Are pitbulls being discriminated against?

MARYVILLE – In an email from the good folks at terrysm@peoplepc.com today, I learned that the controversial canines alternately known as pitbulls, pits, or bullys, who were abused and exploited by a now supposedly contrite Mike Vick, are on the minds of the “Powers That Be in Dandridge.”

Coincidentally, a poll asking whether the breed should be banned, period, is circulating on Facebook, with a possible three rather than the usual two choices to check.

Voters can vote yes, no, or, if memory serves me correctly, “it depends.”

Even if I weren’t an avid dog lover who has seen breed profiling down through the years that included Dobermans and wolf hybrids, I would never vote to have an animal banned or made illegal to breed and keep.

Aside from my dog loving status, I saw how it is in states and localities where it’s illegal to breed or keep wolf hybrids.

What generally has happened is that the breeders continue their breeding programs on the sly and charge higher prices for the hybrids, depending on what percentage of wolf the canine in question contains.  It should be added that sometimes no wolf blood is present; instead, huskies or other Nordic breeds are crossed with German shepherds or other such breeds, and the deceived buyer forks over hundreds of dollars for it.

My vote on the poll went to “It Depends.”

My remarks pretty well echoed my sentiments about virtually all animals, particularly the large ones including my own beloved huskies, namely that they should be kept secure behind good fences (never chained) and be carefully supervised.  I did point out that the pits have a history of fighting dating back centuries, just as huskies are bred to pull sleds and run away at every possible opportunity.  I suggested posting a “Beware of Dog” sign, which, if I kept my dogs outside, I would do whatever the breed.

Those who love and understand the pits do not consider them vicious, and as a matter of fact, many of Mike Vick’s dogs are in the process of being rehabbed.  However, given provocation, any dog of any breed can become aggressive against other dogs or in rare but sometimes tragic cases, humans.

This is something any dog owner must always keep in mind.

From what I read in the email, I think the proposed ordinance in Dandridge defines pitbulls too broadly.  Included in the ordinance would be the American pitbull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, and Staffordshire Bull terrier.  The ordinance would also apply to dogs who have one parent from the pitbull family.

Owners of pits would have to carry liability insurance on property where the dog is kept.  It was pointed out that such liability is usually covered in the homeowner’s policy.  My remark about that is that many insurance companies consider Siberian huskies dangerous, as well as German shepherds, Chows and Rottweilers.  No doubt Dobermans might still be on the Danger list as well.

In the email it was stated that Jefferson City and White Pine have banned the breeds, and I already knew that Denver, Colo. had done the same.  Bans also apply in parts of Canada and the U.K.

I could probably make my gentle huskies vicious if I mistreated them or trained them to fight.  There is no question that my German shepherd could be trained as an attack dog.  Such animals have their places, but should only be kept by specially trained handlers, which I make no claim to be.

In a perfect world, only responsible, caring, humane people would own pets and keep them safely out of danger to themselves and others.

As it is, thanks to the greed and indifference of far too many people, all the ordinances in Dandridge and the rest of the nation and world won’t prevent animals raised in bad environments, wrongly trained, or not trained at all from attacking people who mean them no harm from doing so.