| |
The Zero Risk Life
By
Joshua Citrak
Note to pit bull apologists
– fuck off. I hear the same tired arguments for keeping and breeding vicious dogs that I hear from the NRA about assault rifles, the KKK about free speech and SUV drivers about, well, their SUV’s. The Constitution guarantees your right to (fill in blank here), yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. To paraphrase the great Chris Rock – just because you can do something, doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. In giving you the Constitutional right, the Founding Fathers also gave you the
responsibility of your actions. So, if you want a gun and it kills somebody, it’s your ass. That’s the neat thing about the circle of life – everything comes back home.
For Maureen Faibish, it hit a little too close to home. Because of her and her husband’s gross negligence, their son Nick was mauled to death by two pit bulls – the family’s pets. Dogs that, by comparison seem tame to the deadly and almost inexplicable
stupidity
of Mrs. Faibish, now that we have learned Nick was attacked and bitten by the dogs earlier in the day he was killed. I expect DA Kamala Harris to go for the big wood on this one.
But the dog mauling
itself is not what I’m interested in discussing. It was tragic and disgusting, but it was an event well beyond my control. What I am finding fascinating is the political banter in the wake of local uproar (on both sides of the dog issue) that has taken place in the weeks following the murder in lieu of practical thought and critical solutions.
On Monday, June 12th, mayor Gavin Newsome announced the recommendations
of a canine response task force he created shortly after the death of Nick Faibish. At the announcement mayor Newsome was joined by task force head, and Animal Control and Care Director, Carl Friedman.
Friedman announced the startling task force finding that, “Pit bulls are a problem.”
And even though it’s against state law to ban a specific breed of dog, San Francisco was going to, “(Eliminate) the practice of inbreeding, mandate spaying and neutering, establish financial penalties for vicious dog owners and start a dog bite prevention program at all local elementary schools.”
More great thoughts on pet care from a city that regulates
the size of a dog’s water dish. I’ve got an idea – how about enforcing the laws we already have? We have laws against menacing behavior, laws against training dogs to violent acts and, gasp! We have a leash law. How about we start with that one? I live in the North Panhandle and I’ll wager you a year’s crop of barley that if you and I walked down to the Panhandle of Golden Gate Park right now, there would be at least
twenty dogs tear-assing around the park without a leash. Let’s start forcing dog owners, not just of vicious breeds, to obey the laws as they have been written. Owning a dog is more than just feeding it and having a handy plastic baggie.
But yes, we know how cute your dog is and how much he likes to play fetch and that Scruffy and Scrappy would never hurt anybody and all they want to do is run around because after all that’s what god meant for dogs to do.
I agree. You want a dog? Live in the country where the dog can run free as the day Adam named him. It is unnatural and inhuman to keep a fifty-pound dog in an eight hundred square foot apartment. Talk about animal abuse.
But that’s beside the point. I can’t force an urban dog owner to recognize their inherent selfishness, nor would I want to live in a society where the above is a criminal offense.
However, Mayor Newsome’s heart, I believe, in trying to follow the task force’s recommendations, is in the right place. He recognizes, as do many of us, that there is a
problem, but doesn’t know how to address it without alienating a small, but vocal constituency. Hey, Gavin, these fools voted for Gonzales, don’t sweat it. The true problem, greater than a vicious dog problem, is something I’ve covered in nearly every essay I’ve written for
SomaLit – personal responsibility. Our mayor, try has he might, cannot write enough laws to surrogate the necessity of personal responsibility. There is a conundrum that operates in the minds of freedom swilling Americans that both seeks absolute freedom of expression and yet at the same time looks to ban and legislate away anything deemed repugnant to their person (flag burning, tanning salons, vicious dogs or gas guzzling SUV’s). We can’t have it both ways.
In a free and reasonable society it is in well within the population’s bounds to ask for certain assurances from folks who enjoy danger |
