Document Preview:
Assignment Three: Government Regulation on Pit Bulls: A Crime or a Punishment? Prepared by: Allison Rada Professor Danny Meadows ENG 215: Research & Writing February 2, 2014 Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is one that concerns dog victims, dog owners, and communities alike. For years the media has brought attention to the violent acts of pit bulls and similar breeds. Recently, certain states have enacted BSL in order to protect their communities. However, victims of dog attacks are no longer the only victims as BSL has gone into effect. Families have lost their own dogs, members of their family, to euthanasia because they are deemed “dangerous.” State or local governments should not enact different laws regarding certain animals as the breed is not responsible for the acts but the owners and behaviors. BSL is a statute or regulation that is directed toward one or more specific breeds that are known as “dangerous” (Weiss, 2011). The first form of regulation started in 1980 when Florida’s City Commission passed an ordinance requiring pit bull owners to complete registration forms and prove public liability insurance of $25,000 (Weiss, 2011). Four years later, a New Mexico town and Cincinnati, Ohio passed regulation regarding pit bulls (Weiss, 2011). Today over 700 U.S. cities have enacted BSL (“State-by-State,” n.d.). Pit bulls are descendants of an English bull-baiting dog, a dog bred to bite and face larger animals; once baiting large animals was banned people started dog fighting instead (“Pit Bull Cruelty,” n.d.). The pit bulls that were not used for dog fighting were the perfect family pet due to their affection and gentle demeanor with children (“Pit Bull Cruelty,” n.d.). Though dog fighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, it still has a strong subculture; owners will prepare their pit bulls for dog fighting by encouraging aggression on other dogs and animals as well as starving and beating them to encourage aggression giving them the reputation of...
Attachments:
Appendix
A: Peer Review Feedback Form 1
Reviewer’s Name:_________________________________________ Date:_____________
Writer’s Assigned #:
_______________________________________
Course:________________________________________________
Section:
___________
Assignment 4: Persuasive Paper Part 1: A
Problem Exists
Peer reviews should provide feedback to a
peer on the criteria expected in the paper. Follow these instructions:
1)
Receive
a classmate’s paper from your professor (in class if on-ground; by e-mail if
online).
2)
Copy
the Peer Review Feedback Form from the Appendix.
3)
Comment
on all criteria, noting strengths and / or areas for improvement on the
feedback form.
4)
Provide
completed Peer Review Feedback Form and classmate’s paper to your professor.
Note: On-ground students
should submit the feedback form and paper to the professor during the class
meeting in which the paper is reviewed; online students should submit the
feedback form and paper to the professor via the Assignment Tab in the course
shell.
|
Criteria
|
Comments
+ Strengths < Areas for
Improvement
|
||
|
1
|
Provide an appropriate title and an interesting opening
paragraph to appeal to your stated audience (appeal with logic, ethics, or
emotion).
|
|
|
|
2
|
Included
a defensible, relevant thesis statement clearly in the first paragraph.
|
|
|
|
3
|
Describe the history and status of the issue and provide
an overview of the problem(s) that need to be addressed. This should be one
or two (1-2) paragraphs.
|
|
|
|
4
|
Explain the first problem (economic, social, political,
environmental, complexity, inequity, ethical/moral, etc.) and provide support
for your claims. This should be one or two (1-2) paragraphs
|
|
|
|
5
|
Explain the second problem (economic, social, political,
environmental, complexity, inequity, ethical/moral, etc.) and provide support
for your claims. This should be one or two (1-2) paragraphs.
|
|
|
|
6
|
Explain the third problem (economic, social, political,
environmental, complexity, inequity, ethical/moral, etc.) and provide support
for your claims. This should be one or two (1-2) paragraphs.
|
|
|
|
7
|
Use
effective transitional words, phrases, and sentences.
|
|
|
|
8
|
Provide
a concluding paragraph /transitional paragraph that summarizes the proposed
solution and its advantages.
|
|
|
|
9
|
Develop
a coherently structured paper with an introduction, body, and conclusion.
|
|
|
|
10
|
Clarity, writing mechanics, grammar, and formatting
requirements
|
|
|
|
11
|
Support
advantage claims with at least three (3) quality relevant references.
|
|
|
|
12
|
Other
|
|
|
Assignment Three: Government Regulation on Pit
Bulls: A Crime or a Punishment?
