In a recent study by vHomeInsurance.com, it was revealed that over 66% of dog maulings are by Pit Bulls. After a statistic as shocking as this, it made me question whether Pit bulls should still be allowed. Pit Bulls have been breed for years to be aggressive dogs and even fighting dogs. In more recent years dogfighting has decreased significantly, however, Pit bulls still are very aggressive. Unfortunately, this has resulted in many fatal attacks over the years. When it's in the pet's nature and DNA to attack, like many Pit Bulls, is the owner still at fault?
This connects to the case we watched in global: the SF Dog Mauling. Marjorie Knoller is serving a sentence of 15 years to life in prison for second-degree murder after her dogs attacked and killed her neighbor, Diane Whipple, 33, in their San Francisco apartment building in 2001. The dogs were Presa Canarios and were notorious for being aggressive dogs. However, this shocking case was the first time this breed of dog ever mauled someone so viciously. The court ruled that Knoller had full responsibility for her dogs and served the punishment for the attack. Although owners hold all responsibility for their dogs I believe that there could be an effort made to prevent the selling/giving of aggressive dog breeds, such as Presa Canario and Pit bulls. The environment a dog lives in has an impact on their aggressive nature, but the DNA and nature of certain breeds also play a role. I believe that for the future aggressive dog breeds could be potentially blacklisted.
I know a friend who owns a Pit bull, but he is a very nice dog and is not aggressive. I agree that the environments that dogs are raised in have an impact on their aggressiveness. However, I disagree that Pit bulls are naturally aggressive dogs.
ReplyDelete