“Exotic animal licenses already exist so applying them to pits and rotties would not create another layer of bureaucracy.”
Due to the sheer numbers of pits compared to authentically exotic animals, it would at the very least require a large expansion of that bureaucracy, which would require more revenue to run, which would require more taxes/fees to fund.
Also, the idea of applying “exotic” animal licenses to an animal that is anything but exotic in the United States smacks of cognitive dissonance to me.
There are costs involved in treating those who are maimed, burying those who are killed etc. I think some people would not buy a pitbull if they understood that they require special enclosures and training to handle them. They unknowingly buy a dog they can’t handle and put it in a pen it can escape.
A young friend of mine said his pitbull pulled up or apart any fence he built so he had to give up and let the dog roam the property. Usually the dog attacks and fatalities result from animals roaming free.
If only motorcyclists must have, and pay for, a motorcycle license, then only those who own animals that require regulation should pay for that regulation.
So the pitbull population would go down as only those capable of handling and boarding them and paying for them have them. At present - the hidden costs of owning a pitbull is unfairly diffused over the general population.
I am not concerned with ‘cognitive dissonance’; the term exotic in this case it would to the animal’s unusual handling and boarding requirements.