Breed Specific Laws vs. Reckless Dog Owners

Let's face it. There are some dog breeds people are more afraid of or at least carry some type of negative connotation with their breed. As a result, some communities are trying to enforce breed specific laws. What this means is that some breeds might have heavy laws in regards to what their owners must follow through with in order to keep them, or they may be banned from the area completely. However, this is unfair and ineffective as the ASPCA reveals through statistical analysis.

Breed specific laws are unfair to pet owners, as well as all citizens in a community where they are enacted. It is unfair for pet owners because it disables them from choosing a breed they enjoy. If the breed is banned, people in the community will not be able to choose that breed. Also, if that breed is already owned, the owner will have to either give up the dog or may have severe costs associated with keeping it. On another note, it is completely unfair for all citizens in a community. In order to maintain such a rigorous law, there will be costs. Prince George’s County of Maryland is living proof. Their county spends $250,000 a year just to try to eliminate Pit Bulls in their area. The task force of the county has since tried to appeal the ban because of its cost to the county as well as the fact that banning Pit Bulls does not eliminate neglective, abusive, and irresponsible dog owners who either can encourage their dog to be aggressive or allow it to not be contained. The costs implemented with such laws is simply unfair to all citizens in communities that adopt such breed specific laws.

Not only are these breed specific laws unfair, but they are ineffective. There are several reasons why they are ineffective. For one, aggressive dogs seem to be more the result of irresponsible dog owners than breed specific. The ASPCA outlines the following facts on their website at http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServerpagename=cruelty_dogfighting_breedspecific:

1. 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs, and that an unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.
2. A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.
3. 97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered.
4. 78 percent were maintained not as pets but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.
5. 84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.

Clearly, aggressive dogs are created by their irresponsible owners. So, simply banning dog breeds is not the answer. Another point mentioning is that even if a dog breed is banned, who is to say that these irresponsible owners will not simply look for another dog breed, say, for dog fighting? Other options must be accessed in order to protect society from aggressive dogs other than just simply banning certain breeds.

There are a number of options that will aid in decreasing the number of aggressive dogs given the previous statistics. For one, counties should require their citizens to spay and neuter their dogs. If they do not require it, then those owners seeking to keep their dogs unaltered, must pay fees. Require that dogs either not be chained, or if they are chained they are given ample room to access most of the property in order to give them the ability to exercise freely. Other measures counties can take are to require leash laws, micro chipping for permanent identification of aggressive dogs, and required owner education for certain breeds. All of these measures are simple ways of effectively solving the problem by requiring owners to be more responsible and help protect people in the community as opposed to being unfair and ineffective as the strict breed specific laws.