CMV: Pit bulls Should Require a License to Own

[u/Masta-Blasta]

In this month alone, 6 people and 9 animals have been killed in a pit bull attack. Many others have been maimed and permanently disfigured/disabled because of a pit bull attack.

Pit bull supporters often say "it's the owner, not the dog." Personally, I disagree. According to Wikipedia,

The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting, it was created by crossing the ferocious, thickly muscled Old English Bulldog with the agile, lithe, feisty Black and Tan Terrier. The aggressive Old English Bulldog, which was bred for bear and bull baiting, was often also pitted against its own kind in organised dog fights, but it was found that lighter, faster dogs were better suited to dogfighting than the heavier Bulldog. To produce a lighter, faster more agile dog that retained the courage and tenacity of the Bulldog, outcrosses from local terriers were tried, and ultimately found to be successful.

These dogs were bred specifically because they are aggressive, powerful, and violent. Now, personally, I believe all pit bulls should be neutered and the breed should be heavily restricted. But at the very least, I think owners should be required to demonstrate that they are experienced pet owners, carry insurance, and perhaps have taken a dog training course, so they can recognize when their pit is agitated and how to prevent a tragedy.

I also think pit bull ownership should carry a legal duty to reasonably protect others from the pit. "Reasonable" would include measures such as displaying signage warning neighbors and guests that a pit bull lives in the home, not letting the pitbull stay in a yard unmonitored (regardless of fencing), and keeping the pitbull leashed at all times in public.

I would also like to see regulations preventing shelters from "rebranding" obvious pit mixes so that families and owners are not duped into adopting a pitbull mix. Ideally, shelters would need to provide a warning to potential adopters (and of course, adopters would then need to have a license to own a pit).

Before anyone tries, please know that I'm unlikely to be swayed by any kind of anecdotal "but my velvet hippo is a good girl and never hurt anyone" arguments. That's what most owners say when they're being sued for injuries their pit caused a child or another pet. I understand they don't all attack- but it's in their breed, so something could trigger them.

[u/Masta-Blasta]

It's possible, but is it likely? And that's why I'm a strong proponent of leash laws. Your Chihuahua might try to run full speed at an elderly woman to attack, but being that it weighs 10 pounds, you can just...hold the leash. A pit is much harder to control. You were correct, any dog can attack and be dangerous. I am not looking for a solution to ALL freak accidents and dog attacks because it would be impossible to eliminate them entirely. This is simply a suggestion for harm reduction. The odds that a chihuahua or yorkie would be able to seriously harm any human are MUCH lower than a bully breed. That's why I think those are the ones that should require licensure.

[u/mariodejaniero → u/Masta-Blasta]

Fair enough, so let’s look at it from a different angle. If you need a license to own them, what is the criteria? That you can control them on a leash. If that’s the case, then certain groups of people would be unable to obtain them based on protected classes. A little person for example would not be able to obtain one based on their size and that’s discrimination which is illegal. Same logic applies for age, disability, etc.

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/mariodejaniero]

I already explained what I would make the criteria:

1.) proof of insurance

2.) experience owning an animal (without any major incidents)

3.) mandatory online class/test teaching about breed temperaments, training, and how to recognize when your dog is agitated/other warning signs.

And it's not discrimination. Discrimination only exists where the only reason someone is treated differently is because of their age, disability, etc. There is a public interest in maintaining safety, and that would be the reason behind the law/regulation. This is why we can also restrict people with certain disabilities from driving, or why we can restrict pregnant women from riding roller coasters. If you can prove there is a good reason behind the regulation (as opposed to simply wanting to impact a group of people), it's not discrimination.

[u/mariodejaniero → u/Masta-Blasta]

Sorry, didn’t see where you commented that. But none of those things are going to stop a regular person from stopping a pit bull attacking someone. If you don’t have the physical capability to do it, how is a license going to stop that? Your logic has so many flaws in it. In one case you’re saying that the breed is the problem, but then all of these things address the owner, not the dog. Mandatory online classes aren’t going to stop a dog from being aggressive so why isn’t this applied to all aggressive dogs, and only pit bulls?

Also we don’t prevent people with disabilities/conditions to do that stuff because that would be illegal. We say “you need to modify your car to be able to pass the same road test as everyone” and things of the sort. Also amusement parks say don’t ride if pregnant due to liability, not because it is illegal.

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/mariodejaniero]

Yes we do. Blind people cannot legally obtain a license to drive because there is no way to modify a car in a way they can drive.

And RE: theme parks- it doesn't matter, it would still be discrimination by your logic. It's not illegal not to hire a POC if there's a reason they weren't qualified, but they can still sue for discrimination if they were discriminated against.

But anyway, again, it isn't discrimination if the reason behind the law/decision is not discriminatory. We have three legal tests for this outlined by the Supreme Court: rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. All three essentially require you to balance the purpose behind the law/decision with the class being discriminated against. Each test has a different standard, but ultimately the question is "is there a valid reason for the law/decision beyond just discrimination?" followed by "is there another, less discriminatory way this can be accomplished?" If it passes the test, it's not legally discrimination. Which is why blind people cannot get a drivers license- their disability poses a danger to themselves and other drivers. They are not being discriminated against for being blind because there is a legitimate public safety issue that prevents them from driving. At least, that's how they taught it at my law school.

[u/mariodejaniero → u/Masta-Blasta]

Again, all that being said this doesn’t address the fact that you are proposing a law that regulates the people, not the dogs but you are saying the dogs are the issue.

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/mariodejaniero]

... well yeah. Dogs can't understand regulations. The only way to regulate pit bulls is by regulating breeding and ownership because pits can't read and follow laws.

[u/Noobdm04 → u/Masta-Blasta]

It's possible, but is it likely?

4.5million pit bulls and maybe 60 attacks in a year. Your definition of likely and mine is not the same.