Letter: Prohibiting pit bill bans is ludicrous
Published: February 22, 2014 01:01AM
Updated: February 22, 2014 01:01AM

After reading the opinion piece by Arlyn Bradshaw and Gregory Castle (“Pit-bull bans are unfair and ineffective in Utah,” Opinion, Feb. 18), I am amazed at the ludicrous reasoning they give for supporting the equally lame-brained House bill to prohibit banning pit bull terriers.

To say that shepherds and Rottweilers were the “en vogue” breeds to ban is wrong. They were banned because they not only bite people, but they do serious, life-threatening damage. Furthermore, pit bulls are unpredictable. They can be fine one day, and then rip off a child’s face without provocation.

Ask anyone on the street to name a breed associated with mauling children. They will say pit bull, Rottweiler and shepherd. If wolves were allowed as pets, they would be at the top of that list. That is why they are banned.

Those dogs also escape, and can be frightening to encounter on the loose. Kids have to be brought in, and then animal control called.

Granted, all dogs can nip if provoked. But when was the last time a child was sent to Primary Children’s Hospital by an attack poodle, pug or Labrador?

Gov. Herbert should not sign this ridiculous “breed discrimination” bill, should it make it to his desk.

Cathy Waddill

Draper