A Case of Irresponsible Reporting?

In yesterday’s Parade, J. Scott Orr writes about preventing fatal dog attacks. As far as I’m concerned, the piece seems to reflect a clear bias against pit-bulls, but maybe I’m just feeling the need to defend the underdog.

Image via The Daily Puppy

The key part of the story, however, reads as follows: “Animal-protection groups like The Humane Society of the U.S. say the problem lies with irresponsible owners, not their pets. ‘Pit bulls are the fad ‘dangerous dogs’ right now, but if they are banned, reckless people will simply find another breed,’ says Adam Goldfarb of The Humane Society, which supports consumer education and strict enforcement of leash laws. Besides, the group claims, there is little evidence that breed-specific legislation is effective. U.S. cities where pitbulls are outlawed have not seen dramatic decreases in attacks, nor are there fewer deadly dog bites in Great Britain, where pit bulls have been banned for almost 20 years.”

Where do you guys stand on this? Vote on whether you think it should be illegal to own a pit bull on Parade’s site here:

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/090913-preventing-fatal-dog-attacks.html