Breed Specific Legislation in California...

Condemning a dog breed because they've been involved in dog bite incident is akin to condemning all young people who drive because young people that drive have been involved in motor vehicle incidents. Can I deny that some dog breeds can be classified as weapons in the wrong hands? No, I cannot, but that's not the fault of the breed or the responsible owners of that breed. It's the fault of those who should have no right to own such an animal because they have no comprehension of how to raise it properly and only care about having a status symbol. And identification of breeds is subjective, even experts on the subject of dogs and dog breeds may disagree on a specific dog's breed. So how are members of police forces, the media, animal shelter volunteers and animal control personnel supposed to know what a pitbull is, and what a pitbull isn't? It turns into a witchhunt, with any dog resembling people's notions of what a 'pitbull' looks or acts like coming under scrutiny. Since BSL came into Ontario, Canada, people walking boxer crosses, bullmastiff puppies and even stocky labradors have been subjected to being cross examined by animal control and one fellow even had people yelling and throwing things at he and his dog shortly after it came in. Kind of sounds like Salem, doesn't it? It's a stopgap measure that doesn't address the real issue: irresponsible dog ownership.

I totally agree with you. I had a Rottweiler and he was the best dog I ever owned. He was protective but gentle. Also my brother had a pit mix and never had to worry about anyone coming after his son but the dog would never go after anyone unprovoked. I think breed specific legislation is a terrible thing

I read over the "SB 861" and that thing is so open ended and could be abused so easily by people it's assinine. Any dog can be classified as a dangerous breed under it. They basically want to get rid of all dogs in the state with that. It isn't just against pit bulls but against any dog that is deemed dangerous, now or in the future. To be deemed dangerous one of the qualifications is to have two unprovoked attack in a 3 year span. It does not limit those attacks to just a certain area either. It just states two unprovoked attacks in a 3 year span so what if a poddle in California attacks someone and a year later a poddle in Texas attacks another, would that then be a dangerous breed? It's also up to the city discretion to choose which breeds. That tells me they just want to get rid of dogs in general in the state. That is wrong. This law should not be put through. I do agree that some dogs more then others can be made mean by bad owners but it's still the owner's responsiblity not the dog. The owners should be punished not the dog. As others have pointed out that would be discrimination of the animals. It would be the same as neutering all of a certain race because the percentage of the crime in a city is done by that race. It's wrong. Didn't we fight a war called World War II because of that happening to humans? Why should we then do it torwards the animals in our lives?

I am totally with you, but unfortuntely dogs get tagged as viscious, therefore niave people just believe it to be true.