Here is a BSL paper my Daughter wrote for a colledge course
An Attack on “Man’s Best Friend”
“Man’s best friend” is a common term of endearment used to describe our lovable canine friends. The relationships between people and their dogs have often become so dependable that families treat their dog as if it were another member of the family. What if someone told you that you couldn’t have your dog anymore? You could no longer have your dog because it is from a certain breed that has a “vicious” reputation. Then you found out that your dog along with others of its kind were trying to be eliminated because it was part of a breed that the government decided is too dangerous for the public. This is a prime example of what Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is trying to accomplish in certain communities across the nation. The breeds targeted by BSL, commonly called the “Pit Bull Breeds” consist of the American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the America Pit Bull Terrier.
BSL ordinances are laws that have been established in order to control ownership of certain breeds of dogs by spaying or neutering, costly registration, muzzling, preventing adoption of a non-altered pit bulls, and adherence to stringent leash and containment laws. Since BSL can vary from place to place, more severe measures are being implemented in places like Denver and Ontario. In Denver there is no grandfather clause to protect owners of Pit Bull breeds before BSL was enacted, thereby demanding the removal of pit bull type dogs from the township or mandatory destruction. “In the last three months, since the ban has been reinstated, officials have seized and euthanized more than 290 pit bulls, according to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times”(qtd. in Fuoco). The collection of all these tactics is designed to reduce the number of dangerous dog attacks by the advocates of BSL. If the objective of BSL is to minimize the number of dangerous dog attacks, the proposed tactics are only quick fixes and not sufficient long term solutions. Since any breed of dog can exhibit vicious behavior, targeting specific breeds with this legislation does not guarantee a decrease in the number serious dog attacks.
The key issue with serious dog attacks is not the dog or breed of dog, but the owner of the dog. Irresponsible dog owners are not adequately targeted by BSL. Many opponents of the ordinance find that the owners of the dogs are the source of the problem. Terry Dillman of the News-Times explains, “Responsible pit bull owners and breeders work hard to produce loving, sociable, friendly pit bulls. Irresponsible, antisocial owners and breeders are the real danger, and officials should consider putting the bite on them.” Owners, who provide a decent environment to raise and nourish their dog in, end up with a dog that is not described as “vicious”. It is the owners who starve their dogs and raise them to fight or be over protective that we need to keep an eye on. Lori Whitaker emphasizes this point by claiming, “Singling out breeds takes the focus off the owners. Breed bands do not stop criminals” (qtd. in Dillman). Problems with aggression or the dog’s temperament often come from problems within the home that have to do with abuse or damaging treatment of the dog.
Increasing legal liability for the dog owner would then make them responsible for the dog’s behavior therefore eliminating any blame on the breed. In order to make better owners in these communities an effort to educate them would go a long way. Educating people in areas such as dog selection, bite prevention, and care for their chosen breed would improve the quality of owners and by doing so improve the behavior in dogs. Veterinarian Aszman from Oceanlake Veterinary Clinic observed that, “What we really need to do is educate people, starting at a very young age. It’s absurd to think that you’ll make the city safer by banning pit bulls. You’d have to ban every breed that has teeth in its mouth” (qtd. in Dillman). Limiting the ability of citizens to own specific breeds will discourage those who are willing to be responsible owners for these breeds.
Another major problem associated with this legislation is the identification of these so called “vicious” breeds. Dogs are often mis-labeled or incorrectly identified as pit bull breeds. Many breeds such as Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Ca De Bous, and Presa Canarios are often visually labeled as a “pit bull”. Diane Blackman discovered, “There is no breed known simply as a “pit bull” and therefore no means by which a person could determine whether their dog is of the regulated breed.” This problem can lead to serious legal issues: Who determines if the dog is this specific breed? How would they do it? “Indeed most court’s agree that there is no scientific method for determining a dog’s breed such as a blood test, x-rays or scientific tests” (Blackman). Until the government comes up with a way to make sure that the “vicious” dog is actually one of the targeted breeds, all dogs that look like they may be “pit bulls” are going to be under attack by the advocates of this law. Keith Campbell, president of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, agrees by declaring, “We think this is a difficult piece of legislation to enact and enforce because someone is going to have to decide what types of characteristics constitute a dangerous breed or cross-breed of dog” (qtd. in Frabotta).
