Dog-on-dog aggression
It is not surprising that Boston is not the only major metropolitan area having a problem with aggressive dogs. After a Chihuahua was allegedly beheaded by pit bulls when it allegedly interrupted their dinner, which they were eating at the United Nations Plaza, the New York Times printed an editorial about the need for legislation that addresses dog-on-dog violence to stop aggressive dogs before they ultimately injure a human.1
Now if the fact that the owner of the accused dogs allows herself and her dogs to be photographed like this doesn't suggest that she is insane, certainly her admission to feeding her dogs dinner in United Nations Plaza should raise questions about her commitment to the social contract.
But what really concerns me is the Times' argument that laws that address dog-on-dog aggression will protect the person who otherwise finds it necessary to shield her pet with her own body. First of all, according to the earlier article, New York City law does not protect a person who puts herself in danger by interfering in a dogfight. Second, dog-on-dog aggression is in itself a serious problem that human communities should take seriously. Humans have brought dogs into our communities, and we owe it not only to ourselves, but also to our dogs, not to tolerate sociopaths who allow their dogs to threaten their neighbors.
1The Somerville City Ordinances do address dog-on-dog violence. According to Sec. 3-32. Restraint or muzzling of dogs,
the chief of police or officer designated by him or her may restrain or order to be restrained or muzzled any dog for . . . Having killed, maimed, or otherwise caused damage to any other domesticated animal . . . ..