Pit Bull Breed Bans Don’t Work

Breed Specific Legislation

 

cropped-13557699_1025636830885746_3674518420998972814_n.jpg

 

Breed Specific Legislation in Colorado defines a “Pit Bull” as,

“any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds. Dias v. City & County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1173 (10th Cir. Colo. 2009)”

This is not only ignorant, it is stupid, but it is typical of a very large segment of the ignorant and/or stupid population, “spineless” politicians, “know-it-all” legal professionals, “publish any lie to make a buck” media, etc. who are the ones who are really the source of the problem when it comes to Breed Specific Legislation (“BSL”) because they would rather “go with the flow” instead of getting the facts and doing what is right.

To say that all members of a particular group of anything are all going to be the same is to “stereotype” them, i.e., to label the group based upon the actions and/or characteristics of a few members of the group: however, ignorant and/or stupid people are equal opportunity idiots, they not only stereotype humans they stereotype animals.

To stereotype a dog that to the observer looks like their idea of a “Pit Bull” as a fighting dog, vicious, not trustworthy, dangerous, etc. is to bestow upon them a stereotype that they don’t deserve, and it is not only ignorant and/or stupid; it is wrong.

A relatively small number of dogs were/are fighting dogs.  The vast majority are and have always being used as pets, companions and for utilitarian purposes as herding dogs, hunters, rat killers, etc.: nevertheless, it is the fighting background of dogs that is most remembered in spite of the fact that any breed of dog, mixed breed and/or mutt can be used for dogfighting.

In their infinite “wisdom”, the humans’ response is to kill the “breed”.  It is irrelevant that the vast majority of the animals have not been engaged in any unacceptable behavior.  If they may be of the same breed, eliminate them with Breed Specific Legislation.   However, if we follow that line of “reasoning”, it would seem that the solution to the crime problem in the United States would be very simple: enact RSL (“Race Specific Legislation”) against all whites and blacks or just the whites and/or blacks who are over or under 18 years of age.

At http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) reports the following.

According to the preceding FBI statistics,

A. 3 million arrests were made in the year 2012;

B. 1.0 million were under 18 years of age, and 8.3 million were over 18 years of age;

C. Of the 1.0 million under 18 years of age, 65% were white and 32% were black; and

D. Of the 8.3 million over 18 years of age, 69% were white and 27% were black.

Consequently, killing all whites would eliminate 69% of the crime in 2012.  However, since we don’t have statistics broken down by gender, we need to kill all white men and womenShould we kill the babies?  Of course we should because following the “logic” that is applied in BSL, the babies are going to be criminals just like their parents.

Is the solution to the dog bite problem as ridiculous as this?

Are we so stupid that we can’t come up with a much better solution?

Why are we putting the blame on the dogs?

The dogs are the instrumentality, but it is really the owners who failed to train, socialize and control the dogs who should shoulder the majority of the blame?

Consider the fact that when these FBI statistics were compiled, the population in the U.S. according to the FBI report was 242,925,157.  Consequently, the 9.3 million arrests represented less than 4% of the population, i.e., a small minority.

At http://avsabonline.org/uploads/position_statements/Breed-Specific_Legislation-download-_8-18-14.pdf, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (“AVSAB”) states,

 

appalogo-83aa3902

 

“According to the 2013-2014 American Pet Product Association National Pet Owners Survey, there are an estimated 83.3 million dogs in America and an estimated 56.7 million households with at least one dog.1  Dog bite data varies greatly; not all bites are reported, and those reported aren’t always documented into databases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that between 2001-2003 there were over 4.5 million dog bites annually in the U.S.”

Based on the preceding data, i.e., 4.5 million dog bites annually divided by 83.3 million dogs in America equals 5.4% of the dogs bit someone, i.e., a small minority.

Isn’t the number of dogs who bit someone a very small minority of the total dog population?

Isn’t the number of dogs that were used for dogfighting even a smaller minority of the total dog population?

