Dear editor:
Re: Kudos for dog bylaw, Letters to the edtior, Burnaby NOW, Oct. 9.
I regret to inform the author of this letter that of the four dogs breeds she has listed, only the pit bull is being required to be muzzled and not the Doberman, German shepherd or Rottweiler.
Also, as the owner of a German shepherd, I take issue with characterization of these breeds of dogs and their owners. I have never and will never regard my dog as a weapon. I’ve spent considerable time training and socializing my shepherd, and I am sorry that you do not agree with my choice of dog, but that does not make her a weapon. She is, in fact, an excellent family dog, as all of the breeds you appear to be afraid of are.
While she may be correct in that there are bad owners that may misuse their dogs, the vast majority of dog owners are responsible, and it is unfair to make such blanketing and disrespectful statements. Yet again, this brings us to the point of those against breed-specific language. Bad people do bad things, so punish them for their choices. A bad driver wrecks his car and seriously injures a bystander. Should all cars be banned? No. The driver of the car is held accountable. It should be the same for dogs.
I sincerely feel bad for the author if she truly believes that owners of large dogs imply such a threat to her and others, as it simply is not the case.
The vast majority of dog owners in Burnaby are responsible, otherwise we’d be reading a lot more about dog attacks in our local papers.
I would remind the author that in this day and age it is simply inexcusable to discriminate against people due to physical characteristics and should be the same for animals. This is not just the views of Hug-A-Bull, but also the SPCA, the American Humane Society, Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association, the Canadian Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club, American Bar Association, the Center for Disease Control and a large portion of the population – or as our mayor and council like to brand it, a small vocal minority.
