Aused-car dealer rips off an elderly woman who needs a reliable way to get to her medical appointments.
A truck filled with chicken guts overturns, creating a nasty mess on a city street.
A man uses a handgun to rob a bank.
What’s the solution to these kinds of violations of the public health and welfare? Some in Springdale might just suggest banning used-car dealers trucks filled with poultry innards andhandguns. That would certainly prevent such unfortunate and sometimes dangerous incidents from happening again, but we suspect some residents, business owners andcorporations might take issue with being cast out with the so-called bad apples.
That’s the problem with recent talk at the Springdale City Council, where Alderman Mike Overton plans to introduce an ordinance to restrict aggressive dogs. That might include a ban on pit bulldogs, a kind of dog Overton said jumped from a pickup to attack his cocker spaniel.
A Springdale staff report showed 58 percent of dogs involved in citations for vicious animals were pit bulls or pit bull mixes.
“I think that is telling,” City Attorney Earnest Cate said, “when you have more than half from one breed.”
Some might call that profiling, but Springdale wouldn’t be the first community to ban pit bulldogs, which have a reputation for aggression.
Pit bull advocates, however, will complain such bans cast an entire breed in a bad light because of the actions, or potential actions, of a few.
One would think politicians might not advocate such an approach (see Toronto’s mayor).
In August, the president himself announced opposition to breed-specific legislation, although that might not be incredibly persuasive in Springdale. Such legislation often targets pit bulldogs and Rottweilers, but have also been used against Dobermans, German shepherds and others. News outlets reported opposition to breed-specific legislation included the American Humane Association, the American Kennel Club, and the American Bar Association.
Bans are easy reactions but are rarely the most effective and eft cient.
The problem isn’t a breed, but a behavior.
While one would no doubt like to prevent any and all injuries before they happen, can anyone suggest a ban on any one breed will prevent anything?
That’s not to say the City Council should simply reject the concerns brought up by Overton and others. Measures based on canine behavior are a fair way to approach problems. They don’t conclude one breed is guilty in advance of any behavioral issues.
Dog problems in an urban setting are typically not a problem with the animal, but with the owner. For example, cities don’t pass ordinances that bar dogs from leaving their droppings behind; they charge owners with cleaning up what the dogs do.
Likewise, owners can be required to take specific actions to keep dogs on leashes or within penned-in areas. These protections are good for the dogs and for their human counterparts.
Dog owners must take responsibility for their animals. When that doesn’t happen, the city is within reason to establish restrictions, especially for repeat off enders.
But let’s ban bans.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 11/16/2013