These “vicious” dogs serve many purposes other than a domestic pet. Most of the targeted breeds are used as good canine citizens. Good canine citizens are dogs that are trained to help those with physical disabilities and trained to be rescue dogs. This is where the costly registration becomes a problem. Most insurance companies charge owners of the targeted dogs $100,000 a year in liability insurance, including these service dogs. This insurance price does not cover the thousands of dollars it takes to cost to train these dogs for their specific jobs. “That means that disabled persons that have service dogs that happen to be one of the restricted breeds will face the impossible choice of giving up their service dogs or becoming homeless” (Capp).
An important thing to consider when deciding the effectiveness of BSL is that all dogs can exhibit “vicious” behavior. Any breed of dog has the capability of biting or attacking a person based on their temperament and the environment they were raised in. A breed of dog “cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to the community. If you ban one breed, individuals will just move on another one,” the Humane Society of the United States concluded (qtd. in Fuoco). The outrageous number of dog attacks is what is being used to fuel the advocates of BSL. Many people just assume that these attacks are made by the targeted dogs. What they don’t know is that this is in fact not true. Howard Price researched the subject and found, “Large, muscular dogs such as rottweilers and pit bulls have been blamed for the majority of fatal dog bites that have occurred during the last two decades. But data from CDC (Centers for Disease Control) studies show that small dogs such as dachshunds, cocker spaniels and even a Yorkshire terrier have killed humans.” Attacks by smaller, unexpected dogs commonly go unnoticed because they are not as widely advertised as the assaults made by the “vicious” labeled dogs. When walking down the street people are more likely to suspect a German Sheppard as opposed to a Pomeranian.
Many alternatives that can ensure a more just and effective solution can be used in place of the BSL ordinances. Euthanizing and prohibiting the targeted dogs are going to lead to more problems such as finding other breeds to take place of the current ones. Dangerous dog laws are already in effect around the US, a stronger enforcement of these laws will help to decrease the number of attacks and ensure that the issues will be taken care of impartially. In New Jersey some communities use a method known as the three strike method. A dog receives a first strike if the owner allows his animal to behave in fashion that may result in an injury to another person or pet. The owner of the dog receives a warning to control their dog. A second strike results as the dog being labeled as a “dangerous dog” and is to be registered as one. The third and final strike means that the dog will be put to sleep based on its destructive behavior. There are many fair ways to deal with this problem and the government should consider taking a better look into them instead of using a quick fix, such as BSL.
Ostracizing certain breeds and slowly trying to eliminate them is not the way to fix the problem we have with dangerous dogs. Irresponsible owners need to be the ones who are targeted. Scrutinizing those who choose to own these breeds would help significantly in preventing the upbringing of violent dogs. Educating the public on breed selection, bite prevention and care for these breeds would help to raise understanding of these complex creatures. Identifications of targeted breeds are almost impossible to make, punishing dogs based on prejudice and paranoia is not at all just. It is possible for any breed of dog to become a threat to the community. Broadening the targets by BSL advocates to include every breed of dog would be more useful in trying to reduce the number of dog attacks. It is important to remember that these breeds are not just animals to some, they are friends who in some cases provide assistance for the disabled. "Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive” (Price). Alternative solutions should be sought after in order to prevent genocide of Pit Bull breeds from happening.
By JMK 10/2005
You can PM me for her email and she can give you her source information. BTW she recieved a 90 on this paper from a very tough professor, who although will never own a Pit Bull has a different perspective, and will vote NO if BSL ever threatens his community....
One uninformed person at a time...
Val
School Project Help
Top
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
.jpg)
