LOUIS PIERARD
HASTINGS' Mayor Lawrence Yule is on the money when he says there should be ``zero tolerance' with dangerous dogs.
Every time there is a dog attack, the number of calls for a ban on ``dangerous' breeds is matched by equal fervour from breed supporters, who argue it is the owner,
not the dog, that is at fault. That argument is of little help to children lying stitched up in hospital.
How many more need to be disfigured to prove the point? Mr Yule says three recent attacks by pit bull terriers show the breed should be banned.
``We all know that a lot of other dogs are not nearly this aggressive ... I just don't think we can keep tolerating this type of thing,' he said.
He's right. Why would anyone argue when pit bulls - one of the four dogs banned from being imported under the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003 - are so patently unreliable? Why would owners want to have such a liability anywhere near their own children?
Part of the appeal of such dogs, which are purpose-bred for killing each other, is, no doubt, the frisson that comes from being accessorised with an item with such a potential for violence.
Pit bulls' defenders ought to consider on whether the dogs are worth the risk. Firearms owners and drivers are licensed so that the danger to the public is kept to a minimum. But what is the likelihood of ever having a licensing system that can ensure all dogs will be trained by responsible owners to behave dependably?
In a risk-averse age, considerable care and public money is spent on preventing people from suffering the consequences of their own carelessness, yet we are still prepared to play Russian roulette with children's safety with notorious dog breeds. To some, dogs are surrogate people, but we allow sentiment to trump reasoned argument at our peril.
