To the editor:

Bitsey Patton asked what I meant by “attack breeds” in a letter I wrote supporting a proposed county ban on pit bull terriers.

“Fighting breeds” may be the correct term for the sturdy, fearsome dogs we humans have developed for guarding or fighting animals and people. (Other examples: the Doberman, German shepherd, rottweiler, chow, Presa Canario, American bulldog, Dogo Argentino, akita, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese tosa inu, boxer, great Dane and Siberian husky.)

And yes, there’s always the odd “Frankenstein” mixed-breed packing enough physical and behavioral firepower from just one fighting parent’s genes that it can make a day-care playground look like the floor of a butcher shop if some little kid unwittingly provokes Doggie into resolving his identity crisis.

Ms. Patton is correct that some fighting breeds are employed in essential guide dog and search and rescue work. I’m confident that any ban our county enacts will exempt a “prohibited” dog whose owner submits proper documentation that the animal has received, or is enrolled to receive, such public service training from a licensed source.

Regarding Ms. Patton’s belief that a statistical study of dog bites will likely yield “muddy” conclusions: any insurance executive would politely disagree. Dog bites cost the American public a billion dollars every year; insurers disburse $250 million annually settling claims. The insurance industry knows which breeds are violence-prone. The Douglas County Commission can examine this information and formulate a dog ban that improves local public safety without unfairly singling out pit bulls.

Joe Hyde,

Lawrence