basically that it doesn’t solve whatever problem spurred its proposal and that it unfairly singles out a particular breed (or breeds). It’s not unusual to see comments such as this from those opposed to BSL:
With proper training and attention, pit bulls can be as gentle as any other dog, says Collette McLennan, a representative of Families Against Breed Bans.
Right. It’s unfair to target one specific breed of dog and doing so won’t solve the community’s pet related problems anyway.
In response to 4 fatalities attributed to Pitbulls in the last 5 years, San Bernardino Co, CA is set to adopt a mandatory spay-neuter ordinance for Pitbulls (with certain exceptions). I am opposed to MSN laws since they don’t help pets and because I strongly believe in an owner’s right to make medical decisions for his pets with veterinary counsel. I’m especially opposed to breed specific MSN which to me is a double whammy of fail.
I guess I thought most everyone who recognizes the failure of breed specific legislation is in fact, opposed to breed specific legislation. So I was surprised to read this, about the same woman quoted above:
McLennan supports the proposed ordinance, which is somewhat controversial among her peers. “It’s a good ban, better than banning all pit bull types,” she says. The ordinance could help the pit bull population and help minimize abuse of people who breed the dogs for fighting, she says.
If your group is called Families Against Breed Bans, you might not want someone who tells the local media “It’s a good ban” representing you. Or maybe change the group’s name to something like Families Not So Much Against Breed Bans. Just a thought.