Of course, this is assuming that all dogs identified as “Pit Bulls” are actually “Pit Bulls”, which they are not (See http://pitbullsfactormyth.com/16-5-1-breed-identification/) and that all were engaged in dogfighting which they were not.

While this may sound incredibly stupid, consider the fact that genocide, i.e., the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation, has been occurring since the beginning of humans, and continues today.  Some of the most current examples follow.

1. Nazi German’s extermination of millions of Jews;

2. Rwanda Tutsis killed by Hutus;

3. Cambodia’s leader Pol Pot’s attempt to form a Communist society;

4. Bosnia-Herzegovina, formerly part of Yugoslavia, Serbs’ (Christians) “ethnic cleansing” of Bosnian Muslims;

5. Japanese Imperial Army invades Nanking, China and kills an estimated 300,000 Chinese men, women (after they were gang raped) and children;

6. Stalin’s elimination of the Kulaks and any Ukrainian seeking independence from the Soviet Union;

7. Turks extermination of more than a million Armenians; and

8. Today’s Shia and Shiite conflicts in the Middle East, especially in Irag and Yemen.

The Rwanda genocide is still going on!  However, a more inclusive, and much longer, list is at http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html.

According to Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year, the number of motor vehicle deaths has remained relatively constant at 32,000 per year for the years 2009 to 2013.

Who is responsible for those deaths: the driver of one of the vehicles, a pedestrian that was hit by a vehicle or the manufacturer of the vehicle?

Are the manufacturers of vehicles that were involved in accidents that resulted in fatalities going to be banned because their vehicles were used to kill someone or are the persons who are responsible for the deaths going to be held accountable?  Remember that the vehicle is the instrument that caused the death, but it is the driver who is suppose to control it or the pedestrian who is suppose to look before they step into a traffic lane, etc.

Why is the solution to the dog bite problem to eliminate all dogs that may be perceived by an ignorant public, spineless public officials, etc. to be of a particular breed when those dogs have not engaged in any unacceptable behavior?

Isn’t this incredibly stupid even if the breed of the animals were correctly identified, which most often they are not? See http://pitbullsfactormyth.com/16-5-1-breed-identification/

According to the American Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals website at http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/truth-about-pit-bullsstates,

Today’s Pit Bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog—a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. When baiting large animals was outlawed in the 1830s, people turned instead to fighting their dogs against each other. These larger, slower bull-baiting dogs were crossed with smaller, quicker terriers to produce a more agile and athletic dog for fighting other dogs.

Some Pit Bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability. That means that they may be more likely than other breeds to fight with dogs. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be around other dogs or that they’re unpredictably aggressive.  Other Pit Bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship. These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even those Pit Bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated. Any dog that behaved aggressively toward a person was culled, or killed, to avoid passing on such an undesirable trait.

Research on pet dogs confirms that dog aggressive dogs are no more likely to direct aggression toward people than dogs that aren’t aggressive to other dogs.

It is likely that the vast majority of Pit Bull type dogs in our communities today are the result of random breeding—two dogs being mated without  regard to the behavioral traits being passed on to their offspring.  The result of random breeding is a population of dogs with a wide range of behavioral predispositions. For this reason it is important to evaluate and treat each dog, no matter its breed, as an individual.

While a dog’s genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, behavior develops through a complex interaction between environment and genetics. This is an especially important consideration when we look at an individual dog versus a breed. Many diverse and sometimes subtle factors influence the development of behavior, including, but not limited to, early nutrition, stress levels experienced by the mother during pregnancy, and even temperature in the womb. And when it comes to influencing the behavior of an individual dog, factors such as housing conditions and the history of social interactions play pivotal roles in behavioral development. The factors that feed into the expression of behavior are so inextricably intertwined that it’s usually impossible to point to any one specific influence that accounts for a dog becoming aggressive. This is why there is such variation in behavior between individual dogs, even when they are of the same breed and bred for the same purpose. Because of the impact of experience, the Pit Bull specifically bred for generations to be aggressive may not fight with dogs and the Labrador retriever bred to be a service dog may be aggressive toward people.

