Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Readers Respond

Columnist reflects the public ignorance and fear surrounding pit bulls

I was disheartened to read Dan Rodricks' inflammatory piece on pit bull owners, particularly one that rails against animals that cannot defend themselves against the ignorance of people ("Pit bulls: Own them at your risk," May 1).

While I am disgusted overall by Mr. Rodricks' stance on pit bulls, a breed that I have always found to be loyal, loving and playful, I have a few specific concerns I feel I must point out.

The language in Mr. Rodricks' opinion is not only biased, but it is ignorant. He claims that the pit bulls are "tethered or chained to their owners." Why use those words, when these fine dog owners are simply being responsible and keeping their dogs on a leash?

Would Mr. Rodricks consider a golden retriever that is leashed in a park to be "tethered or chained," as if they were being held in some kind of medieval captivity? In any case, these responsible owners are just following Baltimore City's leash law.

Also, Mr. Rodricks ignores the fact that pit bull attacks are, by and large, wholly the fault of the owners. Pit bulls are not born with a preternatural desire to bite; that's something they are taught by cruel owners who raise them to fight and who are more monster than human.

Any animal that is cared for, treated well and trained not to attack, bite or jump on people will not do so. These are things that any animal can do — a golden doodle can bite and a Chihuahua can maim a baby. If an animal doesn't get along with other dogs or strange people, it is the owner's responsibility to restrain it.

Yet because some breeds don't have the same kind of baggage that pit bulls do, they don't suffer the same abuse that pit bulls do before they end up in an overwhelmed animal shelter.

It seems there is a lot of ignorance and fear regarding pit bulls in the minds of judges, and Mr. Rodricks seems to fall victim to it as well. Instead of condemning pit bulls, we should be supporting the owners who are taking these wonderful dogs in and caring for them in a way that, prior to their adoption, they may never have experienced.

Carl Armstrong, Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Another diatribe against pit bulls
    Another diatribe against pit bulls

    As a woman of a certain age and a pit bull adopter, I was dismayed to read another attack on pit bulls by columnist Dan Rodricks that this time seemed to question whether senior citizens are appropriate companions for such dogs ("In Frederick, a tragic reminder of pit bull ruling," Jan. 20).

  • Violence against pets must be taken seriously
    Violence against pets must be taken seriously

    In response to the editorial "Man's best friend" (Oct. 13), I am disappointed that The Baltimore Sun turned people's reactions to reported abuse into a competition as to which victims of violent crimes are more worthy of sympathy or outrage. Violence is violence, and none of it is good for...

  • Tougher minimum sentences needed for animal cruelty [Letter]
    Tougher minimum sentences needed for animal cruelty [Letter]

    Animal cruelty is a violent crime that is often an indicator crime and a predictor crime as well. Animals, however, are property under the law, and while we have seen an increase in the number of prosecutions, most judges continue to treat these crimes as minor property crimes ("Man's best...

  • People who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans, too [Letter]
    People who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans, too [Letter]

    Is it too much to ask for The Sun's editorial board to consider both animal abuse and violence against humans as deserving of stiff sentencing ("Man's best friend," Oct. 12)?

  • Pit bulls still dangerous [Letter]
    Pit bulls still dangerous [Letter]

    I want to thank journalist Dan Rodricks for his informative column about pit bulls ("Two years after Maryland court ruling, pit bulls on attack," April 26). It helps me understand more about the pit bull lover uproar and their jargon about it being "the owner, not the breed." However, nothing...

  • Rodricks feeds into pit bull hysteria [Letter]
    Rodricks feeds into pit bull hysteria [Letter]

    I was disturbed on multiple levels after reading Dan Rodricks' recent article, "Two years after Maryland court ruling, pit bulls on attack" (April 26). Not only does Mr. Rodricks feed into anti-pit bull hysteria for the sake of sensationalizing a hot-button issue, but his piece can hardly be...

Comments
Loading