My BSL Paper

Just thought I'd share...

Breed Specific Legislation Laws​

Where would this world be without dogs? They are, after all, our (man's) best friend. And the bond’s humans share with their dogs is so strong that many see their dogs as family members, rather then mere pets. But what if it was discovered that you could no longer keep your dog. That because someone else felt your dog was "dangerous," that it would be taken from you. This is an example of what Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is trying to accomplish in certain communities across the nation. BSL ordinances are laws that have been established in order to control ownership of certain breeds of dogs by spaying/neutering, registration, muzzling, preventing adoption of non-altered dogs, strict leash and containment laws, even expensive insurance coverage for said dogs (napbta.com/bsl). BSL may also outright ban certain breeds or euthanize any of those restricted breeds that come into shelters, puppies included. Many people see these laws as solutions to the problems that these dogs bring about; truth is, it is a lot more complicated then that and, more importantly, these laws do not work. Therefore, BSL is a bad idea because it is hard to enforce, it is an expensive undertaking, and it merely stands as a “quick fix” that, in fact, does not solve the problems. By allowing these laws to go into legislation, we allow the government to start controlling our lives ever so slowly.

BSL laws, the majority of the times, tend to single out a category of dogs known as “pit bulls” which are more commonly a grouping of three breeds of dogs; the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. It is already difficult to distinguish the APBT and the American Staffordshire Terrier seeing that their body types and physical features are so similar (Fogle, pg. 172), but there are many other breeds that people define as “pit bulls” as well. Many believe a brindle colored dog is a “pit bull;” others believe it is a large, blocky headed dog; even crop-eared dogs are thrown into the mix. However, these are just regular people’s perceptions. Surely those educated people that legislate BSL laws know how to distinguish the breeds. Think again. The following is a conversation between a reporter and Toronto politician, Michael Bryant over the ability to distinguish between certain dog breeds:

“Out of all of these dogs, can you tell me which one the pit bull is?”

“16, that one.”

“You say that’s that, that’s actually a Presa Canario. I kinda thought you might know which one; I had our graphics department move the pictures around. Can you point out the picture of the pit bull now?”

“You know, the point here is that, you know, you don’t ask a Health Minister to umm, uh, be, uh, be the surgeon. You don’t ask an Attorney General to be the dog expert…”

“But you’re making a legislation and you yourself can’t tell which dog is the pit bull.”

“I am not gonna be the one to determine, I’m not the judge as to what is a pit bull and what isn’t a pit bull. My job is to put together the legislation to give powers to people to determine what the pit bull is… the bottom line is it’s gonna be up to the experts.”

Oddly enough, Michael Bryant did not even go to experts with his legislation. Instead, he chose to focus more on the people who were on his side, such as dog bite/attack victims, instead of the opposition (pulse.24.com/News/Top_Story).

 

continued....

To put it in a different light, look at a small number of the dogs banned across the country: “pit bulls”, Rottweilers, Wolf-hybrids, Doberman Pinschers, Chow-Chows, and German Shepherd dogs, to name a few (coldsteelepits.com/coldsteeleknowyourrights). Many of the communities that are instilling BSL laws ban these breeds and many other breeds like this based on documented reputations for being vicious. However, many laws base restrictions on a mere description of what a dangerous dog is built like. With that in mind, if those that believe a “dangerous dog” is one that is of fairly large bone and substance with a broad head and powerful jaws, a heavy body set and strong legs, with a short, straight, dense coat, then one would suggest locking up all the Labrador Retrievers since the above description is the American Kennel Club standard for that breed (akc.org/labrador_retriever). And all this confusion is still coupled with the fact that mixed breed dogs can be “dangerous” as well.

Now it comes down to the idea of money. Animal control agencies and animal shelters already struggle with too many dogs and not enough money; and certain BSL laws would make those situations a lot worse. One way many would combat the problem of lack of space is to build more enclosures for animals. Since many are aware that money does not grow on trees, nor does it fall from the sky, the obvious answer to fund a law like this is none other then taxes. These new laws will require larger budgets and additional employees as well to handle all the new duties and that money has to come from somewhere (bless-the-bullys.tripod.com). Also, what happens when a dog is confused as one of the “dangerous” breeds and is put down unjustly? This prompts lawsuits based not only on breed misidentification, but violated constitutional rights as well (stopbsl.com/bsldiscussion). BSL laws really are much more costly and tedious then previously thought and this also couples with the fact that these laws are very hard to uphold as well.

