Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
On the Problems of Dogs
- Andrew Bracegirdle (26 November 2005)
-
Responsible Dog Owners Make Responsible Dogs
- Racella M. Sieberg (30 November 2005)
-
Is it time to ban dogs as household pets?
- S. Rao Ponamgi (30 November 2005)
-
Dogged by regulation
- Ann Bousfield (30 November 2005)
-
Dogs and the Health of Children
- Paul F Docherty (2 December 2005)
-
Dysfunctional dogs, dysfunctional dog-culture
- Jackie M Marriott (2 December 2005)
-
Encouraging the neutering of dogs will help
- Peter J Miles (2 December 2005)
-
Re: Encouraging the neutering of dogs will make no difference
- Ann Sheridan (3 December 2005)
-
Re: Re: Encouraging the neutering of dogs will make no difference
- Peter J Miles (6 December 2005)
-
Re: Dysfunctional dogs, dysfunctional dog-culture
- Euclides Flores (8 December 2005)
-
Dog regulation
- Patrick C Waller (10 December 2005)
-
Re: Dysfunctional dogs, dysfunctional dog-culture
- Christiane Maasjost (11 December 2005)
-
Am I just Barking?
- Clive St J Buxton (16 December 2005)
-
Ban dogs - what about kids?
- Donald R Shaffer (1 January 2006)
-
We Share Our Planet With Other Creatures
- Deborah Zardeneta (21 January 2006)
-
angered pit owner
- melissa s. luper (27 April 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Andrew Bracegirdle, GP Principal Durnford Medical Centre, Middleton, Manchester, M24 6DL
Send response to journal:
|
I read the above article with a feeling of satisfaction that I am not alone in having grave reservations about domestic dogs. I have experienced daily problems with "domestic pets" acting aggressivly while attempting to perform home vists, ranging from being trapped in my car by free roaming animals, "nipped" while walking past a front garden and threatened by animals who interpret examination of their owner as attack. The much repeated comment by the owner of "He'll not harm you" does little to reassure me after many damaged items of clothing. I am lucky that I have not (yet) recieved a serious bite. The final straw for me was when a stranger was walking her dog past my house without a lead, the dog defaecated copiuosly with liquid faeces directly in front of my drive (the only access to my house)which the owner (to her credit) then attempted to clean up with a polythene bag. This resulted in spreading the mess further. The dog being un-restrained then ran towards my two small children and I protected them by shouting and waving a stick I happened to be carrying at the animal. Ten minutes later the dog walker's husband arrived and engaged in a heated and aggressive verbal attack, accusing me of threatening his wife and couldn't understand my anxiety of an unknown and unrestrained dog trapping my children in front of my house. His opinion was that the dog was kept as a threat for burglars to protect his house but could not understand why I should view the dog as a threat to my children when it entered my property un-restrained. It is high time that dog ownership is restricted and proof of ability to care and supervise the animal provided before aquisition Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Racella M. Sieberg, retired English teacher 96094-9496
Send response to journal:
|
On November 26, 2005 I read this article by Trevor Jackson. I was appalled that Mr. Jacson would include all of the good and responsible pet owners in this article when his complaints and examples were directed mainly at the almost criminal and totally irresponsible owners and breeders of dogs out there. There are several good reasons why his thesis is really wrong-sided. 1. Most of us, as children, had a dogs and as well as
other animals, for pets. We were taught the
responsibilities and the joys of pet ownership. This
skill package became invaluable to us when we
became parents to our own human children.
Finally, it would have been more prudent for Mr. Jackson to suggest the following remedies: 1. Bring to the forefront the higher public education of
good and proper dog ownership. This would include
more community forums and places to train dogs to
proper conduct. Dogs are not the culprits here, but
their stupid and lazy owners. People have to be
trained, ALSO, to be responsible about their dogs
behavior inside and outside the home.