Early positive experiences, most notably socialization, are considered key in preventing aggressive tendencies in dogs. Puppies that learn how to interact, play and communicate with both people and members of their own and other species are less likely to show aggressive behavior as adults. Given the powerful impact of socialization, it’s no surprise that dogs that are chained outside and isolated from positive human interaction are more likely to bite people than dogs that are integrated into our homes. Unfortunately, Pit Bull type dogs that find themselves in these conditions may be at greater risk for developing aggressive behavior. But because these factors are ones that can be controlled by better educated owners, it is possible to reduce these risks, not just in Pit Bulls but in dogs of all breeds.

The reality is that dogs of many breeds can be selectively bred or trained to develop aggressive traits.  Therefore the responsible ownership of any dog requires a commitment to proper socialization, humane training and conscientious supervision. Despite our best efforts, there will always be dogs of various breeds that are simply too dangerous to live safely in society. We can effectively address the danger posed by these dogs by supporting the passage and  vigorous  enforcement of laws that focus, not on breed, but on people’s responsibility for their dogs’ behavior, including measures that hold owners of all breeds accountable for properly housing, supervising and controlling their dogs.  Breed neutral “dangerous dog” laws, “leash laws” that prohibit dogs from running loose off their owners’ property, and “anti chaining” laws can control  the behavior of individual dogs and individual owners and thereby help reduce the risk of harm to people and other animals.

Laws that ban particular breeds of dogs do not achieve these aims and instead create the illusion, but not the reality, of enhanced public safety.  Notably, there are no statewide laws that discriminate based on dog breed, and 18 states have taken the proactive step of expressly banning laws that single out particular breeds for disparate legal treatment.  Even the White House has weighed in against laws that target specific breeds. In a statement issued in 2013, President Obama said “[w]e don’t support breed-specific legislation—research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressiveAll dogs, including “Pit Bulls”, are individuals. Treating them as such, providing them with the care, training and supervision they require, and judging them by their actions and not by their DNA or their physical appearance is the best way to ensure that dogs and people can continue to share safe and happy lives together.

At https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx, the American Veterinary Medical Association states,

 

13435565_10154438671523984_1566848424514071485_n

Breed Bans

Most serious dog bite injuries (defined as requiring hospital treatment) in the United States involve victims who are young children,50  un-neutered dogs, and dogs familiar to the victim (belonging to the family, a family friend or neighbor).29,48,49,50Accordingly, responsible ownership and supervision is key to minimizing the risk of dog bites in communities.

Limiting ownership of specific breeds has been suggested by some to reduce injuries (e.g., pit bull type,50 German Shepherd Dog51) however there is no evidence that breed-specific bans reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries in the community.8,52,53 Strategies known decrease the number of dog bites include active enforcement of dog control ordinances.54″

and

Conclusion

Dogs who bite can seriously injure or kill people43.  It is natural for those affected to seek to address what they perceive to be the immediate cause, and it is easy to blame breed.  However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data:

The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog’s propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed.”34

Factors relating to the individual animal (eg, training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) have been shown to be more predictive of dogs bites than has breed.   Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials.33

Breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites. Controlled studies reveal no increased risk for the group blamed most often for dog bites, ‘pit bull-type’ dogs.  Accordingly, targeting this breed or any other as a basis for dog bite prevention is unfounded. As stated by the National Animal Control Association: “Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed.”

At http://avsabonline.org/uploads/position_statements/Breed-Specific_Legislation-download-_8-18-14.pdf, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (“AVSAB”) states,

“The AVSAB’s position is that such legislation—often called breed-specific legislation (BSL)−is ineffective, and can lead to a false sense of community safety as well as welfare concerns for dogs identified (often incorrectly) as belonging to specific breeds.

The importance of the reduction of dog bites is critical; however, the AVSAB’s view is that matching pet dogs to appropriate households, adequate early socialization and appropriate training, and owner and community education are most effective in preventing dog bites.

Therefore, the AVSAB does support appropriate legislation regarding dangerous dogs, provided that it is education based and not breed specific.”

