August 25, 2006
Dear Editor:In reading the article about the recent dog-to-dog attack and the many letters in response to this article, (“Dogfight downvalley sets stage for fight in court,” Aug. 16) several points come to mind:1. Ms. Crenshaw is a law-abiding citizen. Her dogs were leashed and she was walking them on public property.2. Mr. Snyder’s dogs were unleashed, charging leashed dogs on public property. Is this law-abiding? I think not – it’s being an irresponsible owner, not maintaining control of his dogs.3. Regardless of the breed or size of dogs, an unleashed dog charging a leashed dog is considered an act of aggression in the dog world. Just talk to any animal behaviorist.4. Mr. Barbour (Letters to the Editor, Aug. 23) cites CDC statistics as proof that pit bulls are dangerous dogs. Even the CDC repudiates those statistics: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm and states not to use them in policymaking decisions. Quote from the CDC: “It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policymaking decisions related to the topic.”5. Any breed can and will be aggressive in certain situations, without the proper training and socialization. In the past five years, fatalities have been attributed to Pomeranians, German shepherds, Labrador retrievers and several other breeds. Isabelle Dinoire, the Frenchwoman who received a face transplant, was attacked and permanently disfigured by her own pet Labrador mix.6. Hold the irresponsible owner, Mr. Snyder, accountable for the actions of his unleashed dogs and not the breed of dog Ms. Crenshaw owns.The city should leave Ms. Crenshaw and her dogs out of this – they were abiding by the law. Mr. Snyder has been fined and has to pay the veterinary bills for his dogs. That’s as it should be – Mr. Snyder’s dogs were the aggressors in this situation.Randi BoltonCastle Rock, Colo.