Wherever you fall on the debate over pit bulls, it cannot be denied that the number of attacks by such dogs on humans and other animals appears to be increasing.
The issue is obviously an emotive one for people who own pit bulls (or have a love of animals generally), because a ban would mean that all these dogs ‒ and possibly other “power breeds” as well ‒ would have to be euthanised.
But the issue is at least equally emotive for those who’ve lost friends and relatives to pit bull attacks, or lived to tell the tale.
And with the experts seemingly divided over the issue, the solution hardly appears clear-cut.
To me, though, the very name of the breed ‒ pit bull ‒ evokes visions of an animal bred to fight and attack, and it appears they are constantly bred and crossbred to be as aggressive as possible.
This too is understandable in a country as rife with crime as ours, where dogs often serve the dual purpose of pet and guard.
Pit bull owners argue that the problem is a human one, premised on how the dog is raised.
But the owners of supposedly docile pit bulls (and their children) have been attacked by these dogs too often for this argument to wash for me.
Often we look to international best practice for guidance, so why not here?
With some 40 countries, including much of Europe, banning pit bulls, I know where I stand on the issue.
The Independent on Saturday