To ban dog ownership, especially as pets, would be a terrible tragedy for millions of folks all over the world. Those of us who are responsible dog owners, and Mr. Jackson, too, must help make our homes and communties better places to live. A place where humans and dogs can live together in harmony. There is a better way. Banning these good creatures as pets is not it! Thank You Very Much for giving me this forum for my heartfelt response. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
S. Rao Ponamgi, Retired Engineer retired
Send response to journal:
|
I am sending this response from near Miami. I read your column with a dog barking in the background. The problems with dogs you raised are very much in evidence here (I have lived here for six years). I have been in USA for the past thirty eight years, five years in California and on Long Island (east of New York) each and twenty two years in New Jersey (where I was chased by a small dog and once knocked down while jogging by a big dog!). But dog problems are not that common in these parts of USA (NJ, NY, CA) probably because fewer people own dogs (at least that is what it seems to me). Also, I think the problem of dogs is intolerable in India. Even in big cities you will find packs of dogs barking/fighting all night in addition to the mess in the streets and sidewalks. I think most dog owners care more for their dogs than for their neighbours or other human beings. My attitude towards dogs is very much like yours. I kind of like them except for the problems they (it is really their owners) cause. I wish more people like you write about these problems. with best regards, S. Rao Ponamgi Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ann Bousfield, Open University Tutor Dovenanter, Keasden, Nr Clapham, Lancaster, LA28HB
Send response to journal:
|
After tobacco, alcohol, sports utility vehicles, and the menace of widespread dog ownership how long will it be before public health experts get serious about the dangers of Christmas. Despite ongoing research into the dangers of fairy lights and damage to sight and concentration caused by computer games, the festival has been given rather a long leash – the odd effort by councils to promote a more PC version notwithstanding. It seems increasingly extraordinary to me - considering all the things the law prevents us from doing – that it is legal to publicly indulge in practices that have a blatant Christian origin, that encourage excessive eating and drinking – with the possibilities for unprotected and casual sex that implies – without far more regulation. This is particularly worrying because the people who indulge in Christmas practices in the most unrestrained way are those from the inner cities. It is clearly vital that, as they are so irresponsible, their behaviour in all areas must be regulated, and because we cannot pick on them directly we must ensure that everyone else is regulated too. Of course precisely the same style of argument could be used against dogs for example, despite the well established benefits of dog ownership. All the instances alluded to in Mr Jackson’s article can be dealt with under current laws. For instance his friend should have informed the RSPCA about the Alsatian on the balcony; I am certain that they would have dealt with the issue promptly because it clearly sounds like an example of cruelty as well as noise. With respect to dog bites, I wonder how many are actually caused by people’s attitudes to dogs. I own two dogs, one large, one medium size. The breeds were picked with care to ensure that, provided they were well socialized they would have sound temperaments. They have, so much so that when one of them was assaulted by a toddler in a pub beer garden all he did was hide behind me, while my other dog licked the ice cream off the child’s face. Both of the dogs were on the lead and the parent had the nerve to complain about my dog when all we had been doing was sitting peacefully before we were accosted by the child. Less well-trained and stable dogs might have reacted in a different way. In short many of the bites are caused by inappropriate behaviour around dogs. I would also like to reply to the point about toxocariasis. I notice no figures for infestation were produced in the article. I have none either, but I do know from an enquiry I made to Cumbria County Council that none has ever been recorded in that County. I would be very interested to know if there are any figures nationwide. I suspect despite all the scare stories a figure of zero might well be the result, The benefits of dog ownership are many; (the details are in the articles on following website - http://www.scas.org.uk/html/articles/research_articles.htm). Only last week there was a report in Dog World (25/1105) on the benefit of a visit by a dog to patients with heart failure. However, my real concern about this article is not so much about its scurrilous attitude to dogs but more about its attitude to regulation. There is the assumption that professionals know best, and all flaws within society can be regulated or legislated out of existence, surely the billions of pounds poured into a failed drugs policy tell us that that cannot be so. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul F Docherty, GP Scott Road Medical Centre, Scott Road, Selby, North Yorkshire, UK, YO8 4BL
Send response to journal:
|
