Breed Banning Should Not Be Banned For Keeping The Public Safe From Dog Bites Or Attack?

1103 Words May 5th, 2016 null Page
Any dog owner and lover would agree that their pets are like family. Each animal with their own personality, responses, and temperament. Breed specific legislation, or breed banning is an ordinance passed by local government basically banning a specific breed or group of breeds of dogs that are considered dangerous.

I strongly believe that banning specific dog breeds is not an effective way for keeping the public safe from dog bites or attacks. The ban does not notice differences in each dog 's temperament, or behavior displayed by individual dogs, but instead groups all dogs of specific breeds as dangerous. Breed banning does not control the problem of dangerous dogs due to the fact that laws are written to target specific breeds instead of targeting the unwanted behaviors, regardless of breed. Breed banning is a very controversial topic, in this paper I will give you information as to why I believe breed specific legislation does not necessarily protect the public from dangerous dogs, and why other alternatives should be considered.

Dogs that are considered dangerous in nearly all breed bans are typically American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, and any other pit bull mixed dogs. I myself own a two-year old female American pit bull. She has never shown any kind of aggression, yet, it is nearly impossible for me to live in any apartment home due to these breed restrictions.

Although these dogs are categorized as being "dangerous", bite statistics, when…

Related Documents