This story confuses me. A pit bull on a Continental flight escapes from its crate at La Guardia, leads authorities on a chase, and eludes them temporarily by jumping into the bay. The upshot is that Continental decides to change its policy to restrict certain dog breeds from flying the airline after a certain age. But is the dog's breed really the problem here? I can recall an incident a few years ago when a show dog escaped its carrier at a New York airport. What's the central problem here? That the dog was dangerous, or that the dog was somehow allowed to escape? I'm not a fan of pit bulls particularly, but, in this case, it seems to me that a dog breed is being scapegoated because of a human error.
Thought: If certain breeds are so inherently dangerous that they can't be trusted to travel on airlines safely (even ones that follow proper precautions to prevent escapes), then why are then safe enough to be pets in the first place.
Something doesn't make sense here. Maybe someone else can explain it to me.
Not the dog in question
(image courtesy of Dnheinsdorf)
From the article:
A recent incident at Laguardia Airport has caused Continental to re-evaluate its pet policy for transporting certain breeds in cargo through its Safe Pets Plan. On June 23, a pit bull escaped from its cargo crate and caused minor disruption on the runway before jumping into Flushing Bay and eluding New York and New Jersey Port Authority officials for 40 minutes before capture.
As a result of this incident, Continental’s Pet Safe Program will be amended in several ways. They will no longer allow the following breeds in cargo after 6 months of age or 20 pounds (whichever comes first):
Pit Bull Terriers
American Staffordshire Terriers
Presa Canario
Perro de Presa Canario
Dogo Argentino
Cane Corso
Fila Brasileiro
Tosa
Tosa Ken
No comments:
Post a Comment