Is it the breed or the owner?

A woman wrote to say a neighbor’s pit bull had come onto her fenced property and savaged her pet sheep and her horses last week. The ewe, Sally, had attempted to protect the horses and ended up with fatal injuries inflicted to her cheek, jaw and throat. Sally was humanely destroyed. The horses were very traumatized “and possibly injured,” she said.

The pit was the neighbor’s family pet. It also had a history of getting loose, she said. The owner was ”crushed” at the damage the dog had done. But this person had also allegedly become increasingly concerned at the dog’s behavior. 

The incident, the woman said, has left her wondering if pit bull ownership should be restricted. “I am not about more laws or punishing the dogs for doing what they are bred to do,” she said. “I am about not more breeding of pit bulls and very restrictive ownership.”

I sympathize with the woman’s concerns. But I disagree with her premise that this incident happened because the dog was a pit bull. The predator/prey instinct is strong in many breeds. And most dogs, from the lowliest mutt to the highest-brow purebred, are capable of harrassing and hurting livestock if left to their own devices.

I do believe many pit owners are ill-equipped to deal with their dogs. And, let’s face it, pits are not chihuahuas or some other little ankle-biting breed. So when an owner fails to control a poorly trained and ill-socialized dog, the results can be deadly to animals, adults and children.

Our reader suggested pit owners be required to get better education or perhaps even acquire a permit to own the breed. Other options included requiring an insurance policy for potential damage and restricting ownership.

What, if anything, do you think should be done to control (potentially) dangerous dogs? And do you think the changes should apply strictly to pit bulls? E-mail me, and we can keep the discussion going.