I see that the City Council passed their PIt Bull ordinance last night... despite the fact that there's no such actual breed of dog.
I mean, how can you tell a pit bull? Is it a full bred pit bull?... Well, no such thing. So, it can't be a half pit bull, either.
How do you register a breed that doesn't actually exist?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is a bit like passing a law that discriminates against "tinted people", a vague phrase that allows the enforcer to define what "tinted" means.
Eddy & Co. can now decide whether your pooch meets "Worcester's definition of a Pit Bull", and it'll be on your dime to prove them wrong.
Please, everyone, remember the names of the councilors who voted for this nonsense when you cast your votes for the next city council.
I can see why they did this, at least in my neighborhood, these drug dealers and gang members all have these type of dogs as status symbol of how tough and mean they are. They train then to be violet and to attack. It is part of their normal attire. It would be great if they just got to the root of the problem, just like the ordinance that got passed for the mobile food trucks limitations to stem the drug dealings into the night.
Regarding master's comment: it's important to note that Mike Germain asked Chief Gemme last night whether the uptick in dog bite, especially from pit bulls, was related to the uptick in gang violence. Gemme couldn't answer.
Germain also noted that if people didn't have pits, they'd have Rottweilers, or German Shepherds, or any of a number of breeds that have been "bullied" in the past.
But -- to your rhetorical question, Jeff -- it's all about the "look." (If someone could determine dog temperament by "looking", that person would have a crapload of money.)
Post a Comment