Ww2.justanswer.com



Dog Breed Specific Legislation is More Hurtful than it is HelpfulNameSchoolAbstractDogs have been alongside man for as long as recorded history and more. Although dogs are not considered wild animals anymore because they were domesticated, there is still potential for there to be violent dogs that bite or attack humans and other companion animals. Dog breed specific legislation, also known as BSL, is an easy measure to pass by politicians because, on the surface, it appears to be the perfect solution to dealing with problem dogs that hurt people. The problem is that BSL is not effective in dealing with problem dogs and bad owners. It is expensive to enforce, harsh to good owners with banned dog breeds, hard to enforce due to difficulty in identifying a dog’s genetic code, and gives the public a false sense of security of safety from dangerous dogs. It is more effective to focus on individual dogs for their bad behaviors, enforce local rules on dog owners, penalize bad dog owners, and educate dog owners and the general public alike on dog safety. Keywords: BSL, breed specific legislation, dog bites, dog attacks, pit bulls, violent dogsDogs have been man’s best friend for many years, and are one of the first cases of a domesticated animal; however with any animal there is always the chance for dogs to react violently against humans and other animals. Some animals do not need much to provoke them to violence based on their personality and life experience, but not all animals of a particular breed are prone to violence. Animal fighting is becoming a popular sport in any city’s underground where dogs and chickens are pitted against other dogs and chickens in bloody to the death battles that are gambled over by cruel humans. Pit bulls are a popular breed for dog fights, and “[it] is also the preferred guard dog for drug dealers and gangs, with a hugely publicized attack in 1987 in which a pit bull guarding a marijuana crop in California mauls and kills a two-and-a-half year-old boy” (Bastian, n.d., para. 11). The media is always quick to report on any headlines about pit bull or other large dog bites and attacks that contain a spark of sensationalism, such as a baby being mauled to death, but often the dog bites that occur every day go unreported. Dog breed specific legislation is a knee jerk reaction to the evils of society: dog fighting, gangs, drug dealers, and bad dog owners that contribute to dog bites and attacks. Although it seems that certain breeds are the ones that are always in the news for dog attacks, breed specific legislation is not useful in helping to prevent dog attacks in a community and is harmful to those breeds that are singled out as it is often a case of a bad owner rather than a bad breed. Review of LiteratureDavid Frabotta’s article “Pit Bulls Bear Brunt of Breed Bans” (2005) delves into the status of dog breed specific legislation, also known as BSL, by examining two separate instances of politicians enacting legislation that pinpoints a specific breed, in this case Pit Bulls, to be restricted from ownership in Council Bluffs, Iowa and how this trend may end in Ontario, Canada to enact similar legislation for the whole area. “The ordinance prohibits the ownership, possession, transportation or harboring of any American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of a Pit Bull” (Frabotta, 2005, 1S). The city council did determine that current owners would be able to be grandfathered into being allowed to keep their dogs providing the owner is willing to meet the specified criteria. The criteria for this regulation includes having a liability insurance policy, the dog has been fixed, the dog is on a leash in public, the yard is secure at home, the city is notified of any changes to the dog’s life, and the dog is micro-chipped (Frabotta, 2005).James H. Bandow’s article “Will Breed-Specific Legislation Reduce Dog Bites” (1996) acts as a statistical analysis of the circumstances surrounding dog bites. Surprisingly, young children are not the top demographic for dog bites, but they do get bitten more often in the face and neck region because of their size, which can be considered to be much more dangerous to their future health and wellbeing in comparison to a bite on the hand, arm or leg (Bandow, 1996). As noted previously, incidents where young children are the victim of a vicious dog bite can precipitate the community into taking any action, even if it may not be the correct action, in response to a horrible tragedy. In Bandow’s study, he created a list of the dog breeds that were identified as the breeds that were the culprit of the bite to go along with the other data analysis. Each of the dog breeds listed by Bandow’s study are large breed dogs that can be capable of delivering fatal bites to a human or other companion animal. Pit Bulls are not the first, and probably not the last breed to be identified in BSL literature. Bandow even notes that not all dog bites are reported, so would not be part of his study.A study reported on by Rachael Whitcomb in the article, “Study: Chihuahuas Bite Vets Most; Lhaso Apsos Inflict Worst Injuries” (2009) further examines the culpability of smaller dogs in dog bites and dogs that are normally not considered to be vicious breeds. Dogs that are being handled under stressful situations are potential bite hazards, and veterinarians are aware of this fact. Lhaso Apsos are a much smaller breed but have bites that are just as severe as some larger dog breeds. While generalizing specific dog breeds as dangerous or vicious does not work, it was found in the study there were some similarities in situations where specific breeds are involved in a biting