Calls for BSL increased in response to a perceived increase in the number and severity of dog bites in the1970s, particularly from dogs identified as pit bulls.

Popular culture spreads images of dangerous pit bull-type dogs, and this perpetuates fears and many inaccuracies, such as the often repeated fallacy that such dogs have “locking jaws.”

An examination of stringent, state-regulated compulsory temperament tests administered in Lower Saxony, Germany, found that 95% of the population of 415 dogs of “dangerous breeds” reacted appropriately to test situations. 8, 12

When “friendly breeds” were tested, their scores were similar, exposing the fallacy that targeted breeds presumed to be dangerous were, in fact, no more dangerous than breeds considered to be friendly. 13

Breed alone is not predictive of the risk of aggressive behavior. Dogs and owners must be evaluated individually. 1

Visual identification is not reliable. Presumed breed identification is often made by neighbors, public officials, law enforcement, reporters, etc.—not necessarily by people who work with animals—and even those professionals may not know.

A study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association illustrated the difficulties in identifying the breeds accurately.

Dog DNA tests reveal that even professionals experienced at identifying dog breeds (veterinarians, dog trainers, breeders, animal control officials, shelter workers, etc.) are unable to reliably identify breeds visually. 16, 19

These professionals are the ones who are often responsible for making breed identifications, which are recorded into veterinary reports, pet adoption papers, bite reports, etc. A study published in 2009 proved that visual ID was usually inaccurate compared to canine genetic testing. 20

The breed identification assigned at adoption was compared to DNA test results for those dogs, and not surprisingly the visual ID matched the predominant breed proven in DNA analysis in only 25% of the dogs.

Follow-up studies confirm that visual breed identification is highly inconsistent and inaccurate. 19

 

7ad3dd0df81408d5c5ca7fff7f234aa0

Why Do Dogs Bite?

Aggression is a context-dependent behavior and is associated with many different motivations (i.e., defensive, learned, fearful or territorial). Most dogs that show aggression do so to eliminate a perceived threat, either to their safety or to the possession of a resource.  In other words, most aggression is fear-based.  Whether dogs use aggression appropriately is influenced by a large number of factors, including early environment, genetics, learning, physical health and mental health. 21-23

Once any dog practices aggression, the behavior often continues. As a result, people or other dogs (the perceived threat) back off, and therefore the behavior is reinforced.

The primary goals for behavior management of aggressive dogs are safety and eliminating the triggers of aggression. 21-23  Identifying these triggers and the needs of the individual dog, a veterinary exam (to rule out a contributing medical explanation), and receiving qualified professional behavioral advice are far more relevant to treating aggression than breed identification.

An appropriate understanding of canine signaling, or body language, can help both owners and potential victims predict the immediate intention of a dog and take action to prevent a bite. 22   Responsible breeding and puppy-raising play an important role in preventing aggressive behaviors, irrespective of breed or mix.  Appropriate socialization and managing early onset of fears in young puppies can minimize the risk for future undesired behaviors and fears. 24 (For more information see the AVSAB position statement on socialization.)

Patronek, et al. reported 75% of fatal dog bites occurred on the owner’s property, where under typical breed-specific legislation, a dog would not be required to be muzzled or restrained. 9,11  The owner was not present during 87% of fatal dog bite related attacks in the U.S. between 2000-2009, and 85% of the victims had no or only an incidental relationship with the dog.

Furthermore, in 37.5% of the cases, the owners knew the dogs were dangerous or had allowed them to run loose and/or repeat potentially dangerous behaviors, and in over 20% of the cases the dogs had been neglected or abused. In most cases, multiple factors were involved and are predictive of a “dog attack waiting to happen. These factors are more predictive than the alleged breed or mix of breeds.” 9

It’s clear that the lack of responsible dog ownership is a major contributing factor in serious dog attacks, including fatalities. 9, 26  Based on the data, BSL would not have prevented any of the fatal attacks during this time period.

