Several jurisdictions have passed breed-specific legislation (BSL) as a reaction to several publicized incidents that involve the pit bull breed of dogs. The legal actions in these legislations vary from total bans on the ownership of pit bull dogs to limits, as well as conditions concerning the possession of pit bull, and frequently ascertain a legal presupposition that pit bulls are, unless proofed otherwise, legally ‘ dangerous’ or ‘vicious’ dogs. However, a number of state governments in the USA have banned or limited the capacity of local governments to ratify breed-specific legislation, although these breed-specific legislations do not have an effect on military facilities within the states.
At present, it is commonly accepted in case law that USA and Canada jurisdictions have the right to ratify breed-specific laws. Nevertheless, the suitability, as well as efficiency of breed-specific laws in averting dog bite losses is doubtful. One standpoint is that pit bull breed of dogs is a public safety concern; this calls for legal interventions like outlawing possession, obligatory sterilization or neutering for all pit bull dogs, compulsory microchip insertion along with liability cover, or barring individuals found guilty of a crime from possessing pit bull dogs. Another standpoint is that broad ‘dog bite’ legislation, together with good public education and lawful authorization of responsible pet ownership, is the best way out to the issue of vicious dogs that breed-specific laws.
The third standpoint is that breed-specific laws should not prohibit particular breeds wholly, but firmly control the ownership of particular breeds; for instance, by banning some classes of people from possessing them, spelling out areas in which they would be outlawed, and instituting conditions such as making it compulsory for specific breeds to have a muzzle while in public places. Among the most common dogs owned by dog enthusiasts is the pit bulldog. This essay agues that the City of Atlanta should not enact city-wide legislation banning the future sales and purchase of pit bulls who are clinically labeled aggressive and/or testing positive for pit bull genetic markers ranging from 50%-100%.
Pit bulls have a pleasant character and are remarkably close to their owners. Pit bulls as pets are excellent; however, they are also a cause for brutal tribulations if the owners fail to train them appropriately. Moreover, even with this pleasant approach towards people, pit bulls are hostile and protective when it comes to their territory. This appears to cloud the judgment of people when deliberating on ways to control the attacks of vicious pit bulls. To many people, the ownership of Pit bulldogs along with other ‘dangerous’ dogs ought to be prohibited to uphold the safety of the public from dog attacks in highly populated regions. Pit bull dogs are regarded as aggressive dogs. Owing to their fierceness and power, they were utilized in the formerly popular sport of dog fighting.
They were esteemed for resolve, physical bravery, along with their high pain tolerance levels. Pit bull dogs, just like a lot of dog breeds, are extremely protective to counteract hostility on their territory. However, pit bulls, and indeed the majority of dogs, are pleasant and lovable. This, however, is implausible when a dog does a bizarre action, which should come as a surprise. Throughout the last five years, pit bulls have been a big issue owing to the dog attacking occurrences. Denver has already enacted legislation to control particular breeds to guarantee security. Canada too has taken action. They banned the ownership of pit bulldogs in the hope that, by doing so, they will reduce dog attacks in places where people live.
In Atlanta, dog attacks are rather common; however, it seldom happens that people are attacked to death. Pit bulls are considered different from other dogs. They are thought to be the most well built canines, obviously an overstatement. They require tough training to exhibit submission. Pit bulls are thought to originate from an aggressive lineage, and this makes it tough to train them. Owing to their alleged fierceness, pit bulls need considerable attention in their training. With correct training from the owner, the pit bull makes a kind, as well as pleasant pet. However, if the owner is not up to the task, mistakes happen that could affect the holder together with the dog with a negative attitude. They can assail people for no particular reason. It has been argued by supporters of breed specific legislation that, pit bulls even when correctly trained remain apt to attacking when the time is ripe. They argue that it is the genetics in the dog that makes them attack people and not the owner and training.
The pit bull dog is a variety of a dog of which understanding has been distorted by the distortion of facts, in addition to total falsehoods. Pit bulls do not have any intrinsic dangerous traits and prohibition of their future sales and purchase can lead to no advancement in safety. To demonstrate this, I will first set aside some myths that paint pit bulls as intrinsically vicious and dangerous. To start with, Pit bulls are not the strongest canines and even do not posses the strongest jaws compared to other dogs.
In a study carried out including a German shepherd, a pit bull, and a Rottweiler saw, the pit bull emerged with the least strong jaw. In fact, the pit bull has a below average jaw force as compared to other domestic dogs. In addition, Pit bulls do not posses naturally inter locking jaws; their jaws do not have a distinctive locking system and work totally in the same way as the rest of dog breeds. One more myth is that pit bulls assail more than other types; thus, are vicious. Statistics that assert this overlook one simple fact that a ‘pit bull’ is not a dog type or breed. Rather it is a grouping randomly applied to a number of dissimilar types of dogs that vaguely look like each other; even ‘experts’ cannot exactly define a pit bull. Unfortunately, dogs are characterized as pit bulls based on ridiculous characteristics such as ‘droopy lips,’ ‘wobbly neck skin,’ and ‘erect toes,’ among other features.
As such, many dogs are classified as pit bulls wrongly or correctly; therefore, pit bulls are most common breeds. Therefore, it would be sensible that the rate of attacks will compare in such a way. In addition, these dogs are not intrinsically violent than other breeds; they assault most often maybe because that is the way they are cultured. People purchase pit bulls since they desire fierce dogs, which can show aggression; therefore, they culture them in a way that advances this behavior. This quality is not intrinsic. Banning their sale and purchase would see dog owners who desire aggressive dogs acquiring other breeds such as the German shepherd and culturing them in the same way. Consequently, the prohibition of pit bulls has no advance in safety. Pit bulls are not innately vicious; they are associated with aggressiveness; thus, people who desire aggressive dogs culture them to be so. With correct training, they are safe.
In conclusion, if the city of Atlanta bans the purchase and selling of pit bulls, people who desire dangerous dogs will just train other dog breeds to be as vicious, and no improvement in safety will be made. The town authorities must not fall into the trap of holding the dog responsible, but should place the blame squarely on the owner. It is un-scrutinized for explanation ‘statistics’ by lazy individuals that motivate costly, un-implementable, and unreasonable legislations like this one to be enacted. This causes panic to other lazy or just ill-informed individuals, as well as the killing of numerous blameless animals along with instilling sadness to adoring families who keep them as pets.