The adverse effects of dog ownership on the health of children may go much further than the risk of dog bites or infections. Listening to my own children has shown me that dog fouling is a key deterrent to childrens play in green spaces and also to children walking to school. Asking their friends seems to indicate that this is a common feeling and if so this issue needs further research. Local byelaws exist in the UK and my impression is that a majority of dog owners act responsibly to clear up faeces. The problem is that a significant minority do not and the enforcement of the current law is simply insufficient to change this at present. All my local green spaces are significantly blighted by the presence of dog faeces most of the time. This results is progressively less use by the community in general until, I think, some dog owners seem to feel that green spaces are primarily for use by dogs. Children's health, activity and free play are moving up the health agenda as obesity increases. Green spaces and pavements are critical for providing the kind of environment where children can be active and the current situation is no longer tolerable. I think, unless there is a much more helpful response from the dog owning community in general on this issue, that we need to follow the example of UK beaches and increasingly designate large dog-free areas in green spaces. But a general ban on dog ownership is not necessary - I love them and they enrich many people's lives. However calls for total dog bans, eg in cities, will increase unless significant progress can be made on the dog fouling problem. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jackie M Marriott, Dog Trainer, Author 165 West Way, Lancing, West Sussex BN15 8NB
Send response to journal:
|
Dysfunctional dogs, dysfunctional dog-culture With thousands, perhaps millions of physically and mentally dysfunctional dogs in a dysfunctional dog-culture I’m not surprised at the tone of Trevor Jackson’s article entitled ‘Is it time to ban dogs as household pets?’( 1) As a dog trainer of some 38 years, author of 3 books on the subject and now convenor of the UK Raw Meaty Bones Support and Action Group (2) I concur with Mr Jackson’s statement: ‘although dog ownership in general is not nearly as dangerous as driving, for example, it still carries plenty of risks. So why do we take dog ownership for granted? Why, instead, don't we introduce a dog ownership test, with a minimum age and a licence? ’With so many dogs suffering from boredom, irascibility and intestinal ‘hurry’ we need to ask: Why? We need to ask: What is the driving force behind the dysfunctional dog-culture that encourages pack animals -- modified wolves with most aspects of wolf physiology, psychology and ethology intact -- to be treated as furry toys or guard animals in solitary confinement? Instead of band-aid solutions for nuisance barking, dog bites and liquid faeces in the park we need to understand that these are inevitable consequences at the interface between powerful biological and commercial forces. Yes, dogs are biologically hard- wired carnivores and share most of the needs and behaviours of wolves. But the pet-food industry, and in large part a compliant veterinary profession, flood our senses with the tidy notion that happiness comes in the form of: a.) Cuddly toys/guard dogs.It’s been this way ever since Jack Spratt invented dog biscuits in the 1860’s and, then aided by Charles Cruft of the dog show fame, promoted processed pet foods to an unsuspecting public.(3) The vets got in on the act when demand for their farm services declined at the same time the epidemics of junk-food induced diseases of pet dogs created need for sophisticated (and costly) diagnosis and treatment. Nowadays the medical profession is being asked to endorse the dysfunctional dog-culture. The Society of Companion Animal Studies (SCAS) states: Recently SCAS held a seminar at Guy’s Hospital, London, for representatives of the medical profession, including doctors, nurses, clinical psychologists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists.4)Fortunately we can now begin to understand why the dichotomy between Mr Jackson’s efforts to raise concerns and the efforts by ‘experts’ to convince doctors to lower their concerns. British veterinarian and author, now resident in Australia, Dr Tom Lonsdale has lifted the lid on the whole messy business in his book Raw Meaty Bones: Promote Health.(5) Fortunately for us in the UK, Members of Parliament are taking an active interest as per the 11 November 2005 Early Day Motion: RAW MEATY BONES GROUP6) Whether for the health of
dogs and their owners or the community at large, now is the time to lobby
your MP to support much needed reform. Competing interests: Author: How to Have an Obedient Dog, The Right Way to Keep Dogs, All About Dogs |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter J Miles, Project Management Guelph, Canada, N1K 1A5
Send response to journal:
|
