Capital region should ban pit bulls
Michael Chu
Times Colonist
Friday, March 26, 2004
After reading about the visually-impaired man who took on vicious pit bulls to save his injured guide dog, I was appalled that such incidents still occur.
Why are such vicious animals still allowed within the Capital Regional District?
Isn't this breed of dog responsible for almost all the maulings in the past few years? I am an avid dog lover but I do not consider these as dogs nor pets. If there has been consideration of holding parents responsible for their children's actions, why are pet owners not?
I am not talking about slaps on the wrist; I would like to see more severe penalties being handed out, especially in cases where dangerous animals are involved.
What has to happen next before a ban on this breed of dog is considered? Does it have to be a more severe attack or one on a person or someone being killed from an attack like this?
We are a society that tries to better our lives and the lives of the people around us. What place in society do these vicious animals have? What benefit if any do they bring to us? Pets are pets and people are people, what are these pet owners thinking by owning such vicious animals?
It will be a sad day in the Capital Region when a visually impaired man and his close companion cannot go for a walk without the fear of an attack, and attack they will because that's what they were bred for.
Michael Chu,
Victoria.