Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
At whose cost, though? Eleven times out of 10, pit bulls are owned by ne'er-do-wells that wouldn't have the resources or interest to have their dog taken in for behavioural testing/evaluations. There is no way this 18 year-old kid has the money to pay for that and it's a giant waste of taxpayer resources if we pick up the tab. That's where a breed ban starts to make sense on a purely economic level - it's simply too expensive for us to ensure a dog is safe, if that's even possible. Banning the breed means we don't have to worry about all this other crap that goes along with dummies owning them.
|
Well obviously the owners should inherit all costs associated with the dog, especially in incidents like this.
I get your point, regulations/higher owning or registrations costs aren't going to dissuade certain owners who don't bother to register their dogs anyways... but if we had more enforcement than these owners would be continually hit with $250 fines.
At the same time, breed bans would need a lot of enforcement too Sliver... and breeders/owners could probably get around the ban by saying it's a terrier/bulldog cross or something like that. You'd basically have to do genetic testing on the dog in order to fully enforce a breed ban.