Discussion in responsible pet ownership has not yet mentioned the benefits of neutering dogs. There seems to be no real value in having a dog capable of breeding except to breed it. I have owned both and see no drawback to having a dog neutered that is not intended for breeding. In fact there are some advantages, as anyone who owns a female dog in heat who doesn't want it pregnant will probably attest to. I'd like to see license requirements take this into consideration. Licenses for neutered dogs should be kept to a nominal fee and possibly even eliminated as long as there is some form of inspection to ensure the dog (dog-owner) complies with the rules. On the other hand, the cost of licensing a breeding dog should be multiples higher than the cost of the operation. This way only those who really do have a desire to breed the dogs, i.e. there is a business/professional interest, will need to make the financial decision not to neuter. Those who are legitimately breeding dogs professionally will see this as nothing more than a business expense which gets recouped through the price charged. This form of regulation may also give the police and animal cruelty authorities a better tool to control puppy mills and persistent offenders. This form of control may not have a direct impact on the concerns brought forward by the author, but, over time, the more rigourous control of breeding may result in improvements to the quality of pet ownership overall. There would not be floods of mongerels of dubious lineage on the market at bargain prices (puppies - free to a good home!) Dogs would be acquired from legitimate breeders who could take the purchase opportunity to counsel the new owners about responsible pet ownership. Vets would also have a captive audience at the time of the neutering operation to counsel responsible pet ownership. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ann Sheridan, OU Tutor Keasden, Nr Clapham LA28HB
Send response to journal:
|
The neutering of dogs will have no impact whatsoever on the problem. For medical and welfare reasons I will not neuter my male dogs. I do however, neuter my female dogs. My male dogs are never out of my sight long enough to impregnate an in season bitch. Therefore, why should I damage the health and temperament of my dogs because of the actions of an irresponsible minority. The minority in question is more than likely to completely ignore any legal requirement for neutering and indeed licensing. The policy will be extremely costly and probably impossible to enforce causing more expense to taxpayers such as myself for no good purpose. The only method of enforcement would be confiscation of unneutered unlicensed dogs. What happens to the dogs in question? Are they to be destroyed? Or returned to their owners with the state paying for neutering? Or are they to be rehomed? The first would cause an outcry but would be cheap. The second would be prohibitively expensive. The third is impractical given that rehoming centres are already over-stretched. People really should think through the practical implications of any policies before advocating them. Often the results will be far worse than the situation they were intended to remedy. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter J Miles, Project Management Guelph, Canada, N1K 1A5
Send response to journal:
|
I can respect Ann Sheridan's concern for the medical and welfare issues of her male dogs, but suggest that these concerns are not universally held. The Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) both recommend neutering dogs of both sexes and indicate the benefits are greater than the drawbacks. I am encouraged to see that she has neutered her female dogs. In Ontario there is a serious problem with dog and cat overpopulation. This may not be the case in Keasden specifically, but I suspect many parts of England suffer from this problem. The population problem has already resulted in the exact issues that Ms Sheridan has indicated would result from my suggestion. The animal shelters are overloaded, the rescue agencies are overburdened and many animals are already being destroyed. My suggestion is really to move the burden of the outcome of irresponsible pet ownership to the prevention of irresponsible pet ownership. I believe that all dog owners do not start off intending to be irresponsible but many get there nevertheless through apathy, ignorance, inattention or neglect. Many become owners because a friend's or neighbor's dog has had an un-planned litter and it would be a shame to have to destroy them. Then, through circumstances that could have been controlled but didn't, another litter is born. And the system perpetuates itself. Eventually there are not enough friends and neighbors to take in the excess and the destruction has to begin. The OVMA and OSPCA do their best to promote reproductive control but it seems to fall largely on deaf ears. If our friends and neighbors were to understand that taking a puppy and not having it neutered would mean a license fee three or four times the cost of the operation I'm sure they would have second thoughts, and would thereby be already on the way to responsible pet ownership. I don't disagree with Ms Sheridan in the short term, there may be an increase in pets coming to shelters as the new regulations come into force. However, I believe in the long term it will be a highly effective means of reducing the population problem. And I suggest to Ms Sheridan that she might actually be pleased to pay a higher license fee for her un- neutered male dogs if she had confidence that it contributed to the welfare of all dogs in general. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Euclides Flores, Software Engineer Panama, South America
Send response to journal:
|
