A stigma has been created of hostile qualities being correlated with pit bulls. Before this stigma, the breed was being used to fulfill tasks the owners needed assistance with— like hunting down predators on farms. Many are also unaware of the history of pit bulls and how they were originally bred to protect households. The reputation of pit bulls went downhill when people decided to exploit their protective nature and use them for dog fights. Eventually, people believed that these animals were dangerous because of the stories and the name “pit bull” became tainted. The dog shouldn’t be punished, the owner who caused the harmful behavior should be.
In the article by Dr. David A. Billmire, he shares his opinion on the dog breed and
…show more content…
whether they should or should not be banned. Billmire provides personal experiences of what he has viewed as evidence to reason with the banning of pit bulls. The article is excessive and relates a dog to a “loaded gun on a coffee table” which is unrealistic (Billmire). Though he provides descriptive evidence of the damage the breed can do, it doesn’t prove that every pit bull is vicious and bloodthirsty. There is a vast amount of opinions on pit bulls, some negative and some positive. People, like Dr. Billmire, believe that implementing a ban on all pit bulls will cause the number of dog attacks that occur yearly to decrease. Many tend to demonize the canines for doing something that wicked people trained them and forced them into becoming. Every puppy is innocent, it’s the training from the owners that determines how they will act in the future. Pit bulls are made out to be sadistic and having the desire to injure anyone in sight when in reality, that isn’t the case.
A dog is instructed and educated to behave in that barbaric manner. Many understand that the actions of the dogs should not be taken into such drastic manner as to ban the entire breed. Bronwen Dickey, a journalist, stated her opinion on the treatment of the “monstrous” breed, “Incidents involving dogs from other breed groups don’t inspire quite the same level of public outrage,” (Dickey, 6). The founder of the American Pit Bull Foundation, Sara K. Enos, speculate that, “Eradicating Pit Bull dogs will affect more than just our family dogs; it will affect the much larger number of citizens that these dogs help…” (Enos, 7). Despite these expositions, multiple people are stubborn with the notion that pit bulls should be prohibited everywhere. The ban is extreme and there are many that find happiness with having the canine as a …show more content…
pet. In Bronwen Dickey’s article, “We’re Safer Without Pit Bull Bans,” her main argument is that all pit bull bans are ineffective and redundant. She argues, “Of the roughly 60 dog-bite deaths reported in Canada since 1964, ‘pit bulls’ have been involved in only two,...” (Dickey, 7). The simple fact that those who support the ban don’t acknowledge is that any breed can attack and harm someone, if provoked. Brian C. Anderson, a writer at City Journal, tries to refute Dickey’s argument in his article, “Scared of Pit Bulls? You’d Better Be!” by making a claim that “Pit bulls are genetically wired to kill other dogs,...” (Anderson, 20). His argument is implausible, as in the past, many said the same thing when speaking about German Shepherds and Great Danes. People blame different breeds in order to avoid dealing with the duty of knowing humans are the main cause of all current issues that deal with the aggressive behavior within canines. One of the main issues that caused the talk of pit bulls ban was the history and involvement in dogfighting. In E.M. Smith’s article, “The Pit Bull Friend or Killer” he speaks on the pit bulls participation in “this loathsome “sport”...” which is inhumane. The danger of dogfighting is in the hands of those who run the business and personally train the dogs ro fight to death. Though Smith states how the owners are responsible of the dogs actions, he includes “a pit bull attack is like a shark attack” which is unreasonable because unlike a dog, a shark can’t be trained (Smith). Barbara Kay, a columnist for the National Post, has the same opinion as Anderson, “The only thing reliable about a pit bull is that once focused on its prey, the dog will be relentless in attack,” (Kay, 2). In this case, the blame is still on the owners who have trained the dog to behave in a malicious manner. It is acknowledged that many people do not enjoy the idea of pit bulls roaming around, hence the petition to ban the breed. Antonio Neel, father of Alicia Battle, made it clear that he wanted the dogs to be quarantined and put down. Although his 6-year-old