I'm not sure where the breed ban debate actually makes its debut in this article. It must be there, lurking amidst all the text.
The story goes: Woman is walking her Vizsla puppy (who looks to be 25-35 lbs) when two dogs jump over a fence and begin attacking the dog. One dog is a Pit Bull (who is continually referred to as "pit bull" as if the breed is nonexistent and isn't deserving of proper capitalization). One dog is a St. Bernard (receiving proper capitalization).
The St. Bernard:
- grabs the dog by the neck
- bites the woman on the hand
The Pit Bull
- bites the dog on the chest
- is easily led away by a neighbor who grabs the dog by the collar
The woman is claiming the Pit Bull did the most damage, while Animal Control believes the St. Bernard was the most dangerous and the lead aggressor.
How does this spark a debate about breeds? I mean, we have two very distinct breeds involved in a dog-dog attack and only one of the dogs bit a human who intervened in the fight. It's not as if the article describes a massive increase in dog attacks or rampaging breeds running loose, wreaking havoc. We have a case of a fence too low to restrain two dogs. That's it, really. If the owner of these dogs does not have a long history of letting his dogs loose, then all we have a case of a major screw-up that is easily remedied with a taller fence. To make it into a more dramatic situation is irrational and unfounded.
Which is not meant to detract from the trauma of a dog attack. I feel for the dog immensely and wish her a full recovery. The woman too - we humans are often left more scarred than the dog herself. I just wish people would see situations like these as reflective of an individual error instead of an issue of breed.