We now see that dysfunctional dog-culture is not only limited to a country or continent but is probably a worldwide culture. In countries like mine, whereas years ago the possession of pets was a luxury, now we can see thousands of homeless dogs and cats wandering everywhere. Does this problem have a connection with so called globalization? I think yes, pet food manufacturer advertisements encourage people to have pets. Do they realize about the damage that it implicates for dogs, cats, humans and society? Reforms are required not only in UK but for all countries where there are dogs or cats. Euclides Flores Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Patrick C Waller, Consultant in Pharmacoepidemiology Southampton SO30 2NY
Send response to journal:
|
Trevor Jackson’s proposal to ban dogs as pets could be seen as disproportionate but does raise the whole vexed issue of dog regulation in modern government. Do we need a new body, the Dogs Control Agency to undertake this task? Such an Agency could licence owners, breeders and food manufacturers, and be advised by a Committee on Safety of Dogs. Owners might be required to attend courses on Good Canine Practice, collect data on walks and outputs, and be subjected to regular inspections. Dog food manufacturers could be required to put instructions on tins and provide information leaflets detailing the ingredients. Inevitably, mishaps would still occur and an adverse incident reporting system – perhaps using “Brown Cards” – would be needed. Then, when a dog ****s on your front lawn, the matter would doubtless be cleared up promptly. New legislation and guidelines would be required, and we must not forget that the UK is part of the Europe. Given that it is currently president of the EU, there is no time to lose. Putting this issue on the agenda would deflect attention from difficult budgetary issues. Back in the UK, there is a need to consider where a national dog agency would sit. Cutting, as it does, right through a wide range of government policies, the Department of Adminstrative Affairs would seem the obvious place. Strong leadership would be needed and, if he could be persuaded out of retirement, who better to head it up than ex-Prime Minister Lord Hacker? Competing interests: I am a dog owner and former employee of Her Majesty’s Government. I deny being paid £100 in a brown envelope by a man in a suit called Humphrey to put my name to this piece. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christiane Maasjost, Board member of Parasitus Ex e. V., Germany Wiesbaden, Germany
Send response to journal:
|
In Germany, the problem with irresponsible dog owners is well known, too. And I agree with the above statement - we do have a dog overpopulation. Cuddly puppies and beautiful, well behaved adult dogs are seen on TV- advertising for commercial dog food all day long. It makes believe that there is remaining little responsibility for the dog owner. Companion dogs seem to be just funny for the kids, easy to care, and they educate themselves. That`s business, right, but a harmful one. Millions of people feel attracted to get dog owners, because it seems to be that easy. Besides processed dog food can never be the way to a healthy dog life, they often don`t even think about the physical needs of their dog - far away caring about the rights of their fellow human beings. The research association I am working for is related with parasitic diseases in dogs, especially with Leishmaniasis. Hundreds of thousands, may be millions of dogs are infected in Europe. Guess what: A comercial "Leishmaniasis-diet" was rapidly available. Nothing is new from the recipe, and it is expensive, but many dog owners think that it would substitute certain remedies like allopurinol, and stop their treatment or won`t even start it. I know, comercial dog food and its advertising is not the only reason for dog problems, but it is an important one. Our Governments should take care of it. Competing interests: Research of parasitic diseases in dogs |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clive St J Buxton, Public Health Physician Ripon HG4 5HW
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Madam, Jackson's Personal View(1) displays a level of bias which I regard as unacceptable (but please note my conflicting interests) from a member of the Journal's editorial staff, even for a Personal View. The use of assertion, analogy and anecdote are, in my opinion, inappropriate if the intention is to genuinely stimulate a reasoned debate. The thrust of Jackson's assertions are that dogs inflict bites, transmit zoonoses by the oro-faecal route and cause a public nuisance (he has clearly missed the licencing hours debate!). We are discussing domesticated (2) dogs, and as such they respond to inappropriate stimuli with their teeth, as do cats and humans, whose bites carry a greater risk of infection. He fortunately acknowledges the role of training, but fails to recognise the human analogy in the socialisation of young humans, both positive and negative. Gang membership, car ownership and alcohol use spring to mind as concerns in both societal and public health terms. The old chestnut of toxocariasis is recycled. How many colleagues have seen a case of this illness in the UK, never mind it as a cause of blindness. The extent of the risks are rarely based on evidence (3). The alleged level of population antibodies might reasonably be argued to support the benefits of dog-owning in protecting us against this helminth. I can accept that dogs can be a public nuisance in