daughter was attacked by two pit bulls, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all pit bulls should be put away. Pit bulls have a drive to protect those that they love and care about, there are those who get out of hand because of abuse and trauma. Unlike Alicia Battle, 4-year-old Zayden and 1-year-old Mallory were saved by their pet pit bulls when a venomous snake was in their yard and their dogs took notice. The dogs were bitten but one of them managed to kill the copperhead. Melissa Butt, mother of the children, mentioned “...”the pitties are very well-trained”, she became alarmed when they would not stop barking at the unknown disturbance.” This statement solidifies the proof and fact that a dog is well-behaved based on the training and involvement from owners. The pit bull ban is incredulous since any dog breed can be harmful. Dr. Billmire even stated in his article how when first starting off his career, many of the dog bites were mainly german shepherds and some labradors. Why are pit bulls being targeted when other breeds also show harmful behavior? The response to that is: they shouldn’t be targeted and prohibited. If the ban was passed, it would be restricting many people from having a dog that they enjoy having as company. By banning the breed, it would be breaking families apart by taking their dog(s) away from them to please others who feel threatened by a canine. In reality, the ones who are in charge of the dog fights and the owners of harmful dogs should be put to blame. Those behind the training are behind the malicious behavior. Pit bulls are suffering consequences when in reality, the dogs are the current victims of exploitation caused by humans.
According to Sara Enos, many dogs have jobs which are beneficial to people of all ages. Instead of implementing a meaningless breed-specific legislation, people should strive to enforce better regulations on problematic canines in order to avoid any dangerous incidents. Outright banning an entire breed is impossible— the best option is to prevent problems from arising by requiring every dog owner to properly socialize their dogs. To prevent the disastrous events from taking place, the public—including dog owners— must be well informed with credible facts on “dangerous dog breeds,” instead of being filled with opinions of a person who has no idea to what they are speaking on. To put in short, a dog breed should not be put to blame and have to suffer for what they were taught to do. The pit bull ban is unnecessary and idiotic for wanting to get rid of an entire breed.
Works Cited
Anderson, Brian C. “Scared of Pit Bulls? You'd Better Be!” City Journal, 26 Jan. 2016, www.city-journal.org/html/scared-pit-bulls-you%E2%80%99d-better-be-11995.html.
Billmire, David A., Dr. "Opinion: There Is No Need for Pit Bulls." Cincinnati.com. Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 June 2014. Web. 11 Se pt. 2014. (-- removed HTML --) .
Dickey, Bronwen. “We’re Safer without Pit Bull Bans.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 11 Oct. 2016, www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-dickey-pitbull-ban-20161011-snap-story.html.
Enos, Sara K. “The Problem With People, Not Pit Bulls.” Time, Time, 26 June 2014, time.com/2927759/the-problem-with-people-not-pit-bulls/. Kay, Barbara. “Barbara Kay: There’s No Argument. Pit Bulls Kill.” National Post, 11 June 2016, nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-theres-no-argument-pit-bulls-kill. Swift, E. M. "THE PIT BULL: FRIEND AND KILLER." SI.com. Sports Illustrated, 27 July 1987. Web. 13 Sept. 2014. (-- removed HTML --) .
On June 20, Charlotte Alter posted an article on TIME website titled, “The Problem with Pit Bulls”. In her article she starts with an event that happened to a three year old little girl that was attacked by three Pit Bulls. The little girl and her family were in KFC and one of the employees asked her to leave because her face was “disrupting their customers”. Half of the little girl’s face is now paralyzed and she has also lost her vision in one of her eyes because of the three Pit Bulls that attacked her. Her grandfather killed the three Pit bulls that attacked her; however her grandfather is now facing charges of child-endangerment. KFC was so generous to donated money to the family to help with her medical bills. But yet the rant is more
Ruryk, Z. (2008, March 2). One endangered species: But pit bull attacks are down. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from Toronto Sun:
Campbell, Dana M. "Pit Bull Bans: The State Of Breed-Specific Legislation." Gpsolo 26.5 (2009): 36-41. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.