Lastly, the main goal of BSL laws is to reduce dog bites/attacks. There are two problems with this goal. First off, BSL laws do not keep dog bites from happening. Any dog can bite and any dog can inflict damage under the right circumstances. Along with “pit bulls” and Rottweilers, Cocker Spaniels, Lhasa Apsos, Pomeranians and Yorkshire Terriers have also been involved in serious attacks/maulings in recent years (westwinddogtraining.com/BSLeducation). So, in banning the “dangerous” breeds, does that mean we are really safe? Also, if certain breeds of dog are deemed “dangerous” and banned, what stops another breed from taking those spots? Right now, “dangerous” breeds are “pit bulls” and Rottweilers; but with laws such as BSL, what stops Boxers and Beagles from moving up into the “dangerous” breed slot and being banned as well? With these bans, is any breed truly safe?

Without looking deeper into the bulk of the laws, many people believe BSL laws are good for the community. Politician Dalton McGuinty of Ontario backs the public up and had this to say about BSL, "Not only was it wise and good public policy, in terms of safety and security, it's also ... one of the most popular things our government has done- just so you know where the majority of the public stands on this issue," (game-dog.com/forums).Many also still believe “pit bulls” are to blame when it comes to the majority of the dog bites and that banning this particular “breed” would solve the problems, as evidenced by the number of states and countries that already have bans or restrictions on them (coldsteelpits.com/coldsteelknowyourrights). As it was stated earlier, all dogs bite! It has also been found that placing restrictions on “pit bulls” does not solve the “pit bull” problem. Chief Rodney Taylor of Prince Georges County, Maryland stated in an interview with the ASPCA that “bites from pit bulls have possibly gone down only marginally (no more than 5-10 bites annually).” The county has had a ban on “pit bulls” since 1997 (stopbsl.com/bsldiscussion). Also, just because it is a law does not mean the public will abide by it. In 1988, Miami-Dade County in Florida banned “pit bulls” but in 2002, there were an estimated 50,000 “pit bulls” living there (bless-the-bullys.tripod.com).

 

almost done....

Still think BSL is a good, well thought out idea? Here are some more facts: The list of organizations against BSL is staggering. The agencies/organizations on this list include, but is not limited to, the American Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the Centers for Disease Control, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, most animal control facilities, the American Dog Breeders Association, the American Dog Owners Association, most breeders and rescue groups, even reconstructive surgeons for children who have stated that a bite to the face of a child can be devastating regardless of the breed that inflicted the wound (dogs.about.com/apbt_bsl_p). All these are respected, reputable, and (more importantly) educated agencies/organizations that realize it is the owners of the “dangerous” dog that need to be held liable for the actions of their dogs. And this idea seems to be catching on. As of October, 2005, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada is focusing on a "Dog Owner Responsibility Act" which is a new ordinance that will hold owners of dogs who attack liable, and will force tough penalties for negligent owners. In Massachusetts, HB 3563 by Rep. Brad Hill is in affect. This is a dangerous dog bill which prohibits BSL at the state level and defines dangerous dogs on their actions, not their breeds. Battle Creek, Michigan has also adopted a non-breed specific dangerous dog law (napbta.com/bsl). If they can do it, why can’t everyone else? To conclude simply, our country was not founded on the restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a few: why should it be any different for dogs?

 

Nice job!!!!!

 

Very well done!!

 

You did a good job!

 

VERY nice! And you hit it RIGHT ON!!!! It's not about controllong a dog's life, it's about controlling OUR lives, that our dogs are involved in...

Good job!
NOTHING pisses me off more than BSL!!!!!:mad:

 

thanks everyone... now lets just hope my professor thinks it's good as well