Should Castle Rock reverse its 25-year ban on pit bulls?

“Castle Rock may move to a dog-by-dog policy, drop its ban,” Jan. 28 news story.

I commend Castle Rock for reconsidering its pit bull ban, and The Denver Post for noting this important review. The incidents over 25 years ago were indeed horrific, but increasing evidence has shifted from blaming the breed to a focus on the specific animal and, usually, the human owner. Bully breeds have had a surge in popularity in areas where they are not banned and killed, and yet there has not been a commensurate increase (or even a presence) in dog attack horror stories.

News stories often require equivalence (“What does the opposing side think?”). Unfortunately, The Post chose a website (DogsBite.org) that is growing more isolated from the discourse on this topic, because their purported facts don’t withstand scrutiny. As this important discussion continues, I urge The Post to factcheck these responses. Or better yet, turn to reputable national organizations which can provide a balanced, more accurate analysis of the issue.

●●●

Pit bulls are the breed of choice for dogfighters and other abusers, and they constitute a high percentage of dogs in shelters. When pit bulls lash out, the results are often fatal: In December and January, pit bulls reportedly killed three women in separate attacks.

Legislation saves lives. In San Francisco, the number of pit bulls euthanized by animal control dropped 24 percent 18 months after a pit bull sterilization ordinance passed. One year after San Bernardino County, Calif., passed a breedspecific law, dog bites decreased nearly 10 percent. Nine years after banning pit bulls, bites involving the breed in Aurora decreased 73 percent and euthanasia of pit bulls decreased 93 percent.

Breed-specific protections and regulations are vital to prevent more pit bulls from being abused — and attacking.

Norfolk, Va. The writer is an animal care and control issues manager for PETA.