Introduction
As man's best friend, pit bull breeds are loving, loyal, and determined, making them a widely popular choice for family pets. However, not all perceive them this way. Their muscular build and past as fighting dogs result in surrounding controversy. On one side, advocates argue that pit bulls are indeed a friendly breed; it is unfair to blame the breed as a whole for a few dogs' behaviors. On the contrary, those against pit bull types do not believe that the above viewpoint eliminates the danger embedded in a breed that expends a good amount of power through its jaws. As a result, many communities have banned all breeds, some have only banned pit bull varieties, and other cities have restrictions that are ever-changing. This analysis applies theories from both human-animal studies and psychology to analyze the subject from both ends. It will take an analytical approach based on research into pit bulls and aggression, supported by guidelines for selecting non-aggressive dogs.
It is important to recognize that animals have the ability to determine their behaviors, but they are affected by many variables such as learning, contradictions, and moods. This applies to humans, dogs, and many other species, known as operant conditioning. Therefore, labels such as "a nice breed," "vicious breed," or "aggressive breed" are inappropriate. Specialists know that aggression is the outcome of the interaction between an individual and its general nature or environment. Any dog may be aggressive due to poor care and training, as many aggressive dog breeds may be subjected to various practices and even degrees of violence in different families, under various situations and at various levels. Many are unaware that the way dogs are treated is the root cause of aggressive behavior. If many dogs show aggressive behavior, it is often manipulated in some way regardless of breed.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Pit Bull Bans
Pit bull bans have a long and fraught history, as does the pit bull itself. As a group of dog breeds, pit bulls have held very different and often contradictory positions in our collective consciousness. Originally bred and socialized as working dogs, who engaged in activities such as hunting, farming, and caregiving, pit bulls benefited from positive media portrayals that often highlighted their strength and courage alongside a lighter, more benign representation that emphasized their loyalty and sweetness. However, technological advancements in the mid-twentieth century changed the way we were able to know dogs—specifically which ones were dangerous. Coupling those unfortunate advancements with happenstance, pit bulls formed an alliance with an undercurrent of violence in the public imagination. Several notable dog attacks cut their way through national awareness, leading to seemingly innocent changes in phrasing, and then policy, that would change the course of pit bull history in North America.
Three notable incidents drew attention to pit bulls in the mid- to late-1980s. In 1987, a pit bull in Oklahoma attacked a child. The Chicago area saw five dog attack fatalities in 1987 and 1988—where four of the victims were children, and four of the dogs were reported to be pit bulls. Finally, in 1989, a woman was killed at a San Francisco park by a conglomeration of breeds that included two pit bulls and a cocker spaniel. Policy changes in the wake of these incidents started to be reported in the press as bans on "pit bull" type dogs independent of their previous working dog histories in the public imagination. These policy changes mirrored both the changing portrayal of the dogs as a group as well as a shift in the breeds that were involved in dog attack fatalities. Now, with the rise of violent incidents involving pit bulls, enough public attention was focused on the breed for these individual events to become a generalization about pit bulls—which resulted in their being banned from cities, counties, and countries alike. Often under the name of "breed-specific legislation," cities and counties have banned, restricted, or issued outright prohibition of ownership of what generally encapsulated pit bull "type" dogs. Supporters of this legislation evoke public safety and "good neighbor" rules, suggesting pit bulls cause more problems than any other breed, as a catch-all for banning "pit bull-like" or "pit bull-mix" dogs. Currently, very little policy attention has been paid to how these earlier policies are still very much in place.
Arguments For and Against
There are two general arguments in favor of breed-discriminatory legislation. The first is that it keeps a community safe. Over half of all dog-related fatalities in the United States are the result of certain breeds, and these dogs are responsible for over a quarter of all dog bites as well. In proposing bans, advocates often cite comparisons between injured humans and kill rates, as well as the attacks that make headlines. Statistics and dog bite reports show that there is some merit to the idea that certain breeds are more prone to aggression than other dogs. An investigator claimed that the most commonly banned breeds were responsible for the most fatalities and that removing those breeds from the city would likely “reduce the number of severe incidents that we see, the level four and five incidents we see.” In many cases, individuals in favor of breed-specific legislation share anecdotal stories of their encounters with certain breeds or their owners.