Prepared by: Allison Rada
Professor Danny Meadows
ENG 215: Research & Writing
February 2, 2014
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is
one that concerns dog victims, dog owners, and communities alike. For years the
media has brought attention to the violent acts of pit bulls and similar
breeds. Recently, certain states have enacted BSL in order to protect their
communities. However, victims of dog attacks are no longer the only victims as
BSL has gone into effect. Families have lost their own dogs, members of their
family, to euthanasia because they are deemed “dangerous.” State or local
governments should not enact different laws regarding certain animals as the
breed is not responsible for the acts but the owners and behaviors.
BSL is a statute or regulation that
is directed toward one or more specific breeds that are known as “dangerous”
(Weiss, 2011). The first form of regulation started in 1980 when Florida’s City
Commission passed an ordinance requiring pit bull owners to complete
registration forms and prove public liability insurance of $25,000 (Weiss,
2011). Four years later, a New Mexico town and Cincinnati, Ohio passed
regulation regarding pit bulls (Weiss, 2011). Today over 700 U.S. cities have
enacted BSL (“State-by-State,” n.d.). Pit bulls are descendants of an English
bull-baiting dog, a dog bred to bite and face larger animals; once baiting
large animals was banned people started dog fighting instead (“Pit Bull Cruelty,”
n.d.). The pit bulls that were not used for dog fighting were the perfect
family pet due to their affection and gentle demeanor with children (“Pit Bull
Cruelty,” n.d.). Though dog fighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, it
still has a strong subculture; owners will prepare their pit bulls for dog
fighting by encouraging aggression on other dogs and animals as well as
starving and beating them to encourage aggression giving them the reputation of
being “inherently dangerous” (“Pit Bull Cruelty,” n.d.). Animals are a product
of their environment, so being raised to behave in a certain manner is the
result of the owner and behavior rather than the individual animal. Pit bulls that
are not raised for dog fighting are gentle creatures and service dogs. If the
pit bulls are banned then the same individuals will find another breed to train
to behave in the same demeanor.
The BSL was enacted due to specific
occurrences of foul pit bull behaviors. Almost seven years ago, Dominic Solesky
was mauled by a pit bull in the alley behind his rowhouse in Towson, Maryland
causing trauma surgery at John Hopkins Hospital and a year of rehabilitation
(Knezevich, 2013). As the family was in court for five years trying to get restitution
for Dominic’s injuries, legislators in the House and Senate set liability for
all dog owners if the victim were under thirteen years old; this has caused
apartment complexes to choose between their pets and their homes, homeowners
associations drawing up policies to ban pit bulls, and shelters seeing an
increase in pit bulls (Knezevich, 2013). In 2011, a pregnant woman died due to
blood loss and shock, one of her pit bull pets being the sole attacker; her
husband who arrived home from work to find his wife unconscious on the floor
stated that he doesn’t blame the dog and plans on burying his wife with their
dog’s cremated remains in her casket and further went out to say it was not the
breed’s fault (“Dog Bite Fatality,” 2011). Though in these situations a pit
bull was the attacker, from 1965 until 2001 there have been at least 36
different breeds responsible for a fatal attack; when taking the registered dog
population into consideration with the number of dog bites, pit bulls actually
came in at the bottom of the list at .0012 percent (“The Truth,” n.d.). The
American Canine Temperament Testing Society conducted testing on several
different breeds and the results determined that pit bulls achieved a passing
rating of 83.9 percent, a rating higher than Beagles at 78.2 percent and Golden
Retrievers at 83.2 percent (“The Truth,” n.d.). These statistics are further
proof that the breed is not responsible for the attacks, but the behaviors
taught on to them as well as their owners.
