Dog breed-specific ban ‘overzealous’

…Powerful, medium to large size dogs should always be under immediate supervision and/or leash when there are small children.

To the editor:

Re: Children Mauled: Dog Attacks Revive Calls for Pit Bull Ban, Aug. 30 Capital News.

Initial reaction is yes, I feel for those children and their families. No one likes to hear about accidents that leave others hurt or injured.

My immediate second thought was that powerful, medium to large size dogs should always be under immediate supervision and/or leash when there are small children in company or friends and family that may feel some hesitation around certain breeds. This is needed out of simple respect and safety—hallmarks of responsible animal ownership.

When my son was two years old my boyfriend got an American Staffordshire red nose pit bull. On top of this his roommate had a mastiff. Lexus was a lovely animal. Smart, clever, loving, loyal and yes, very powerful. We too were “good, caring and vigilant owners” but we were also very aware that her breed and other medium to large breeds were never to be near children unless we were standing right there, between them and usually had them on a leash. I would own another pitty in a minute.

I agree with Jayme Bush (mother of an injured child)  that people need to be aware of the dangers, never leave them alone with children, etc.

But when she says it’s time to ban (just) pit bulls, she speaks out of emotion for her personal tragedy, not objectivity.

With an irresponsible headline like “Children Mauled” these witch hunts and calls for overzealous, emotion-driven legislation against pit bulls will continue to build further breed specific hatred.

Animals of all kinds are unpredictable. Regard them all with respect and caution.

Darci Sellers,

Kelowna

Kelowna Capital News