Our View: Potential pit bull ban won’t stop dog attacks

Pit bulls have a bad rap. Let's face it, when walking through the park, many people avoid contact with the big, scary-looking dog. But does that justify banning the breed?

We as an editorial board bark an outright "no." Breed specific legislation has been banned in parts of many states including Illinois, Kansas, Colorado and Iowa. However, some surrounding communities, such as Hannibal, Mo., have enforced the pit bull ban, and Kirksville may be next. The Kirksville City Council is in the process of reviewing a proposed ordinance that would not allow any new pit bulls to live within city limits.

From July 2006 to March 2010, there were 46 reported dog bites in the Police Department's jurisdiction. However, only three of them were the fault of a pit bull while six were from terriers, and many other breeds, including poodles, beagles and German shepherds, were to blame for the rest. So why are only pit bulls being targeted?

Any animal has the potential to be a violent creature. It all depends on their owner. We understand that pit bulls are frequently the breed of choice when it comes to dog fighting. But once again, the dog is not to blame in this situation. It is the human who trains the animal to be violent.

This ordinance should not be put into place in Kirksville. Instead, we think the city should work harder to educate pet owners on the potential harms of pit bulls that are not properly trained and impose stricter licensing and registration laws to keep these tougher dogs off the streets.  

When one specific breed is banned, it places a taboo on that breed. As a result, good pet owners and dogs are punished, even though not all pit bulls are aggressive creatures. Also, these types of bans provide a false sense of security. People will think that with stereotypically dangerous dogs gone, they are safe to pet any fuzzy pup that passes by. However, that is far from the truth.

Councilmember Martha Rowe said last week that pit bulls have locking jaws, which makes it harder to release the dog from a victim in an attack situation. However, this is a myth, according to americanhumane.org. The jaws of pit bulls are exactly the same as any other dog. Also, there generally is a misconception that pit bulls have a stronger bite force than other dogs. This, too, is false, according to the website.

In 2005, Dr. Brady Barr from National Geographic conducted a test to see which breed of dog had the most bite pressure. A German shepherd, a Rottweiler and a pit bull (all weighing roughly the same) were tested using a bite sleeve equipped with a computer instrument. The pit bull was recorded to have the least amount of bite pressure of the three.

So why not ban German shepherds or Rottweilers? This proposed ban seems to be using some sort of breed discrimination. Pit bulls are no more dangerous than most other breeds of dogs.

Pit bulls, on their own, are actually friendly animals. They were considered great family dogs for decades and even were used as "nanny dogs" due to their excellent care for children. However, because of owners' thoughtless custody, the pit bull image has been turned into one of aggression.  

Banning pit bulls will not solve the issue of dog attacks in Kirksville. Doing so would only increase the negative preconceptions that hang over the heads of many innocent pit bulls in this town. The city instead should focus its energies on regulating the actions and responsibilities of the pet owners rather than the dependent pets.