Dog breed specific bans or legislation are laws that
regulate or ban a certain breed type of dog in hopes to reduce dog attacks on people.
Some cities and towns have passed these laws into action for their citizens to regulate or ban dogs. Regulated
or banned breeds include American Pit Bulls, American Staffordshire
Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers, Rottweilers,
American Bulldogs, Mastiffs, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers,
or any mix of these breeds as well as any dogs who simply resemble those breeds.
Does banning or limiting a type of dog really help reduce dog attacks?
Personally, in my mind these laws don’t do anything but cause frustration and
heartbreak. I have met my fair share of these “banned” dogs and they are
probably the sweetest dogs I’ve ever met. While on the other hand, I’ve seen
some pretty aggressive “non-banned” dogs. The difference is the owner’s
attitude toward the dog and how they raise the animal. Articles from the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) as well as Modern Dog Magazine talk
about how Breed Specific Legislations (BSL) are not good for the community,
families, and most importantly the dogs banned for being “bad”. The two
articles give two different incites on the same topic.
The ASPCA
article is more formal, giving the facts of dealing with reckless dog owners
and their dangerous dog in your community and how BSL's aren’t a very effective way
of getting these dogs of the streets. The Modern Dog Magazine is more informal,
giving the author’s point of view and journey through seeing how these “banned”
dogs specifically Pit Bulls are not monster but family members. The target
audience for the ASPCA article for people who just want the straight facts of
why BSL is wrong while the Modern Dog Magazine article’s target audience is
those who are afraid of “banned” dogs and want to know how someone who used to
be afraid of them learned about how it is the owner not the dog that controls
the way the dog acts. The ASPCA article tells the audience the how, what,
where, when, and why. It has bullet points as well as the article split into
sections with clear divisions. The Modern Dog Magazine article is like a story
for the audience. It gives the audience the author’s, Corey Van’t Haaff,
journey of learning about how BSL is a terrible thing for not only the humans
but for the dog as well. The ASPCA article has no emotion while the Modern Dog
Magazine article has a ton of emotion packed between its words. The Modern Dog
Magazine article uses real life cases in its article while the ASPCA article
uses straight facts and statistics of how BSL is not working.
Both
articles agreed the breed specific legislation is punishing good owners and
their good dogs. The articles says no matter how good the dog is; the owners is
subject to having their dogs taken away, leaving the community, or try to
legally challenge the community. Another the articles agreed about is what can
be classified as a “banned” dog. Mixed breeds have risen in popularity and sometimes
it is hard to tell what type of dog a mix is. Any type of dog can be an
aggressive dog, it doesn’t matter what breed the dog is but solely on how the
owner raises the dog. I believe BSL shouldn’t be argument up for debate. The
ban on dogs is not only unfair to owners of good “banned” dogs but also for the
breeds of dogs, which were used for aggressive things like dogfights and aren’t
allowed to show what they are truly about which is friendliness and compassion.
Sources:
·
http://moderndogmagazine.com/articles/what-would-you-do-if-your-city-banned-your-dog-s-breed/35623
