This is such a tough subject for me, I'm not even sure I should jump in here. *sigh*

I have owned a boarding kennel and grooming shop for fourteen years, and worked with shelters and rescues for decades. I have boarded, groomed, rescued, owned, etc. thousands upon thousands of dogs over this time period. My personal experience: I have never met a human aggresive pit bull. Dog aggresive, yes. I have never been afraid of a pit bull. I have rescued several, and board hundreds. Big, sweet mushy babies, in my personal experience. My son's dog's mother is a pit mix, even though you would never know it by looking at him. I personally like the breed.

I have been bit by a lab, a golden, a GSD and a shar pei. I have been bit by innumerable lhasas, poodles, poms, chihuahuas. But, to be fair, they didn't bite me because they are small dogs, ankle biters, neurotic, or any of the other sterotypes that some people attach to small dogs. They bit me because I was grooming them ... brushing out a mat, clipping toe nails, any number of frightening things. I dislike the unfair stereotypes attached to small dogs as much as dislike the ones attached to pit bulls. But I've never been bit by a pit bull.

I think BSL is a sad, sad thing. It's a terrible shame that humans have created, and then abused, an animal to the point that it now terrifies the general public. Yes, the media carries some blame for overdramatization. But the media only publishes what sells. And ignorant people who refuse to be swayed by the facts carry some blame. But that's nothing new, Joe Q. Public has always been an ignorant, opinionated dude. Breaks my heart to think of the sweet family pets and their families affected by BSL.

OTOH ... facts are facts, and sometimes the facts hurt. The fact is that insurance companies won't insure property owners who allow certain breeds of dogs to live on their property. Therefore the property owners must forbid these breeds or lose their insurance. Without insurance you can't operate. The insurance companies base their decisions and rates on numerical statistics and facts, not guesswork. Actuaries compile detailed statistics on every facet of insurable life ... including dog bites per breed. And the fact is, certain breeds cause more severe bites than other breeds. Chihuahuas might in fact snap more than pit bulls, but the damage done by a pit bull bite obviously far outweighs the chihuahua. One can find a website that professes to have the "right" statistics, and claiming extremes on both ends of the BSL spectrum. But the fact of the matter is, sadly, the humans have created dogs who can be extremely dangerous, some breeds much more dangerous than others. Terribly sad and indeed unfair that nice dogs and families suffer for that.

Not everyone likes dogs, or are interested in doing hundreds of hours of research about them. The average American, not in the dog fancy, doesn't want to wade through thousands of pages of conflicting arguments about a certain breed. They want quick information about something they consider a potential threat to their safety. They look up statistics from a reputable source, like the CDC, their insurance company, their attorney, etc. And what they find does not honestly look good for certain breeds. Yes, they could take the time to meet and get to know a particular dog of a particular breed ... but those stats are still there. What really is your average American to think then, confronted with stats like these? If it wasn't dogs, which I know a lot about, but, say, snowmobiles, which I know nothng about ... I'd read the safety statistics and say, "Oh man, 30-50% of deaths on snowmobiles are from Brand X and Brand Y. Well, I won't be buying those two brands or letting my kids on one!" Right? Sad for the dogs, but understandable for the people, too.