A study of dog bites in Spain between 1990-1995 (before the 2000 Dangerous Dog Act was enacted) compared to another study conducted from 2000-2004 revealed no difference in the distribution of dog breeds involved in bites; in fact, fewer than 4% of the bites in each of the time periods were caused by dogs on the dangerous breeds ban list. 7

In Winnipeg, Manitoba, there was no difference in the incidence of dog bite injury hospitalizations prior to or following the enactment of BSL. 27  A cross-Canada study published in 2013 also concluded that there was no difference in the dog bite incidences between municipalities with and without breed-specific legislation. 28

In 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15-year nationwide ban on pit bulls after a government study showed it to be ineffective. 6, 29   Following the change, dogs were to be judged based on their behavior, not breed, size or appearance. A similar list of “dangerous breeds” was repealed in Italy in 2009 with the focus changing to responsible ownership. 30

 

What Does Work?

Effective Ways to Reduce the Incidence of Aggression Responsible dog ownership and public education must be a primary focus of any dog bite prevention policy. The AVMA Guidelines for Responsible Pet Ownership include licensing, training, socializing, spaying/neutering, and providing appropriate homes and veterinary care for pets. 3

The city of Calgary (Alberta, Canada) has a “Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw” requirement for pet licensing, and stiff fines are levied for bylaw infractions. 36   As a result, approximately 90% of dogs were licensed as of 2010, far outnumbering most cities in North America. 28, 35, 37  Revenue from licensing and fines funds the Animal Services Department and its extensive dog safety public awareness and education programs. 38

Between 1985 and 2012 the city of Calgary experienced over 50% reduction in the dog aggression reporting rate. 39  The “Calgary Model” is being adopted in other communities as a solution that can actually make a difference—individual dogs may be designated as dangerous based upon proven behavior, instead of profiling specific breeds or mixes.

Reaching young people in Calgary (and elsewhere) has proven to decrease dog bites; just an hour of dog safety training in second and third grades can reduce these attacks by 80%. 35”

Dogs have been with humans for a very long time, and I suspect that will not change.  Consequently, the more we understand them the easier it will be to co-exist.  It makes no difference whether you own a dog or not.  You will have contact with them, and if you understand a little about the signals they may be sending or how they may behave in certain situations, the better the relationship will be.  I have always believed that knowledge is power, and this knowledge could be very powerful in your relationship with dogs and other animals.

At http://www.ava.com.au/policy/614-breed-specific-legislation, the Australia Veterinary Association states,

brother

 

“Breed-specific legislation”

Policy

Legislation to prevent dog bites and to manage aggressive dogs should focus on the individual dog and the owner not the breed. Breed-specific legislation for dog bite prevention has failed to reduce the frequency of dog bites both in Australia and overseas.

Background

Any dog of any size, breed or mix of breeds has the potential to be aggressive and to be declared dangerous so dogs should not be declared dangerous on the basis of breed or appearance. Each individual dog should be assessed based on its behaviour. The role of the dog owner is a critical factor with respect to the animal’s behaviour.

Veterinarians share community concerns about aggressive dogs, but banning particular breeds is not the solution. In 2012 the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) commissioned a report into the causes behind aggressive dogs and an alternative approach to address the issue. The report found that there was little evidence to support banning particular dog breeds as a way of addressing canine aggression in the community. Instead, education of the public and legislative tools that equip animal management authorities to identify potentially dangerous individual dogs offer the best results in reducing incidents with aggressive dogs.1.

The facts about dog bites

Genetic predispositions are an important factor in animal behaviour, however the impact of the environment and learning are also critical. The tendency of a dog to bite is dependent on at least five interacting factors 1, 2, 3.

1. heredity (genes, breed)

2. early experience

3. socialisation and training

4. health (physical and psychological) and

5. victim behaviour.

