Gidday mate, you write:
> The problem in the US, at least, is breed-specific banning. Politicians who couldn’t tell a Boston Terrier from a Boxer pass laws banning many of the breeds you mention above as “pit bulls”, when, as you so correctly note, they are no such thing.
Here in NZ we have four specific breeds that are banned: Japanese Toso, Perro de Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, and something called the American Pit Bull Terrier. These specific breeds are Contraband and cannot be imported.
The first three I am very sure of: I have seen them and I can identify them at sight.
The fourth one I am less sure of, because the animal that I know of as being the American Pit Bull Terrier, and the animals that get called Pit Bulls, are two very different animals.
The first is a specific and defined breed, the second is a mungrel mutt bred for violence. It is the latter that needs to be destroyed and not the former. And it is the latter that tend to be kept and bred by gangs and criminals.
> Dangerous dogs, of any body type, need to be gotten off the streets, and owners of said dogs need to be held legally responsible if their animal harms another human being, or for that matter, someone else’s pet dog or cat.
I would be happy to see the concept of “Vicarious Liability” apply to dog owners: they are criminally and civilly responsible for any and all damage done by their dog(s) as if they had done that damage themselves.
Dog bites man? That’s assault and battery.
Dog tries to bite man? That’s assault.
Dog tears man’s balls off? That’s assault causing grievous bodily harm.
Dog kills man? That’s manslaughter.
Dog is ordered to kill man? That’s murder.
Dog is trained to kill man, and kills man? That’s first-degree murder...
...and so it goes:
Dog craps on lawn? That’s littering and discharge of a noxious substance.
Dog barks excessively? That’s disturbing the peace.
Dog kills cat? That’s criminal property damage.
Dog kills cat slowly? That’s Animal cruelty.
Dog fights other dog? That’s affray and disorderly conduct.