Only 'losers' own vicious dogs

Times Colonist

June 27, 2005

I see no reason why pit bulls, rottweilers, Dobermans and their ilk should not be totally prohibited. Those wishing the companionship of a dog are able to choose among many loyal, docile and affectionate breeds and mongrels.

Why should one small, ignorant segment of society be allowed to endanger the rest of us? To allege that a dangerous animal should remain at liberty until it harms someone is patently absurd -- by that logic, I should be permitted to wander about town with my gun, since I haven't shot anyone yet.

Owners of vicious dogs advance the argument "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners."

I beg to suggest that it will be of little comfort to someone killed or maimed by one of these brutes to learn that it was the owner, not the dog, who was at fault.

In any case, it's a nonsensical argument, as pit bulls were deliberately and specifically bred to be aggressive and vicious in order to participate in "pit fights" upon which wagers were placed.

Similarly, Dobermans were bred to attack escaping prisoners.

Contrary to the widely circulating propaganda depicting most dog owners as responsible citizens, my 31 years as a letter carrier taught me that these people are overwhelmingly selfish, inconsiderate and churlish.

Those owning vicious dogs are invariably total losers who need these beasts, or a powerful car, or a big gun to bolster their delusions of adequacy.

John C. Simpson,

Oak Bay.