incident. Dogs may be playing, being protective of their home and family or running loose when they are involved with a situation where a bite occurs.The “Breed-Specific Legislation” webpage offered by the American Humane Association breaks down BSL in that it is a piece of legislation that is enacted with the good of the community at heart to stop dog attacks by prohibiting people from owning a specific breed of dog that has been deemed dangerous. The American Humane Association notes that there are barriers to being able to actually enforce this type of legislation if it is enacted, which may make it an ineffective strain on tax dollars as it is not getting the job done effectively. It can be difficult to identify what specific breed of dog a particular dog may be, and it is expensive to enforce (“Breed-Specific Legislation”, 2013). Insisting that owners become good dog owners that follow dog safety rules and the community is educated on dog safety has shown to be more effective in dealing with dog attacks than BSL. Not all cities are jumping on the BSL wagon, but there are some that are looking for more effective ways to deal with dog attacks, even though it may seem that BSL is taking over. Jennifer Fiala’s article “Louisville Nixes Breed Ban from Dangerous Dog Law” (2007), discusses how an ordinance was passed in Louisville regarding dangerous dogs, but the language to ban specific breeds was taken out. This particular piece of legislation goes after bad owners rather than specifying a particular breed as a problem or that there are particular vicious breeds of dogs that need to be kept from the community. Dealing with Dog AttacksHistorically, dogs have been man’s best friend, but like humans, not all dogs are always friendly. All dog breeds are capable of delivering a bite to their human companion, humans they come into contact with, and other companion animals. Even smaller breeds of dogs are not exempt from biting. “Chihuahuas are most likely to bite veterinarians, Lhaso Apsos deliver one of the most severe bites, and about 40 percent of all dog bites are delivered by mixed breeds” (Whitcomb, 2009, p. 164). There are a variety of activities that can occur during an everyday routine that can result in a dog bite. “Pit Bulls were most likely to bite while running at large or during dog-on-dog aggression... Other breeds, like Golden Retrievers and Border Collies, were more likely to bite while protecting property, play biting or being left unsupervised with the victim” (Whitcomb, 2009, p. 165). Although, these activities have been identified and particular breeds are identified as more likely to bite during certain situations, each and every dog is different. That does not stop people from trying to find a way to protect the community from dog bites and attacks. Breed specific legislation has been enacted for other breeds in the past, and Pit Bulls are just a recent addition to this growing phenomenon. “Since the mid 1940’s, a number of breeds have fallen into such disrepute. In addition to the Pit Bull and the Doberman, they have included the Chow Chow, Rottweiler, German Shepherd and even the St. Bernard” (Bandow, 1996, p. 479). Interestingly enough, the top seven breeds in Bandow’s study were “the German Shepherd, Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, Collie, Doberman Pinscher, Great Dane and Poodle” (Bandow, 1996, p. 479). This list does somewhat match up with those breeds that have been singled out over time, but there are noticeable differences that show that it can be hard to pinpoint what breed is the one that will be the public enemy number one. It just seems easier to say that one breed is the problem rather than trying to outlaw dog ownership itself over worrying about the community.Reason behind BSLSpecific dog breed legislation is an attempt by politicians to protect citizens in a community from dog attacks by pinpoint specific “vicious” dog breeds and eliminating them from the community. BSL can be seen to be usually enacted in response to a horrific dog attack in the community. “Yet efforts behind the measure are more emotional... Calls for a dangerous dog ordinance rewrite surfaced in 2005 after a 14-month-old was killed by her family’s Pit Bull and two dogs killed a 60-year-old in a separate incident” (Fiala, 2007, p. 19). This legislation is in response to a specific breed, such as Pit Bulls, rather than a response to bad dog owners that have vicious dogs without precautions. This emotional reaction to something that is horrible is somewhat understandable as everyone feels the need to take an action to prevent a similar situation from happening again in the future, but a more logical response is needed. To that extent, many states have language in their legislation that BSL is not acceptable as it is seen as discrimination. Fiala’s findings show that even though many states have this state legislation barring BSL, cities are able to use “a stipulation known as home rule power, which allows city official to trump the state’s purview” (Fiala, 2007, p. 19). This home rule power allows city officials to try to make the community feel safer by enacting BSL, even if it has been shown by studies to not be very effective.BSL is not Very EffectiveBSL is just not an effective way to deal with vicious dog attacks. “On the contrary, studies have shown that it is not the breeds themselves that are dangerous, but unfavorable situations that are creating dangerous dogs. Often, the very research that some cite as ‘support’ for BSL actually argues for alternative, more effective means” (“Breed-Specific Legislation”, 2013, para. 2). Even though research has proven that BSL is not the correct response