A Big Pile of Bull

Pit bull regulation insults individual freedom

By Andrew R Quinio
Posted on 06/09/05

Having a “Beware of Dog” sign displayed on one’s front yard is no longer good enough, at least not to San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. After several incidences of pit bulls attacking youngsters, the mayor has begun to look into ways to regulate the ownership of the American Pit Bull Terrier.

Supporting the ban on pit bulls would be to support the rejection of basic freedom and property rights. Why shouldn’t people, responsible enough to maintain and handle a pit bull, be able to own one? It is indeed frightening to read about innocent youngsters getting mauled by house pets, but that doesn’t mean all dog owners are negligent and irresponsible keepers of killer animals. Accidental drowning deaths are just as frightening, but we aren’t going to ban private swimming pools. Then again, seeing that California is the Golden Regulatory State, one never knows.

The incident that spurred regulatory action involved 12 year old Nicholas Faibish, who was reportedly mauled by two pit bulls in a Sunset District apartment in the Bay Area. It was a tragic and unfortunate loss. The bigger picture, however, indicates that this could have easily been prevented. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, young Nicholas was left alone for two hours with the two dogs while his mother did some shopping. Why did his parents leave him alone with dogs that are traditionally viewed as dangerous?

The negligence that was displayed in this case is not common among all pit bull owners. Not all dog owners would leave young children alone with reputedly dangerous animals, thus regulating ownership of these animals assumes that there is no such thing as a responsible owner.

Placing a ban on certain pets is an affront to personal responsibility. By disallowing the ownership of these pets, the government sends the message that private citizens lack the capacity to handle a pet on their own. This is essentially what all regulation does; it denies citizens of personal accountability and gives the government an arrogant parental role. Newsom might as well tell pit bull owners, “You’re just not old enough to handle these dogs. Wait until you’re older.” Mayor Newsom in fact said something along these lines. He told the Associated Press, “If we can’t change people’s behavior and make them think what’s in their best interest, then that’s when government comes along and becomes a bit paternalistic.” The “best interest” evocation usually translates into the removal of individual freedom.

Operative words like “best interest,” “public interest,” or “common good” are basically warnings to individuals whose property will soon be seized by an all-knowing and benevolent government. Once a politician talks about “best interest,” you better hold on tight to your paycheck, or in this case, your pit bull.

The very act of regulating pit bulls will not address the real problem of mauling incidences. According to the National Canine Research Foundation, “…the breed of dog is never the sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack.” One of the many reasons for pit bull attacks that the foundation cites is owner responsibility. Thus, it would not be improper to say that pit bulls don’t kill people, but irresponsible owners of pit bulls kill people. Regulation would simply punish responsible dog owners. It would be unfair to take away their right to own a pit bull simply because of the negligence of a few.

But forget the facts. Newsom is a man of action. He is finally doing something about this oh so serious problem that is ravaging the Bay Area, not to mention scoring some sweet political points on the side. That is all pit bull regulation would do; it would make Newsom look like a compassionate and proactive problem solver and earn him some votes at the next election, all at the expense of law abiding dog owners.

Perhaps a new sign should be displayed in front of the San Francisco City Hall, which reads, “Beware of overbearing local government acting in ‘best interest.’”

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot