The art of compromise isn’t completely lost, but it’s hard to find. In the highly polarized, perpetual campaign season that has come to characterize American political life, working with the other side is a liability. Pleasant statements about cooperation and common ground don’t get retweeted. The battle-hungry base craves a dramatic stand against dastardly opponents. Only the weak, unprincipled, and disloyal give an inch.

But like a Rembrandt discovered in a New Jersey basement, the lost art of compromise was dusted off this week by the Denver City Council. And, it was beautiful.

On Wednesday, the council’s safety committee approved legislation by Councilman Chris Herndon to allow pit bulls in Denver city limits. The bill does not repeal the breed ban enacted in 1989; rather, it allows an owner to register his or her pit bull (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier) on a probationary yearlong basis. After three years, dogs that have not had any violations are eligible for a regular license. To get the special pit bull license, the owner will have to microchip and vaccinate the dog and provide extensive contact information, a description of the dog and a photograph.

The proposal will soon be heard by the whole council. If successful, Denver will join over 100 cities across the country that have repealed or modified their breed-specific ordinances.

You don’t have to be a dog expert to know that breed-specific bans are ineffective and unfair. They target an entire breed rather than dangerous dogs of all breeds. Under such ordinances, good dogs get confiscated and euthanized, and no one is safer for it. Bans also deter thoughtful, law-abiding people from owning certain breeds, while increasing those breeds’ prestige among lawless and irresponsible individuals.

While research by the American Veterinary Medical Association has found pit bulls are not more dangerous than dogs of other breeds, some people continue to have concerns.

It’s understandable. Pit bulls are not poodles. As with other powerfully-built breeds such as Akitas, Rottweilers, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, and malamutes, pit bulls can be wonderful family pets, but they require training and socialization for the sake of the dog, other dogs, and people. Abuse or neglect of any dog is cruel. Among large, muscular dogs, such treatment can create a dangerous animal. An aggressive Chihuahua can draw blood. An aggressive pit bull, Akita, or malamute can seriously maim or kill another dog or a person.

Breed bans are well-intentioned efforts to prevent fatalities. Denver’s pit bull ban was enacted because a 3-year-old child was mauled to death by a pit bull. Although the solution is flawed, the concerns are real.

As the owner of a German shepherd-chow and a fan of the pit bull breed, I have long advocated in this column for the repeal of breed-specific bans in Colorado. That said, I acknowledge that people have legitimate concerns about pit bulls and other powerful dog breeds. Recognizing the validity of other people’s concerns is at the heart of compromise. A good compromise addresses the concerns and priorities of differing parties. While neither side gets everything it wants, something gets done. In this case, pit bulls will move from death row to probation and pit bull ban advocates will have some assurance that only those responsible enough to get a special license can legally possess a pit bull.

While not every compromise is a good one, a good compromise advances solutions that are at least partially amenable to most people, giving all parties something to wag their tail about. That’s more than we can say for the drama-ridden battles fought by righteous, entrenched foes that characterize these strange political times.

Krista Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.