Pit bulls have such a poor
reputation, one would not believe them to also be service dogs or helpful to
people. In Prince George’s County in Maryland where a breed ban exists, last
spring Danielle Guglieimi was told she had two days to send her service pit
bull Storm elsewhere (Greenwood, 2013). Sparing her pit bull’s life, she did
just that. After she suffered injuries from falls while without her service
dog, a judge ruled that the American Disabilities Act takes precedence over the
breed ban, so service dogs in that county are not included in the ban
(Greenwood, 2013). Service dogs go through extensive training in order to be
fully prepared to handle the responsibilities it brings so through training,
Storm and other pit bulls were taught the behaviors of being a service dog rather
than an aggressive dog. A pit bull named TaterTot was rescued as a foster dog
to his new owner; during the night TaterTot began to bark and whimper running
between his owner and her child. When she checked on Peyton, her child was
incoherent and barely breathing. She took him to the emergency room where it
was determined his blood sugar levels had crashed to a dangerous low (Dicker,
2013). If not for TaterTot, Peyton may not have survived the night. Dogs that
are “inherently dangerous,” which according to the breed ban is all pit bulls,
would not tolerate being a service dog and would not cause commotion in order
to save a child’s life.
Today there are two states that
regulate dangerous dogs without specifying a breed. The statute in Michigan
regulates the dog behavior instead of the breed; in Florida their law
proscribes types of behavior by dogs that are subject to penalty, defining
dangerous dogs as those which have “aggressively bitten, attacked, or
endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private
property” as well as when unprovoked approached a person on public grounds with
attitude of attack (Weiss, 2011). In early 2006 Aurora, Colorado enacted that
restricted breeds, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier,
and Staffordshire bull terrier, be destroyed with the exception of owners being
“grandfathered” in meeting requirements (Johansson, 2013). Since that time,
1,158 dogs have been destroyed as a result of that ban (Johansson, 2013).
Interestingly enough, the number of dog bites have not declined. City records
show that the number of reported dog bites in Aurora have remained the same
over a ten year period, about 200 a year; however, the number of dog bites from
restricted breeds have decreased to less than 10 a year (Johansson, 2013). This
is a solid example as to why breed bans are not effective at preventing dog
bites.
Referring to the example of Michigan
regulation citing the behavior of biting as the root of the regulation rather
than the actual breed, it recognizes that other breeds are capable of the same
serious aggression (Weiss, 2011). The University of Colorado School of Medicine
in Aurora conducted a study in 2010 and found that mixed breeds and Labrador
retrievers were the cause of majority of the dog bites (Johansson, 2013). From
the examples presented as well as many others, the breed is not the cause of
the crimes. Labrador retrievers can be classified as the perfect family pet;
therefore, their reputation will surprise people to find their participation in
dog bites. Instead, hold the dog owner responsible for the behaviors they teach
their dog and allow their dog to display; hold the dog owner accountable for
allowing their dog to run wild on the streets without supervision. Government
officials need to hold those responsible for allowing the dog bites to occur
even if it’s the more difficult or costly way, it’s the way that could save
human as well as dog lives.
References:
2011
dog bite fatality: Pregnant Pacifica woman killed by family pit bull. (2011,
August 15).
Dogsbite.org. Retrieved February 2,
2014, from http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/08/2011-
fatality-pregnant-pacifica-woman.html
Breed-specific
laws state-by-state. (n.d.). Dogsbite.org. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from
http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-state-by-state.php
Dicker,
R. (2013, October 9). Rescued pit bull saves new owner’s 4-year-old son in
Minneapolis.
The
Huffington Post. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com
/2013/10/09/rescued-pit-bull-saves-boy-minneapolis_n_4070101.html
Greenwood,
A. (2013, October 7). Maryland Judge orders county with pit bull ban to return
service dog. The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/prince-georges-county-pit-bull-service-
Johansson,
B. (2013, November 14). Aurora’s ban on pit bulls after critics rally to
Stallone’s
side. Aurora Sentinel. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.aurorasentinel.com
/news/city-council-likely-revisit-auroras-ban-pit-bulls-critics-rally-stallones-side/
liability controversy, disappointed
lawmakers did not come to agreement. The
Huffington
Post.RetrievedFebruary 2, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/
maryland-pit-bull-legislation_n_3050640.html
Pit
bull cruelty. (n.d.). ASPCA. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.aspca.org/fight-
cruelty/dog-fighting/pit-bull-cruelty
The
truth about pit bulls. (n.d.). Mid-America Bully Breed rescue. Retrieved
February 2, 2014,
from http://mabbr.org/pit-bull-ownership/the-truth-about-pit-bulls/
Weiss,
L. (2011). Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States. Retrieved February
2, 2014,
from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htMore on This Topic......
No comments:
Post a Comment