The Pros And Cons Of Pit Bull Bans
Introduction:
Over the past half-century, the reputation of pit bulls has grown gradually worse. The breed that once represented America’s dedication and determination on recruitment advertisements is now “a status symbol in drug and gang culture” (Reed, 2008). This trend can be traced back to the 1980s when dog-fighting attracted widespread media publicity. Since then, reports of pit bull attacks has significantly increased, and these breeds are labeled as vicious killers, restricted by the society’s stereotypes. As a result, this topic has stirred up controversy as to whether or not a pit bull ban is an effective way to reduce and prevent more dog attacks in a specific area.
The Case:
People who are against pit bull bans argue that because
of the breed's intimidating reputation, potential owners with violent intentions are attracted to the breed. They ultimately train them to be dangerous and the loyal dog obeys to impress their master, which eventually draws publicity from the media when these pit bulls bite and attack. This perpetual cycle causes numerous dogs to be euthanized as aggressive dogs when it is the owner's responsibility to control and train them properly. However, on the opposing side of the debate, people believe the pit bull ban would create a safer environment for the community. According to Doug Kelley, the director of Denver's Animal Control and Care, the pit bull ban in the area has reduced the frequency of pit bull attacks without a doubt.
The Result: Kelley admits that he has no solid evidence that the city’s pit bull ban actually decreased the total number of dog bites and attacks. In addition, he believes the policy gave citizens a false sense of security. A report from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on fatal dog bites state that breed-specific legislations do not affect number of dog bites. The pit bull ban is a barrier against change, although it may seem like a catalyst. It acts as a distraction that prevent people from creating effective solutions, such as refining laws and penalties imposed on the owners of any aggressive animals. These rules and regulations are not intimidating enough and thus, pet owners ignore them.
Over the past half-century, the reputation of pit bulls has grown gradually worse. The breed that once represented America’s dedication and determination on recruitment advertisements is now “a status symbol in drug and gang culture” (Reed, 2008). This trend can be traced back to the 1980s when dog-fighting attracted widespread media publicity. Since then, reports of pit bull attacks has significantly increased, and these breeds are labeled as vicious killers, restricted by the society’s stereotypes. As a result, this topic has stirred up controversy as to whether or not a pit bull ban is an effective way to reduce and prevent more dog attacks in a specific area.
The Case:
People who are against pit bull bans argue that because
of the breed's intimidating reputation, potential owners with violent intentions are attracted to the breed. They ultimately train them to be dangerous and the loyal dog obeys to impress their master, which eventually draws publicity from the media when these pit bulls bite and attack. This perpetual cycle causes numerous dogs to be euthanized as aggressive dogs when it is the owner's responsibility to control and train them properly. However, on the opposing side of the debate, people believe the pit bull ban would create a safer environment for the community. According to Doug Kelley, the director of Denver's Animal Control and Care, the pit bull ban in the area has reduced the frequency of pit bull attacks without a doubt.
The Result: Kelley admits that he has no solid evidence that the city’s pit bull ban actually decreased the total number of dog bites and attacks. In addition, he believes the policy gave citizens a false sense of security. A report from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on fatal dog bites state that breed-specific legislations do not affect number of dog bites. The pit bull ban is a barrier against change, although it may seem like a catalyst. It acts as a distraction that prevent people from creating effective solutions, such as refining laws and penalties imposed on the owners of any aggressive animals. These rules and regulations are not intimidating enough and thus, pet owners ignore them.