According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), there is a “great deal of confusion associated with the label ‘Pit Bull,’” as it does not refer to a single breed of dog, but rather to a group of breeds with similar characteristics1. These characteristics include short hair, a wide skull and shoulders, muscle definition, stocky build and a deep jawline, the combination of which create a dog that manages to strike fear into a perfect stranger. The term ‘Pit Bull’ is derived from the bulldog, which was originally bred as a hunting dog for large game, but has since developed into a “loyal companion rather than a working dog.”1 Their history as “gripping dogs” for hunters follows them into modern society, as many of these dogs have been inhumanely pitted against one another as well as other animals for sport and for human entertainment1. It is because of these illegal fighting rings that ‘Pit Bull’ type breeds have become the subje...
What words come to mind when one hears the words “pit bull?” How about aggressive, violent, or dangerous? In many cases, this isn’t actually true. Because of the negative media attention for attacks on humans and other dogs that pit bull breeds receive, many Americans place a stigma on pit bulls, tagging them as dangerous and vicious. This stigma typically applies to all pit bulls, not just the ones that are actually dangerous. To remedy the issue of dangerous dogs attacking other beings, the legislative act known as breed-specific legislation is being debated throughout the United States. Gary J. Patronek, a veterinary doctor, defines breed-specific legislation as a law than “bans, restricts, or imposes conditions on ownership of specific breeds or dogs presumed to pose greater risk of biting people” (788). Breed-specific legislation is commonly debated in communities that have recently experienced a dog-bite related injury or fatality (Patronek, Slater, and Marder 788). However, this law would ban all dogs of the pit bull breed or any related dog based solely on their breed, rather than disposition. Therefore, breed-specific legislation should not be enacted throughout the United States because is biased against pit bulls and is ineffective in reducing dog-bite attacks by ignoring other aggressive dog breeds.
"United Kennel Club: American Pit Bull Terrier. " Ukcdogs.com, 2013. Web. 27 Nov 2013.
One reason Pit Bulls should not be banned is because they can be very helpful to humans. For example, pit bulls were once kept as hunters and guardians. Today, they are even being used as service dogs for people in need. There was also a pit bull named, Stubby, who saved his entire platoon from a poisonous gas attack. (“Pit Bulls Haven’t Always Had a Bad Rep”). Pit bulls are also great dogs for companionship and to improve your quality of life. As you can see, pit bulls can be useful in many ways.
The poem above speaks volumes about the nature of man’s best friend. Dogs are not inherently created bad, but are rather “a product of its environment”. The same principle applies to the world’s most misunderstood breed of dog. When you hear the phrase “pit bull”, what do you think of? A savage beast, murdering out of cold blood? A menace to society, lurking the streets, just waiting for its next victim? This couldn’t be further from the truth for most pit bulls. These fantasised versions plague the breed, outlawing them in many cities, states, and even some countries entirely. These bans are called Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), and in over 700 American cities these laws are in effect. They are in place to decrease the number of attacks
There are plenty controversial issues about bully breeds and whether they are acceptable or safe dogs to own. In July a woman was mauled in her yard and killed by a dog in Montreal. Due to this unfortunate incident the mayor Denis Coderre created a bill called BSL (Breed-Specific Legislation) which was approved by the legislation. This bill states that determined by their breed or pitbull features “American Pitbull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Bulldogs or any dog with strains of these breeds” will be unadoptable; they must wear a muzzle in public as well as a leash that’s 4 feet long and in most cases they will be euthanized due to their breed. BSL should be reversed because the real problem is irresponsible dog owners, the irresponsible owners will just switch breeds and any dog has the potential to hurt someone.
