Breed Specific Legislation Does Not Curb Pit Bull Attacks

reproduce Specific Legislation (BSL) has been bandied about in several legislative arms of the fall in States government including the local and state levels for decades. In particular, cavum fuzzs as a beget have recently come under fierce attack out-of-pocket to a plethora of news stories which highlight attacks on humans and the use of the cut across for fighting purposes. Municipal ordinances seek to either ban ownership of limited breeds such as pit bulls, curb ownership of these animals or impose unreasonably strict responsibilities on those who choose to c ar for pit bulls such as nurseing the animal confined and requiring hefty insurance supplements.Such legislation, unfortunately, does nothing to address the real problem which begins with the owner himself, not the drop back, whose breed has been proven not to be unpredictably hard-hitting. Instead of laying the blame with owners who argon ir accountable or those who use them for fighting, BSL legislation targets pit bulls for simply being what they are, and the rights of citizens to own their choice of quest after breed. Definition of the equalise Bull Breed and BSLThe term pit bull refers to a type of short-coated large terrier, anywhere from 40-80 pounds, characterized by a wide skull, goodish jaws, and a muscular, stocky body according to the Ameri fuel Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) but it is not technically a breed recognized by the American Kennel Club. For the purposes of this paper, we will use this term to denote any variety of what is commonly known as a pit bull.The pit bull was brought to the get together States from England for use as an animal baiting dog whereby it would be trained to attack a large animal such as a bear and hang on with its teeth until the animal was brought down. When this was judged to be illegal in the 1800s, many pit bull owners began to train the animals to fight each separate instead. Thus, the fighting instinct was nurtu red and eventually bred into the dog. According to the ASPCA (aspca. org), citizens need to be aware that even though a breed may be characterized by a certain pattern of behaviors, individuals within a breed can vary tremendously.According to Diane Blackman (Breed Specific Legislation, 1995), BSL is defined as ordinances which may baffle or prohibit certain breeds regardless of the temperament or behavior of the individual animal. The problem with this definition is that it refers to a specific breed, which moldiness be narrowly defined to make such an ordinance enforceable. There are many varieties of pit bull dogs available, many of whom have been mixed with other breeds. ar all pit bulls, then, at the center of this controversy or is there a particular recognized breed that legislatures are aiming to control?Such definitions must be clearly defined before enforcement becomes even remotely practical. Ineffectiveness of the Legislation BSL legislature has been proven to be ineff ective and unconstitutional in municipalities where it has been enacted in the past. In the 1980s BSL first started to appear in cities such as Hollywood, Florida, Cincinnati, Ohio and a small town in New Mexico. These were followed by legislation at the state level in Michigan, Ohio and Florida. All of these ordinances specifically targeted pit bulls as being inherently dangerous to society.What has happened in each of these communities and states is that either owners continue to keep pit bulls in their care but do so illegally or they switch to a different breed of dog and train it to be aggressive because that was the original purpose in obtaining the pit bull in the first distance (Weiss, 2001). Weiss quotes Brittany Wallman of the South Florida Sun-Central as stating Officials in Prince George, Maryland are considering a repeal of the communitys BSL, arguing that the legislation has simply encouraged owners of vicious dogs to either go underground or get fighting dogs not cov ered by the ban. Many municipalities which have imposed BSL were later declared to be unconstitutional in restricting a specific breed of pet. According to Weiss, quoting the ruling in Hearn vs. City of Overland Park The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district courts findings that (1) the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad (2) the ordinance did not violate the state or federal due process rights of the plaintiffs and (3) the ordinance did not violate the plaintiffs equal protection rights under the United States and Kansas Constitutions. In Dade County, Florida, a group of dog owners protested the BSL ordinance based on grounds that it was discriminatory and did not sufficiently define the breed. The District Court pitch the definition of a pit bull satisfactory but did uphold that enforcement of the ordinance could be applied in a discriminatory fashion (Weiss, 2001), thereof unfairly targeting certain pets. Currently, there are many laws on the books pert aining to pet ownership, such as leash laws, but most are rarely enforced.Imposing a law based on breed, which, as previously discussed, is certainly difficult for an enforcement officer to pinpoint, will do nothing to stop problems such as dog bites from occurring. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that an ordinance banning pit bulls depends for enforcement on the subjective understanding of dog officers of the appearance of an ill-defined breed (Weiss, 2001). When encountering dogs of mixed breeds, it is nearly impossible to make a solid determination according to Blackman (Breed Specific Legislation, 1995) a part boxer dog can easily be mistaken for a part pit bull.Clearly, one of the biggest problems with enforcing BSL is creating a definition of a pit bull that is easily placeable by enforcement officers, non-discriminatory and does not unfairly target animals of mixed breeds. Creating legislature based on a dogs breed also adds a core to municipalities of prohib itive follow and providing extra manpower to enforce the ordinance. A ban on pit bulls in Cincinnati, Ohio was eventually overturned due to the excessive cost of enforcement.The statute had been on the books for nine years with no success until the city began to take enforcement more seriously. When Ohio Valley Dog Owners protested, the courts found that with dozens of dogs in work force and court cases to decide it was unreasonable and placed a great burden on enforcement agencies as well as the courts to keep BSL on the books (Weiss, 2001). Instead, the court trunk ordered that all pit bulls in Ohio be registered with the local police department, marked with tattoos and microchips, photographed, confined, and insured (Weiss, 2001). Alternative SolutionsA better way to address the problem of aggressive dogs and their violent behavior is to target the owners, not the animals, through educational initiatives and enforcement of existing laws directly related to the owners of pets w ho have been proven to have dangerous tendencies. Legislature that addresses this counselling is just beginning to be recognized as a viable alternative to BSL. The state of California recently proposed a bill that gives prosecutors power to printing press felony charges against any person owning or having custody or control of a dangerous dog, even if the person is not the dogs owner (Weiss, 2001).In Indiana, prosecutors are allowed to find owners of pets responsible if these animals exhibit violence toward any employees of local government or utility companies in the commission of their job. Owners need to be aware, through educational programs, that the training of their pet is the biggest key to affecting its behavior. Classes that promote safe handling without the use of violence can be effective and would be a graphic extension of local animal control agencies and Humane Societies. Programs aimed at children and raising their levels of safety awareness are also beneficial.L aws that are already in place regarding dangerous animals and hold owners accountable their dogs actions regardless of breed need to be vigorously enforced. Rather than targeting a specific breed, animal enforcement agencies need to collectively focalize on violent or aggressive behavior in any dog, not just pit bulls. Upholding leash laws will certainly help as keeping any animal under the owners control in all situations is vital in the prevention of attacks. Conclusion Pit bulls are often associated with the breeds history as being violent and aggressive due to their training.It is not, however, advisable to relate all dogs of one breed as distinguished by these traits. According to Cox (2002), any dog can be dangerous. Humans are an integral part of the equation of pit bulls equal violence. Only when pet owners are properly educated and current laws regarding responsible ownership enforced will there be a decline in the amount of attacks instigated by dangerous dogs, no matter their breed. Legislation at the state and city levels needs to focus on owners as the responsible parties and let go of the idea that pit bulls as a whole are a menace to society. Works CitedAmerican Society for the Prevention Cruelty to Animals. Pit Bull Information. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from the ASPCA Website http//www. aspca. org/site/PageServer? pagename=pets_pitbull. Blackman, Diane. Practicality Of Breed Specific Legislation In Reducing Or Eliminating Dog Attacks On Humans And Dogs. Breed Specific Legislation, 1995. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from the Dog-play Website http//dogplay. com/Articles/MyArticles/pitbull. html. Cox, Rachel. Breed Specific Legislation. InterNetWorkers April, 2002. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from the Ibiblio Website http//lists.ibiblio. org/pipermail/internetworkers/2002-April/005220. html. New Leash on Life. Breed Specific Legislation. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from the NLOL Website http//www. nlol. org/chicago/bsl. asp. unfeigned Pit Bul l, The. Breed Specific Legislation. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from the Real Pit Bull Website http//www. realpitbull. com/laws. html. Weiss, Linda S. Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States. Animal Legal and Historical Web Center. Detroit College of Law 2001. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from the Animal Law Website http//www. animallaw. info/articles/aruslweiss2001. htm.