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.
“There are costs involved in treating those who are maimed, burying those who are killed etc.”
True, but those are private costs, and not public costs that must be paid by the taxpayers.
“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.”
That’s a perfect example of a person who doesn’t take the responsibility for properly training the animal with the seriousness that it demands. Plenty of pit bulls don’t engage in the behavior of pulling apart fences, so the behavior in this instance is obviously a result of lax training.
“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.”
I don’t believe in the need for motorcycle licenses, so that argument for regulation isn’t winning me over.
Now, I see your point about the general population suffering the consequences of irresponsible pit bull owners, but the same could be said of the general population suffering the consequences of irresponsible firearm owners. Does that mean we should require registration and regulation of all firearms, making it purposefully burdensome to possess them, in order to lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of irresponsible people? Well, plenty of governments have tried that approach, and I think we all know how that has turned out. The irresponsible will still be irresponsible, and only the responsible will comply, while the general population still suffers the consequences of the irresponsible people. The better approach is to punish the irresponsible people harshly, to deter the behavior by making an example of them to others who would be irresponsible. This approach serves to lessen the burden on both the general population and the responsible citizens. It’s a win-win!