|
|
 |
|
BREED BAN
BSL: A group of laws that bans particular breeds, usually pit bulls (a type of dog,
not a breed) and sometimes Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Akitas, Dobermans, Chow Chows, and a few others. These laws are
usually passed after several attacks by a particular breed so that city councils can assure citizens they are “doing
something” about a voter concern.
But breed bans don't work. They target all dogs
of a breed -- the innocent as well as the guilty; are difficult to enforce; and do not end the use of guardian dogs by criminals.
If pit bulls in their various incarnations are banned, drug dealers and other felons switch to another breed or mix. In the
meantime, the ill-tempered terrier mix that bites the hand that feeds it and the poorly-bred purebred that attacks the neighborhood
children pose a far greater danger to people than the obedience-trained American Staffordshire Terrier that is a registered
therapy dog but cannot step foot inside the city.
Far better than breed-specific bans are strict
laws to control aggressive dogs of any breed or mix. Known as generic vicious dog laws, they put restrictions on the ownership
of dogs that pose a danger to people, restrictions such as confinement in locked, escape-proof kennels while outdoors on the
owner's property; muzzles when the dog is off the property; and purchase of a liability insurance policy.
|
|
|
|
|
BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
"Legislation is due, laws are in order,
and the situation is out of hand. Let's be sure of our focus. Laws are for humans, not for animals who have no say about the
captive environment they must endure." Rod Jones |
Banning Pit Bulls would be like banning cars
because people get killed in car accidents! Who's responsible, the car or the driver/manufacturer? Any car can be deadly in
the wrong hands or if built with defective parts. Same thing with dogs... Any dog. Pit Bulls are no more responsible for the
way they are bred, raised and trained, than cars are responsible for the way they are designed, built and driven.
Simply put, the best argument against breed bans
is that they are costly and ineffective. Breed bans are often a knee-jerk reaction from politicians who want to say they are
"doing something", after a highly publicized dog attack (of any breed). This is a useless exercise. What kind of message are
we telling abusive and irresponsible individuals when legislation makes the dogs pay the price for their action?
Criminals habitually break laws, so having an "illegal breed" may indeed be attractive to undesirable
individuals and entice them to breed and sell more "illegal dogs". If their dog is confiscated and killed, they don't care.
They will just get another one because BSL punishes the dog, not the owner.
On the other hand, law abiding and responsible owners, whose
dogs love people and have never done anything wrong, can see their homes invaded, often without a search warrant, and their
beloved family member dragged away (in front of their children) to be killed. Not because the dog was unstable or mean, but
simply because of its breed. Meanwhile, the owners of truly dangerous dogs (of any breed) escape punishment because their
breed is not targeted by legislation and therefore believed "safe".
A 10 Lbs Pomeranian killed a baby a few years ago... Obviously
a problem with that particular dog, not the breed. "The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle
prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl
Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"
Because of a serious lack of regulation in dog
breeding many dogs inherit defective genes and are sold to irresponsible owners. A breed ban will not resolve the problem.
This non sense will continue with the next macho breed and will become an endless race between breed specific legislators
and unscrupulous breeders.
A Pit Bull breeder was shut down last year because
Pit Bulls were banned in Topeka, Kansas. All his dogs were seized and destroyed just for being the wrong breed at the wrong
place. The man now breeds "African Boerboel", a rare breed from the Mastiff family, completely unknown to legislators. Unlike
American Pit Bull Terriers however, who are known for their love of people, Boerboels are serious guard dogs bred specifically
as protectors. A poorly bred and irresponsibly owned Boerboel might actually be more dangerous than a poorly bred and irresponsibly
owned Pit Bull. This is what a breed ban has accomplished in Topeka...
Another good example is the Pressa Caniaro. 10
years ago no one had heard of those dogs. We now find them in local shelters, picked up as strays in the streets. Ironically,
the breed became popular after two of them killed Diane Whipple in California - By portraying them as vicious and blood thirsty
beasts the media has turned them into the new "dog du jour" among gangsters and thugs.
Here are some facts to consider:
"Pit bull" is not a breed, but a "type" that encompasses
several registered breeds and crossbreeds. Therefore, statistics that claim "Pit bulls" are responsible for some percentage
of attacks are lumping many breeds together, then comparing that to other dogs that are counted as individual breeds.
The Diane Whipple case. One of the first times the owner
has been held responsible for the actions of their dog. Note that the breed involved was the Perro de Presa Canario (Canary
Dog) from Spain, yet the brunt of the negative press again targeted the pit bull, an all but unrelated breed.
The message is clear; lets stop targeting the dogs! Pit
Bulls are no more dangerous than any strong and large dog. They just happen to attract more irresponsible and abusive owners
than any other breed... Do Pit Bull haters really think that a global breed ban would convince criminals who use these dogs
as weapons to own Basset Hounds? And if they did, how long do you think it would take before Basset Hounds start making the
news?
A breed ban will only remove Pit Bulls from good
people's homes and leave them in the hands of animal abusers who couldn't care less about the law... Better think twice before
supporting such measure... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breed Ban IQ Test
1. If
you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas were disproportionately involved in more accidents than any
other model, would you:
(a)
Ban all Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one
(b) Arrest the reckless drivers
responsible for those accidents?
2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think
would:
(a) inconvenience the fewest number of people?
(b) be the more efficient use of taxpayer
dollars?
(c) be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?
3. If
your answer to Question 1 was (a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers
of confiscated Toyotas were now perpetrating further accidents by driving, say, Hondas, would you then ban Hondas? If not,
why not?
4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas too, dammit, something HAS to be done,"
then would you propose a ban on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these
brands are pretty much bred for the same purpose? If not, why not? If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the
SOUND of "a," such as Chevrolet?
5. Are you beginning to understand that:
(a) because most of the tens of millions
of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way?
(b) that "miscreants" employ
Pit Bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy -- as personal
tools of terrorism?
(c) that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of time (and,
therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing
jaywalking laws?
(d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that is, those inconvenienced,
harassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the 99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people?
(e) most
important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?
Key:
If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses.
Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?"
is not: Ban bicycles.
Real answer: If your dog hurts
someone, you -- not the dog -- should be responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws already exist. Tell your mayor,
and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties against
lawbreakers.
Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA
BSL VIDEO
we strive to produce and promote
quality
WE DO NOT BREED or SALE
FOR ANY ILLEGAL PURPOSES!!
|
|
|
|