Dog bite incidents generally occur either in domestic settings where the animal is known to the victim, or by dogs at large unknown to the victim 5.  While dogs at large are responsible for a minority of dog bites, 6, 7they attract disproportionate media and political interest.  They are the public face of the dog bite problem, and most legislation is designed to control this part of the problem.  However, most bites occur in the dog’s own home and involve victims bitten by their own dog. 6  Further, most scientific studies report that children rather than adults are more likely to be bitten by dogs. 6, 7

 

1517621_851501061579530_8260897565490319630_n

 

Breed-specific legislation

Breed-specific legislation generally refers to laws that target specific breeds of dogs. In Australia there are currently two types of breed-specific legislation:

1. Under the Commonwealth customs legislation there is a ban on the importation of several specific breeds of dogs; Japanese Tosa, fila Brasiliero, dogo Argentino, perro de presa Canario, and American Pit Bull Terrier. Importantly, this is a ban on importation and not a prohibition on ownership.

2. Most state and territory jurisdictions have placed restrictions upon the ownership of these breeds such as muzzling in public, desexing, and fence and enclosure requirements. Some states and even some local councils have taken the further step of banning the prescribed breeds of dogs completely.

The failure of breed-specific legislation to prevent dog attacks is due to a number of factors:

  • Breed on its own is not an effective indicator or predictor of aggression in dogs. 4, 5, 6
  • It is not possible to determine precisely the breed of the types of dogs targeted by breed-specific legislation by appearance or by DNA analysis. 4, 5
  • The number of animals that would need to be removed from a community to have a meaningful impact on hospital admissions is so high that the removal of any one breed would have negligible impact.
  • Breed-specific legislation ignores the human element whereby dog owners who desire this kind of dog will simply substitute another breed of dog of similar size, strength and perception of aggressive tendencies. 4, 5, 6

References

1. Australian Veterinary Association 2012 Dangerous Dogs – A sensible solution.

http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solu…

2. Beaver et al 2001 “A community approach to dog bite prevention – AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human–Canine interactions” JAVMA 281 (11) 1732 – 1749.

3. Seksel K 2002 “Report to the NSW Department of Local Government on Breed Specific Legislation issues relating to control of dangerous dogs”.

4. Snyder J 2005 “Dangerous Dog Management” National Urban Animal management Conference, Canberra; Australian Veterinary Association.

5. Kixer KW 1979 “Epidemiologic and clinical aspects of animal bite injuries” JACEP 8:134-141.

6. Overall KL and Love M 2001 “Dog bites to humans-demography, epidemiology, injury and risk” JAVMA 218 (12)1923-1934.

Other relevant policies or position statements
6.16  Importing dogs
6.13   Aggression in dogs

Date of ratification by AVA Board: 4 December 2014”

While I am not an expert in animal behavior, I would like to think that I have a little “common sense”, a lot of experience with a lot of different “breeds” of dogs, and I wholeheartedly agree with all of the statements contained in the Australian Veterinary Associations’ Policy on Breed Specific Legislation.

To the Australian citizens, politicians, authorities, etc. who subscribe to the actions outlined in Paragraph 2 under Breed-specific legislation I address the following.

When I was a young man in Texas, descendants whose ancestors or relatives had been engaged in some misadventures were frequently assumed to be capable and/or guilty of the same or worse misadventures.

The Bible says, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” and “The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself”.

It would seem that punishing all dogs for something that some dogs have done is contrary to what is said in the Bible, but this is what is happening to dogs when Breed Specific Legislation is enacted.

Now, to those descendants of many of the original immigrants to Australia I would remind them of their ancestors’ legacy, and ask them if they think that the sins of their ancestors should be visited upon them?

 

4971017_fdc44-1

So why are you allowing it to happen to the dogs?

Why aren’t you resisting this injustice?

After all, if we evolved from lower forms of animals, we humans are merely a few rungs higher on the evolutionary ladder than the dogs.  Would you want RSL (“Race Specific Legislation”) targeting you?

If we believe that we were created by God, then didn’t Jesus say, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.”

So, let us proceed to determine whether the dogs “accused” of being “Pit Bulls” are actually “Pit Bulls”.  To do that we must first determine what is and what is not a “Pit Bull”.  To do that we need to start at the beginning.

Source….. pitbullsfactormyth

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s