Jekyll and Hyde? Yin and yang? What's going on?
Thanks to a tip in the comments, I see that the Vancouver Sun has run an editorial (not an op-ed like the ridiculous piece I highlighted yesterday) that actually makes sense.
Banning pit bulls would be pointless because the breed does not exist
Vancouver Sun
Published: Thursday, August 21, 2008The seizure of four pit bulls reportedly involved in a series of attacks has led to renewed calls for a ban on the breed. Yet legislation banning pit bulls would be wrongheaded for many reasons, not the least of which is that there is no such breed.
When members of the public and the media speak of pit bulls, they're generally referring to mutts -- cross-bred dogs -- rather than to a breed recognized by the Canadian or American kennel clubs. Pit bulls are therefore identified not on the basis of their genetic makeup, but rather on how they look.
Now, a dog's appearance is hardly a reliable indicator of its disposition, but appearance is all we will have to go on if we decide to outlaw pit bulls. That means that any such law will include many dogs that are not dangerous and exclude many dogs that are.
In case you think this is just a lead-in, the usual build them up just to let them down ploy, it isn't.
They did some research. Went to the right places. Wrote one heck of a good editorial for a change. Here, check this out:
Indeed, dangerous dogs exist among every breed and cross-breed: The Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) studied 278 dog attacks requiring hospital admission, and found that they involved 50 different types of purebred dogs and 33 cross breeds. German shepherds were responsible for the most attacks, followed by Rottweilers and cocker spaniels.
Let's hope the Sun has started a trend - honest opinions founded on information from credible sources.
Who knows? They might even get more audience share with this approach.
Let's show them we care and read the rest, maybe even click on a couple of ads while we're there.
