Dear Members of the Abilene City Council;
I am writing in response to the recent Abilene Reporter News article “Local Man Wants Dangerous Dogs Banned” and seeing the sadly mixed results of the online poll conducted by the ARN regarding the ban idea. I believe such a ban is absolutely necessary! In fact, our own dog was attacked just last month in our backyard by our neighbors’ Pit Bull after it tore through our fence. Because we risked our own safety to intervene immediately, our dog escaped with only some badly bruised ribs and is recovering. Both the police and the veterinarians involved called her survival a miracle.
In the same week Abilene Police were forced to shoot a Pit that bit an Abilene resident taking her small dog for a walk near her home. The owner of that Pit Bull informed me that his dog had escaped the house by jumping through a pane of glass while he was away at work! Just the week prior to our own encounter, I watched as another neighbor’s Pit Bull attempted to attack two passing strays and drag one of them under their fence by the throat. I am sure that those people who answered the ARN’s survey in opposition to the idea of a ban have never heard the horrible sound of a dog being torn to death.
I understand that not all animals identified as “Pit Bulls” are in fact actual Pits, but the differences are negligible and hard to distinguish. In fact, in the twelve countries I researched where such dogs are banned, several recognize that it is the mixed and similar breeds that are the primary troublemakers. England’s ban requires registration and microchipping of all such dogs under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. Once considered the “All-American Dog,” experience has taught us that Pit Bulls and other “Bully Breeds” are too dangerous and uncontrollable to have around people or other pets. Unfortunately, every owner of a Pit, Rottweiler, or other dangerous breed seems to think, “My dog is different.” But, no type of animal, especially an animal bred over generations to be aggressive, should be allowed to pose a danger to society at large.
This is not a case of discrimination, as I am sure some may claim, but of common sense. Perhaps it is even a choice supportable by Scripture. Exodus 21:28-30 describes the case of an ox owner who, if he has been previously warned, should be put to death along with his animal if it kills a person. It may be too much to suggest that a Pit Bull’s owner be sentenced to death when their “good” dog suddenly attacks a neighborhood child, but we could certainly use the call to personal responsibility for our animals’ behaviors. We need you, our City Council, to take the lead and investigate these dangerous dog breeds.
Thank you,
Bryan Brigham
I am writing in response to the recent Abilene Reporter News article “Local Man Wants Dangerous Dogs Banned” and seeing the sadly mixed results of the online poll conducted by the ARN regarding the ban idea. I believe such a ban is absolutely necessary! In fact, our own dog was attacked just last month in our backyard by our neighbors’ Pit Bull after it tore through our fence. Because we risked our own safety to intervene immediately, our dog escaped with only some badly bruised ribs and is recovering. Both the police and the veterinarians involved called her survival a miracle.
In the same week Abilene Police were forced to shoot a Pit that bit an Abilene resident taking her small dog for a walk near her home. The owner of that Pit Bull informed me that his dog had escaped the house by jumping through a pane of glass while he was away at work! Just the week prior to our own encounter, I watched as another neighbor’s Pit Bull attempted to attack two passing strays and drag one of them under their fence by the throat. I am sure that those people who answered the ARN’s survey in opposition to the idea of a ban have never heard the horrible sound of a dog being torn to death.
I understand that not all animals identified as “Pit Bulls” are in fact actual Pits, but the differences are negligible and hard to distinguish. In fact, in the twelve countries I researched where such dogs are banned, several recognize that it is the mixed and similar breeds that are the primary troublemakers. England’s ban requires registration and microchipping of all such dogs under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. Once considered the “All-American Dog,” experience has taught us that Pit Bulls and other “Bully Breeds” are too dangerous and uncontrollable to have around people or other pets. Unfortunately, every owner of a Pit, Rottweiler, or other dangerous breed seems to think, “My dog is different.” But, no type of animal, especially an animal bred over generations to be aggressive, should be allowed to pose a danger to society at large.
This is not a case of discrimination, as I am sure some may claim, but of common sense. Perhaps it is even a choice supportable by Scripture. Exodus 21:28-30 describes the case of an ox owner who, if he has been previously warned, should be put to death along with his animal if it kills a person. It may be too much to suggest that a Pit Bull’s owner be sentenced to death when their “good” dog suddenly attacks a neighborhood child, but we could certainly use the call to personal responsibility for our animals’ behaviors. We need you, our City Council, to take the lead and investigate these dangerous dog breeds.
Thank you,
Bryan Brigham
Comments