The Battle Against Banning Pit Bulls And The Abusive Owners Who Instigate Them

Jon Mark

The issue surrounding pit bull breeds as to whether they should be banned or not in cities nationwide is a contentious one.

For an organization that has long been thinking outside of the box when it comes to taking their message to the masses, they've used the exact same argument that others who have called for or been behind legislation to ban pit bulls are using by claiming they are dangerous animals and that there is no point in saving them.

BULLMASTIFF RESCUED FROM FRIGID ALASKAN WATERS, LOVING PIT BULL TERRIER DISPELS MYTH ABOUT AGGRESSIVE BREED

The article provides a very straightforward quote from the international president of the organization, saying that the animals are doomed and are used as weapons, citing various cases where the dogs have attacked people, and that they are better off being put down.

One would never have expected an organization, whose abbreviation stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to become aggressively proactive in their campaign against pit bulls, but in much the same way, a defense for pit bulls is coming from an unexpected voice among Republicans in Michigan.

Detroit Free Press is reporting that the House of Representatives in Lansing is weighing a bill that will prohibit communities from enacting ordinances that ban specific breeds of dogs.

PIT BULL TORTURED: GEORGIA MAN SENTENCED AFTER USING BLOW TORCH ON DOG

Needless to say, the dogs mostly banned in some cities are the mentioned pit bull breeds.

State Senator David Robertson (R-Grand Blanc) says that dogs should not be banned based on their looks.

"Making it breed specific does not advance public safety, and it misses the mark. Outright banning of a domesticated breed is wrong because it's not central to the point that the owner is squarely responsible for the behavior of their dog."

The article also refers to Richard Angelo of the Best Friends' Animal Society who says that the best ordinances were the ones that held the "problem" owner responsible and targeted specific problem dogs.

"Breed specific legislation gives people a false sense of security. A dog's appearance is not a predictor of its behavior."

The article points to the various communities such as Waterford that currently have bans against pit bulls, and one person from one of the communities named Vaughn Wagner tried to make his case against pit bulls.

"It's not about dogs that bit, it's about dogs that kill. Pit bulls have led the list for the last 30-years, they keep on killing, just look at Detroit, but not in Waterford. If you take away our breed-specific law, you leave us without prevention and protection."

RECENT DOG-FIGHTING RING RAIDS SHOW THE LENGTHS MAN WILL GO TO GIVE DOGS A BAD REP

PETA, however, claims in a 2009 post that they're for enacting breed-specific measures and are overall against these animals being abused, which does not account for the blatant fear-mongering their president wrote in their op-ed, which is referred to in the Inquisitr article as a "double standard."

ROTTWEILER RESCUE ORGANIZATION INVESTIGATED FOR ALLEGED ANIMAL ABUSE, EMACIATED AND DEAD DOGS FOUND

In the article, Detroit Pit Crew Dog Rescue's Terri Sumpter is described as pleading with the owner to release the dog over to them for treatment and eventual adoption to a better owner.

A group such as PETA, which stages provocative protests and infiltrates companies to show animal cruelty, appears to have a double standard where the cruelty of an animal -- as provided above -- can be ignored as long as it's a pit bull.

[Photo by Jeff Roberson/AP Images]

ALL CONTENT © 2008 - 2021 THE INQUISITR.