An increasing number of pit bull attacks have occurred over past decade. People who are attacked by pit bulls always suffer serious injuries because of the pit bulls’ sharp teeth and strong muscles. In October 19, 2009, Dr Hugh Wirth who is the RSPCA’s Victorian president renewed calls for American pit bull terriers to be bred out of Australia. The current laws require owners of pit bulls to register their pit bull. While some people are satisfied with the laws because they think that they are safe, others disagree. From my own perspective, the laws should be improved. The government should ban these fierce dogs and wipe them out instead of just registering them. In my opinion, there are three reasons why I am in favour of Dr Wirth’s proposal.
In recent years it has been the pit bull which has come under the scrutiny of legislative bodies, as their reputation becomes more and more sullied by street crime. To say “pit bull,” however, is a vague reference to several pit bull types, which are considered separate breeds by registries like the American Kennel Club (AKC). Each type has a slightly different breeding history; many began with the breeding of bulldogs with terriers to produce a loyal, compact and tenacious breed (“American Pit Bull Terrier”). The three standard pit bull types most often mentioned by name in breed-specific legislation include the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. That is not the extent of the legislation, however, which also includes dogs that “substantially conform to the breed standards established by the American Kennel Club” (Melvindale)....
Currently, pit bulls have been reported by the media with very horrific and disturbing news of having attacked a child or being shot by a police due to aggression while some are reported to have been abused or neglected by its owners (Forderer and Unkelbach 534). And because the reports keep coming with heated discussions, more and more people have forged a frightening image of pit bulls even to the extreme of refusing to take care of such breed. Pit bull advocates claim that the dogs get a bad reputation considering that people should learn the dogs are not inherently aggressive. What the pit bull advocates would like to point is that the owners of the pit bulls should be considered guilty for mishandling of their own dogs. There are owners of pit bulls that even encourage the dog to be aggressive in order to fight and protect them in a wrong manner and wrong degree of training (Forderer and Unkelbach 536). Pit bull advocates claimed that a well socialized and well trained pit bull would be very intelligent and could be one of the gentle dogs imaginable.
Just the sight of a pit bull instills apprehension and even fear in some people, who believe the dog may attack them for no reason and not let go. Many communities have placed this ostracized breed under severe restrictions; some municipalities have implemented bans outlawing ownership of the breed. Today’s society regards the pit bull as the most vicious and unpredictable of all dog breeds, whereas admirers of the pit bull believe this misconception stems from irresponsible owners and the inflammatory and negative publicity concerning this breed.
...ociated Press published an article “Pit Bulls are A Danger to Society,” yet this year, the same publisher issued an article “Attitudes and Laws Against the Pit Bull Soften – The Big Story” in which the Pit bull advocates hail the changes as recognition that breed-specific laws discriminate against dogs that are not inherently aggressive or dangerous should not be discriminated against or victimized. The debate puts millions of pit bull owners up against a relatively small group of activists against the breed and challenges the notion that Pit Bulls that are well-cared for had any history of aggressive behavior in the first place, closing the argument by again stating what the Canadian Encyclopedia explained, that their actions were just a park of the cycle of favorites and least favorites that has always been and always will be in the history of ownership of dogs.
It is the bad owners that give the pit bull a bad name. Contrary to that popular belief, dangerous animal behavior is the function of inherently dangerous dog owners, not inherently dangerous dogs. One fact that supports this is that pit bulls are the dogs most often shot during drug raids(TELLINGS v. Toledo). Besides the pit bulls that are owned by drug dealers for status symbols and protection, many pit bulls are owned by people that breed them for fighting. These poor dogs have a very slim chance of living a normal and happy life. This is not the fault of the dog, but the fault of the owners that should not have the dog, or should care for them better. The dogs that are forced to fight and are conditioned to defend themselves or die. When these dogs get loose, everything is a threat to them and they defend themselves in the name of survival. If golden retrievers were bred and raised with the sole purpose of fighting to the death, they would be just as dangerous as pit bulls. On the contrary, if all pit bulls were bred and treated as family dogs, they would have the same reputation as golden retrievers, if not better as the statistics found in the temperament test above