Worse than its bite

Continuing my posting of op-ed pieces I wrote for the Kennesaw State Sentinel, here is the article that prompted the idea.

Assembly proposes dog legislation
Its bark is worse than its bite
Originally published February 9, 2005
Re-printed courtesy of the Kennesaw State Sentinel.

Today we are going to have an object lesson in Libertarianism. We are going to learn about what makes a piece of legislation bad, maybe even vicious. In the Georgia General Assembly, we have a brilliant example. HB-78 as presented by Rep. Earnest Williams [D-89] seeks to make it illegal to "import, sell, transport, carry, own, keep or otherwise possess any live pit bull dog in this state." This is a complete waste of legislative hot air. It is virtually unenforceable and fails to address a real, meaningful issue.

In order to enforce HB-78 in any practical way, police would have to go door-to-door to search for and impound all pit bulls that are not grandfathered in. So now, our already thin police force will have to be trained for the identification of the three bull terrier breeds, which have been identified as "pit bulls." They will also need to become experts in determining the age of a dog. I certainly don't think that Rep. Williams expected this to happen. It is clear that this law is not meant to prevent problems caused by pit bulls, but rather, to create nuisance fines against owners and breeders in the hopes that they will choose not to own or breed pit bulls.

So if we are not going to stop pit bull problems, why generate this legislation? As I see it, there are two possible answers to that question. The least likely is to reduce the incidence of dog fighting, a goal I certainly support, but dog fighting is already illegal. Simply enforcing the existing laws against dog fighting would seem to be a better way to eliminate it.

The more likely answer is a concern for "public safety." We've all heard horror stories about those vicious pit bulls that have mauled and maimed children. Certainly aggressive dogs that are not properly contained or trained can be a public nuisance, but neither of these issues is meaningfully addressed by this legislation. In fact, there are already animal containment and leash laws in most cities or towns in the state of Georgia. In other words, it is already illegal to allow your dog to be a public nuisance, or a threat to public safety. This legislation will not solve any problems that we do not already have laws to solve!

One of the defining characteristics of bureaucracy out of control is the implementation of rules which serve no purpose. This bill is just such a rule. Worst of all, outlawing these three breeds is not going to offer people any more protection from vicious dogs as a whole, only from vicious pit bulls. This leaves several [and some might say all] other breeds of potentially vicious dogs free. Moreover, that brings us to the issue of discrimination.

As the AKC rightly points out, this sort of legislation punishes "responsible owners while doing nothing to address the city's dangerous dog problem." Again, I am not a dog owner, much less a pit bull enthusiast, but those who are assert that the pit bull is a very friendly, intelligent and courageous breed. Pit bulls are highly regarded for search and rescue work, and there are as many [if not more] verifiable stories of pit bulls saving children as there are of pit bulls mauling them. The AKC describes the breed as a "foremost all-purpose dog" citing its quietness and "trustworthy stability." Am I saying that pit bulls are not dangerous? Well, 45 pounds of muscle and teeth certainly can be dangerous, but it appears that this breed may be the victim of bad press and bad individual animals. Some of my more conservative friends might laugh at the notion, but I can see where making an argument for this kind of stereotyping is not that dissimilar from the kind of bigotry we keep struggling, as a society, to put behind us. In fact, it may be exactly the same thing.

So what do you think? Which is worse, a mean dog, or meaningless legislation? Given the two I would rather have the dog. It will respond to care and feeding with love and loyalty. I promise you government will never offer similar rewards.