Short answer: No.
However, it is a question that has sparked a huge debate in the animal rights community.
After Justin Clinton, a 10-year-old boy from Texas, was mauled to death in 2009 by two pit bulls, his family has proposed “Justin’s Law.”
The legislation, currently without any sponsors in the Legislature, would make it a third-degree felony to own a pit bull in Texas, in effect, forcing current owners to either give away their dog or euthanize it.
We feel absolutely terrible for the Clinton family who lost their son in a tragic, unpredictable accident, but we don’t think it makes sense to hold an entire population of animals responsible.
Advocates of the ban feel pit bulls are resposible for more dog bites on average, while those against it cite “nature vs. nurture”.
Opponents of Justin’s Law, like dog trainer Michele Crouse, believe it is not breed, but rather owner who determines the animal’s aggression. She says:
“It’s all upon the responsibility of the owner and not what dog they have. It doesn’t matter if they have a 2-pound Chihuahua or a 200-pound mastiff.”
We’re right there with you!
Shark attacks happen every year. Should we ban sharks from the ocean?
The bottom line is that this crazy world we live in is full of tragedy, but we can’t let fear determine how we treat an entire population, human or animal!
We’re sure this proposed law will cause a spirited debate between both sides of the argument, but we can’t see any justification in banning one breed of dog based on isolated incidents.
What do U think?
[Image via AP Images.]
