It's not the breed, it's the owners

Dear editor:

This letter is in response to Emil Gasior's recent letter to the editor concerning the dog ordinance in Mountain Home (Stricter rules needed to deal with area dogs, Wednesday, Nov. 21).

I agreed with most of Mr. Gasior's points concerning dogs in small towns. Right up until he stated that the city should make it illegal for any person to own a vicious dog, "namely a pit bull or rottweiler."

Like many people in this country, Mr. Gasior has succumbed to a fear and paranoia of these breeds that is ultimately fueled by the media.

Incidents like the one recently in Mountain Home do not help. But if Mr. Gasior is implying that all pit bulls and rottweilers are vicious, he is sadly mistaken. According to the American Kennel Club, a vicious dog is one that "attacks or attempts to attack any person or entity, including its owner."

By this definition, the dog responsible for the attack in Mountain Home is indeed vicious. However, it is the owner who mistreated or failed to train this animal that needs to be held responsible. As the proud owner of both an American Pit Bull Terrier AND a rottweiler, I am saddened that people like Mr. Gasior cannot see past his own prejudices. He calls himself a "dog lover," then advocates euthanizing dogs based solely on their breed.

I'll close this letter with a brief story: When I was living in Mountain Home, my girlfriend and I volunteered to take our pit bull Cooper to a Relay for Life event at MHHS. This so-called "vicious" dog spent the night doing what he could to help those in attendance deal with their grief.

As a therapy dog, Cooper's job is to offer comfort and relief in time of distress. How did he do this you might ask? By licking and playing and wagging his tail.

Sounds pretty "vicious" to me.

Landon Johnston

Cortez, Colo.