However, many organizations are against breed bans. Instead, they suggest policies such as mandatory spaying and neutering, breed-neutral “reckless-owner” statutes, and dog training. Bans reduce the number of pet adoptions, punish responsible owners, and force diseased or injured dogs to shelters or impoundments, which in turn cost communities money. Moreover, there is a degree of uncertainty of breeds based on appearance or observed ancestry. An aggressive dog is only a small percentage inherited by breed and is largely due to environment. The dog’s owner or the owner’s masculinity may also play a pivotal role in promoting aggressiveness. Despite the widely held opinion that certain breeds were responsible for some of the leading number of deaths, a study shows no significant breed differences in aggression risk for both dog aggression and stranger-directed aggression. In other words, the rank of breeds in aggression risk remained pretty much the same. While some individual breeds were found to be more prone to biting adults (biting children was not significantly different between the breeds), this list did not include any of the breeds currently banned in certain areas. Similarly, in a study conducted, a percentage of the dogs that exhibited aggression were of either an unknown breed or a mixed breed.
Impact of Pit Bull Bans on Communities
Communities that pass breed-specific legislation often report considering the idea to be a "quality of life" issue necessitated out of concerns for residents’ "peace of mind." Regardless of how banning pit bulls may impact their supposed peace of mind, bans have an impact on the community that goes well beyond principle. Hence we should consider the following: a) Stigma and its impact on public opinion; b) Increased shelter populations; c) Various communities and outcomes; d) BSL and potential liability; and e) BSL – will breed bans make the town safer?
Increased stigma through breed-specific legislation, in the form of "banning" a breed, has been shown to increase the stigmatization of a select few breeds in the public’s mind. A breed ban proclaims a breed as public enemy number one, thus adding fuel to an already programmed, word-of-mouth judgment against the breed. Some dogs from banned breeds and pit bulls can be traced back to neighborhoods that would otherwise be without a dog, hence affecting the shelters. Where breed-specific legislation covers banning a breed, more often than not there is an option a community is given: euthanize the dog, or outright confiscate and either sell or ship the animal out of town. The decision that shelters face is not straightforward. It is a violation of ethical and legal constraints to euthanize a dog if it becomes a banned breed based on looks. However, leaving the animal in an inner-city community could lead to very dire results. They have also been known to be in fighting rings.
Conclusion
The debate over the safety of pit bulls is ongoing and contentious. In writing this paper, I hoped to provide readers with an evidence-based perspective on pit bulls in three areas: shelter performance, breed labeling, and legislative effectiveness. I found that pit bulls were adopted from Texas shelters at a significantly lower rate than non-pit bull dogs during the period of 2006 to 2019, that breed labeling was not supported by visual identification, and that the tenets of pit bull bans were not supported by the literature. Based on these findings, I contend that the divisive pit bull ban issue requires an even and thoughtful solution. My research shows that questions surrounding pit bull safety are more complex than previously thought, and multiple stakeholders have attempted to address these issues by seeking intervention from the law. However, it is not clear that pit bull bans maximize dog bite prevention strategies that protect communities and recognize the value of pet companionship. There is a need for a reevaluation of pit bull legislation to include a component on responsible pet guardianship and not just dog breed discrimination for the safety of communities and the overall welfare of the dogs involved.
Pit bull bans have been encouraged through references to the harrowing guise of attacks, harm to pets, harm from pet dogs, and pet population safety. Additionally, supporters have made professional appeals reflecting the beliefs of animal control workers about legislative effectiveness. This paper concludes that not all members of associated community groups support breed-specific regulation; not all veterinarians and animal control consider pit bulls to be the sole source of bites or misuse; and personal perspectives did not necessarily inform the opinions of those in roles of authority. It is recommended that potentially overlapping stakeholders in the pit bull and breed-specific legislation milieu work at fostering responsibility, compliance, and safety using improved and steadfast enforcement practices via animal control, a re-visitation of breed-specific legislation, and robust dog bite prevention and responsible dog ownership education. These non-exclusive recommendations urge a paradigm shift in which profound safety measures and rapport replace indifference in dealing with the pit bull and dog bite issue as well as advocacy in general.
Stuck on your essay?