to violent dog attacks, people want some kind of feeling of safety in their community from vicious dog attacks, so BSL is what many turn to because it is easier on the surface to point to a specific breed as the problem.Although it seems easy to point to a particular breed as the problem, BSL is ineffective in dealing with violent dogs for a variety of reasons. BSL can be expensive to enforce. It requires manpower to enforce, which will require staff to be able to identify those particular breeds that would be under the BSL. Dogs are not easily defined to a specific breed of animal, and even experts may not be correct on what breed a dog actually is on the genetic level (Bandow, 1996). DNA testing is an expensive alternative. Shelters in the area can be overrun with dogs from owners that are unable to comply with any criteria for keeping their family dogs, dogs rescued from the streets, and dogs that are confiscated by law enforcement suspected of being that particular breed of dog from the ban. These shelters will be hard-pressed to handle the extra financial burden of dealing with these dogs, especially those that had come from loving homes that had to be removed. Even city run shelters are in the business are placing animals with families rather than taking them away, but BSL can clog the kennels with dog breeds that the public has been convinced to fear because of their breed.It is also ineffective in that dog attacks are still possible in areas with BSL as any dog can be responsible for a dog bite from a friendly family dog that has never bitten anyone in the past to a stray animal that has wandered into the area after being dumped. Opponents of BSL in Canada state that breed specific legislation acts to “give people a false sense of security by indicating that permitted dogs are safe despite risky behavior that might prompt a dog to bite” (Frabotta, 2005, para. 1S). A person in a community with BSL may assume that since they are protected from violent breeds they have nothing to fear from the dogs that remain in their community.BSL is also ineffective in that it does not take into account bad owners. Bad owners will allow for situations where dogs that do not fall under the ban have the potential to turn into a vicious dog that can bite a member of the unsuspecting public because they neglect their dog in some way. Not only that, but bad owners are probably going to be more likely to go against these types of regulations without worrying about the criteria that they were supposed to be following to keep their banned dog. What is Effective?Specific dog breed legislation should not be the main thrust of any legislation that is seeking to remove vicious dogs from an area as it is not as effective, but should be focused on bad dog owners and dogs that are actually involved with vicious behaviors against other animals and humans. Legislation is necessary to help prevent dog attacks and bites in the future, but BSL is not the way to tackle this issue. Dogs should be deemed dangerous based on their actions rather than a sometimes arbitrary breed assigned to them where their true genetics may not be known. People are not automatically thrown into prison because their parents were drug addicts or criminals, so dogs should not be judged on the same criteria. Dogs that are involved with situations should have fines issues to owners or other actions taken rather than lumping every dog in one breed together as a community problem. Bad owners should be punished for their actions in not caring properly for their dogs and not protecting the public from their dogs. Education is vital for the public and dog owners to stop dog bites from occurring in the future. Non-dog owners may not understand dog behaviors, and may put themselves into situations where they are at risk for a bite because of their ignorance around dogs.ConclusionIn conclusion, it is heartbreaking to hear a news story about a young child that was savaged or killed by a dog, but going with the easiest fix is not always the best solution. BSL is seen as an easy fix by getting rid of the “violent” dogs of the community that reacts to the emotions of an attack of this nature. It, however, is not the best solution. Experts have found that just having BSL in place could put citizens in harm’s way because it lulls them into a false sense of security. It is also expensive and hard to enforce as knowing a dog’s breed is difficult for even experts. Finding a more effective solution is the best method for dealing with violent dogs. It would be much more effective to put education programs into place that will turn bad dog owners into good owners, inform the public on how to deal with a dog they come into contact with and how any breed could be dangerous in the wrong situation. Bad owners should be punished for mistreating their animals and dangerous dogs should be classified as dangerous based on their behavior rather than their breed. ReferencesAmerican Humane Association. (2013). Breed-Specific Legislation. Retrieved from , J. H. (1996). Will breed-specific legislation reduce dog bites? The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 37(8), 478. Retrieved from , J. (n.d.). How Did Pit Bulls Get Such a Bad Rap? Cesar's Way. Retrieved from , J. (2007). Louisville nixes breed ban from dangerous dog law. DVM: The NewsmagazineOf Veterinary Medicine, 38(1), 19.Frabotta, D. (2005). Pit Bulls bear brunt of breed bans. DVM: The Newsmagazine Of VeterinaryMedicine, 36(1), 1S.Whitcomb, R. (2009). Study: Chihuahuas bite vets most; Lhaso Apsos inflict worst injuries.DVM: The Newsmagazine Of Veterinary Medicine, 40(7), 1S-16S. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download