terms of noise and urban faecal soiling. However to dismiss those owners who control their pets as a contradiction in terms is both a gratuitous insult and undermines a rational debate and potential solutions to these environmental problems. However, my greatest concern is Jackson's attempt to drive public health policy-making in this flawed manner. He blatantly ignores any attempt at proportionality and demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of public health practice by not attempting any health economic analysis. The benefits of dog ownership range from well-being in its widest sense to exercise (unless Jackson is proposing we exchange our dogs for dolphins(4), in which case I suggest he reviews the health & safety implications). The costs are (in my estimation) considerably less than those due to inappropriate car and/or alcohol use. I too would welcome a balanced (and informed) debate; you have in the past carried papers presenting two sides on issues - perhaps it would be opportune to revisit this approach. Dr Clive St J Buxton Public Health Physician Ripon HG4 5HW cstjb@btinternet.com 1. Jackson T. Is it time to ban dogs as household pets? BMJ 2005;331: 1278 (26 November) 2. Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary. W & R Chambers Ltd. Edinburgh. 1972 Edition. "domesticated - adapted to or content with home life and activities". 3. Taylor MR. The epidemiology of toxocariasis. J Helminth 2001;75(2):109-118 4. Antonioli C, Reveley MA. Randomised controlled trial of animal- facilitated therapy with dolphins in the treatment of depression. BMJ 2005;331: 1231-4 Competing interests: Dog owner and occasional breeder (currently two Bearded Collies and two Italian Spinoni); financial contributions over the years to The Dogs' Home, Battersea, Hearing Dogs for the Deaf, The Dogs' Trust, Breed Clubs and associated dog rescue organisations. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Donald R Shaffer, Graduate Student 77054
Send response to journal:
|
As a dog owner in the United States I felt the need to respond to your article. I have never been to the UK so I cannot pretend to know what the dog situation is like over there, but living in Texas with an estimated 6 million dogs I'm sure I can relate. You make some excellent points about dog ownership. Here in the United States most cities require dog owners to obtain a license for their animal and if the dog is caught roaming or causing problems owners can be ticketed and fined. Still I must disagree with your point on banning dogs as an issue of public health. Yes, dogs do pose a minor threat to the well being of humans but there are many other legal non-regulated items that pose an even greater human health risk. How about fast food, bicycles, and most importantly kids. Children can become a major nuisance in public places: airplanes, restaurants and movie theatres as well being a public health risk. The amount of disease and germs spread throughout the schools and transmitted to the general public is surely more of a threat than that from the common canine. Aside from being a general nuisance and being a reservoir for disease, kids pose many other risks. They bite, their dirty diapers are found on public streets and they can cause high blood pressure in any number of adults. Does the UK regulate ownership of kids? If there is a need for more regulation than I believe we should start with biggest offenders first. Let's initiate a household ban on children, or at least start licensing parents before they start producing them. Sincerely Donald R. Shaffer Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Deborah Zardeneta, animal rights activist 78230
Send response to journal:
|
Firstly, I want to address a more important issue than "animal sanitation" since humans are so far removed from their natural habitat and not qualified to determine what is healthy for them(health in my definition implies both physical and mental welfare). Learning to coexist and communicate with the other animals with whom we SHARE this planet is one of the most important issues that is never addressed since we have imposed slavery on every species on earth (including our own). Living with other animals (indoors or outdoors) is the healthiest environment one can create in such an unhealthy "man-made" world. Despite the uncleanliness of other creatures, homo sapiens takes the prize when it comes to being the most violent, dangerous, unclean, and outright filthy animal on earth! I have learned much concerning genuine love, trust and unconditional friendship from other animals. In fact, very few people are capable of these qualities. Unfortunately, many humans are concerned with the quantity of life, not quality. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
melissa s. luper, college student 55051
Send response to journal:
|
Hi,
MY name is melissa and I have owned quite a few pits in my day and the have never harmed a hair on anyones head, nore have they ever tried too. My first pit chico was posioned by a neighbor, and my second dog chino was stolen. Why don't you people report stuff like that and instead of banning the dogs and wasting tax payers money, why don't you put a ban on people owning dogs who are abuseive,or they only want the dog to put them in fights. I don't think that its fair for us to be punished when we do nothing but love the animals
Competing interests: pit and rott bans |
|||