Denver Post Column on Breed ID Study Misses the Point

Scary. This Denver Post article makes the point of not banning breeds that have been ID'd the 'eye ball' way BUT "needlessly killing....". Gaw, do we need to needlessly kill ANY breed? There is NO aggressive BREED! Not! Are they saying if they WERE Pit Bulls then it wouldn't be needless?

Read the article here:http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14005785#ixzz0ZqP9mhIm

There are NO Dangerous Breeds!

Yes, sometimes there are dangerous dogs, people, cats, birds for God's sake, but a dangerous breed?? Even if you're not any sort of advocate for animals this is only simple logic.

According to this article from the San Diego News Network:

"In January of this year, the United States Army enacted a new policy banning all dogs with “a predisposition toward aggressive or dangerous behavior.” The specific breeds cited included all species of pit bulls, Rottweilers, and wolf/canid hybrids. The Air Force quickly followed suit, as did the U.S. Navy, implementing the same base-policy regulations.

Closer to home, at Camp Pendleton, residents now have to deal with the new rules. In August, the United States Marine Corps joined the other branches of the Armed Forces in instituting its “anti-pit bull policy.”

This to me is like saying a couple of Catholics robbed a house, so let's ban all Catholics! What? And btw, how the hell do you tell a Catholic from a Buddhist just by looking? This is just dangerous thinking....period.

See the full article here and give us your thoughts:
http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-10-28/local-county-news/marines-could-lose-family-members-after-camp-pendleton-bans-pit-bulls