Essay On Banning Pit Bulls

Are Pit Bulls deserving of being banned from the United States? Are breed specific laws effective? Is there a better way to handle dangerous dogs? Pit Bulls have many people who believe that all should be put down and that they are a dangerous breed. These people do not understand that there are many other ways to handle the situation, that having these laws can make things worse or not change anything, and that each dog is an individual. I believe that breed specific laws against dogs, Pit Bulls especially, are ineffective and I will explain why exactly these laws should be removed and how alternative routes would be better.

Firstly, there are alternatives to laws that ban breeds like the Pit Bull. Simply neutering a dog has shown that it is 2.6 times less likely to attack. A total of 97% of dogs involved in fatal attacks were not spayed or neutered. Chaining a dog, which you would imagine is safer has been shown to make a dog 2.8 times more prone to bite. Also a little common sense being inforced would help greatly, 84% of dogs involved in fatal attacks were owned by a person who either neglected them, abused them, or allowed them near small children without supervision.

Secondly, these laws may not change anything or even make things worse. Some of the biggest reasons Pit Bulls are trained to be vicious is for dog fighting or to be a guard dog for a gang or drug grower. Now dog fighting was banned in all fifty states as of 2008 according to aspcapro.org and it is still going on today. Would people who know that simply owning a dog for fighting is illegal care about a law that bans the breed they use? I think not, they are already breaking several laws and would most likely not care about another one. The same goes for the gangs and drug dealers that use them for violent purposes. The law might not do anything but get rid of a family's beloved pet.
The laws might even make things worse. The owner of an innocent Pit Bull in a city that has banned the breed will have to avoid taking it for walks and would have to either not take the dog to the vet or have to get things done illegally if they wish to keep their pet and not move. Another reason why things could get worse is that now the shelters and animal control will have to focus on making sure the the breed law is followed and effort is taken away from real problems like dog fighting or animal abuse. Then of course is the person who want to own a Pit Bulls purely because it is illegal so they can show what a rule breaker they are. Aspcapro.org given the infromation that during the first round of breed specific laws in the late 1980’s there was a rise in the number of gang members owning Pit Bulls.
Lastly, each dog is an individual. This means that any dog could be dangerous and the classicly dangerous dogs could be the most loving dogs. As the aspca has stated a dog's personality is based off of genetics and how they were raised. Genetics does not have as much to do with it, but it still affects some things, so a dog bred for fighting could be loving in the right environment. Pit Bulls were bred for either fighting or companionship, so banning all of them is not looking at the individuals. Almost all breeds of dogs can be bred to be violent or loving, not just the breeds who are banned. Any dog that had an aggressive behaviour was culled, or killed, so that such a trait would not be passed on. This greatly minimises the factor of genetics playing a role, so environment is the most important.
Like I have just told you the greater influence over any dogs personality is their environment and how they are raised. A dog, including Pit Bulls, that is brought up correctly will behave correctly. A dog, of any breed, that is taught to be violent will most likely be violent. Now with dog fighting the dog is not violent to humans the vast majority of the time. The dog must be handled oftenly so violence would not be reacted to kindly. These dogs will be violent to other dogs, they were brought up that way, but to humans they are not. Humans are the ones who make an individual dog violent, and we must remember that a dog has is its own personality and traits.
On the other hand most attacks are breed specific.

Even though any dog breed can be bred to be violent Pit Bulls are the most common type of dog to attack. The media often does report that a Pit Bull is the cause of an attack. While Pit Bulls are the most common dog breed involved in human attacks, the law has been statistically shown to not help. Barack Obama has stated, “We don’t support breed-specific legislation—research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.” It is a waste of money to put it simply and if Pit Bulls were to disappear then another breed would be targeted and then another and so

on.
In conclusion Pit Bulls should be allowed and Breed Specific Laws should be banned. The law has better, less expensive, ways to handle the situation, and the law could in fact make things worse or just waste our money, and each dog is an individual and should be treated like one. A nation where an entire breed of dog is banned should never be allowed to become true. It is like dog-racism. To wrap things up, blame the deed and not the breed, and remember it is the owner and not the dog.