Chuck Williams: The pit bull protest makes sense now

At first, I didn't understand the reaction.

My column, written two weeks ago, was straightforward, factual and accurate. Royce Ard was walking his Spanish Water Dog in his neighborhood. A pit bull mix -- confirmed by Animal Control in Columbus -- attacked Ard's puppy and killed it.

Little to no opinion. It was a sad story and one that seemed worth repeating.

It was called "irresponsible journalism" by some of those who own or advocate for pit bulls. It was called breedism -- the dog version of racism -- and I was labeled a breedist by those who opposed the publicity the column generated. There were inflammatory social media comments made by people on both sides of this debate.

Those who own or advocate for pit bulls contend it is always the deed and not the breed. When a pit bull attacks, responsibility rests with the owner, not the dog, they contend.

The column sparked a protest and intense reaction from a vocal corner of the internet.

It still made no sense to me. I wasn't sure how a reaction turned into a protest in front of the newspaper's office.

Then it hit me. Garrett Lawrence, an owner of the downtown growler store Maltitude and someone I have always respected and traded with over the last year or so, said in a Facebook post that breed-specific legislation was no joke.

Folks, this is about breed-specific regulation or legislation. And it is serious -- on both sides. These laws have teeth and real economic consequences for the owners.

Cities and counties in Georgia are enacting laws that govern what owners of certain breeds of dogs can and can't do.

College Park, Dawson, Lawrenceville, Floyd County, Terrell County and LaGrange have laws that regulate certain breeds of dogs. There are currently two bills in the Georgia General Assembly that would restrict the local governments from enacting such laws.

These local laws, for the most part, require additional registration fees for certain breeds, including pit bulls. In LaGrange, it requires proof of $50,000 in liability insurance on such animals. It is going to cost you more to own one of these animals than it will cost you to own other breeds.

The local governments are putting owners of certain breeds on notice. The owners resent the hell out of that -- and they will come hard at anyone who suggests such.

Their position seems simple: How dare anyone or any government declare their breed dangerous or vicious? So, they are organized and vocal. They have a social media reach that is impressive. And they have every right to react in that manner and fight such legislation.

Any publicity of attacks that singles out pit bulls damages their argument. And they will attempt to shout down those who dare tell the stories of these attacks.

That is where I stumbled into this deal.

But I have found not all former pit bull owners feel this way. Steve Cole, a Phenix City native now retired at the beach, thought he knew the dog. He had a pit bull named Bo 35 years ago.

"And I loved on that baby," said Cole, a lifelong dog owner. " I never put that dog in a pen, I treated him like a house dog, which is what he was."

One day, a window was left cracked in the house. Bo escaped and joined another pit bull in the deadly attack of the neighbor's cat.

Cole said he never looked at Bo the same. His relationship with his neighbors was damaged.

"That haunts me to this day," Cole said. "I cried like a baby when I held that cat."

He now contends it is the breed, not the owner.

Lawrence disputes that and his position is clear.

"This is about people taking responsibility and not assigning blame to individual animals or a specific breed," Lawrence said Monday.

The two men got into a lengthy online debate over the weekend. Both men made their points commenting on a link in which a Crawford, Ala., man posted grotesque photos of his calf who had been mauled to death by two dogs, one of which the calf's owner said was a stray pit bull and the other a lab mix.

This is about two sides -- those who are against pits and those who are pro-dog, said Lawrence, a pit bull owner who trusts and knows his animal enough to allow him in the beer store during business hours.

"One side is anti-pit, and there is another side in this that is pro-dog and pro-responsible-pet-ownership," he said. "I don't feel at all like I am pro-pit. I am pro-dog."

The debate about breed-specific legislation is ongoing. Cole, a former pit bull owner, favors such laws.

"I am a Republican -- and I don't like big government," Cole said. "But in this case I think government should step in and mandate these owners have insurance."

Lawrence says to treat all dogs the same.

"Any animal should be treated the same," he contends. "But if you assign a tag to one animal and look at it through a specific lens, you are setting yourself up for bias."

That's what all the fuss is about. It is not about "irresponsible journalism." That's an easy out. If you disagree with someone or something, you attack the messenger -- it's the oldest play in the book.

Pit bull advocates have every right to do that. But they need to understand that there's another side to this story. And, try as they might, they can't shout it down every time it's told.

This debate will continue in the halls of government.

That's what all this barking is about.

Chuck Williams, senior reporter, chwilliams@ledger-enquirer.com.

This story was originally published March 2, 2015 at 5:11 PM with the headline "Chuck Williams: The pit bull protest makes sense now."