Banning Specific Dog Breeds is Wrong

Anastasia Davis
July 16, 2015
Ever since man has been domesticating dogs they have been breeding them for specific
jobs and purposes. There are specific types of dogs that have been bred to be guard dogs or
attack dogs. It is up to us humans to continue to breed and train dogs to be good members of
society. Blaming a dog for what their owner has or hasn't done is unfair to the dog and the breed
it happens to be a part of. When we make sweeping generalizations about a whole breed because
of a few bad owners then we perpetuate the problem. I propose that breed specific bans on dogs
like the Pitbull, Rottweiler, and German Shepherd not be allowed.
The Pitbull is the dog breed that most people associate with dog attacks. In the past this
breed has been specialized for dog fighting. According to the ASPCA 1, the breed did come
about from the desire to create a dog to fight other dogs and be a good attack animal. This does
not mean they are born with the mentality to attack dogs or other people. This type of aggression
is taught. The dog was bred to be strong and tough but you must teach the aggression that many
people associate with this type of breed. With a good owner the pitbull, or any pitbull mix, can
be a wonderful dog to have for your family.
The owner of the dog can make or break the dog, no matter what the breed is. Reknown
dog expert and trainer Cesar Millan has shown time and time again that no dog is bad, they have
just had bad owners. His ability to retrain dogs that have been on death row for aggression
proves that the breed does not define a dog. Cesar has said that pitbulls have been given such an
intense stigma that "when [people] encounter a big aggressive dog that is not obviously a
different breed, they immediately think pit bull." 2 This kind of idea just continues the
perpetuation of negative ideas towards pitbulls.
Breed specific bans crop up every so often in cities around America. When these types
of bans show up they are usually a result of a vicious attack that tugged at the heart strings of
voters and caused them to act out of emotion rather than rationally. Even if it was only one
incident, this can cause voters to ban an entire breed. Using Utah as an example we see that pre
2015 there were 10 cities that banned pitbulls or other "vicious breeds". Eventually a law passed
that lifted these bans and now treats dogs on a case by case basis instead of blaming an entire
breed for the acts of a few. 3 Before this statewide law was passed people had to avoid certain
cities or move because they would have been forced to give up their dog within the city limits.
Jim Betts lives in Woods Cross, UT but the rest of his family lives in North Salt Lake.
Jim owns two pitbulls and he has had them for over 10 years. These dogs have a clean record
but because they are pitbulls Jim was not able to live close to his family. North Salt Lake was
one of those 10 cities that had a ban on pitbulls.

http://www.aspca.org/adopt/truth-about-pit-bulls
http://www.cesarsway.com/the-scoop/cesars-blog/Guilty-by-Association
3 http://www.sltrib.com/news/2003324-155/new-years-rings-in-end-to
2

This image is of Jim's grandson and one of his

pitbulls. These stories are not rare. There are 1,000s of dogs like Jim's who have clean records
but are discriminated against simply because of the actions of a few bad dog owners. Since the
breed specific laws have been lifted in Utah, pitbull owners are allowed to live wherever they
want without the fear of having their dogs taken away from them. Dogs become a part of your
family and giving them up because of a law breaks their family's hearts.
I am not blind to the fact that dog attacks do occur. I am not trying to belittle the fatal
dog attacks that do occur. My argument is that it is not the entire breeds fault, it is their owners.
When you look at the statistics brought about from groups who support these breed specific laws

you can see why they want them 4.

When you immediately look at this chart created by the group at dogsbite.com, the shock value
makes you agree with those who made the chart in the first place. You can see that pitbulls
constitute for an overwhelming amount of fatal dog attacks. When you look further into the chart
you can see this is a compilation of attacks over 10 years and it resulted in 326 deaths. That
4

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/10-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

means around 200 pitbulls killed over the span of 10 years all across America. When you look
even further into how pitbulls are classified the stats become lower still. This is because many
dogs are incorrectly classified as a pitbull or a pitbull mix just because of their measurements.
I am in no way saying that the deaths of these people should go unjustified I just believe
that their emotions are attached to these facts and make them prejudice against the entire breed.
If we applied this logic to humans, most people's perspective would change. For example: There
have been multiple cases of children from Iowa who are raised poorly and they go out attacking
other people over the span of 20 years because of the way they were raised. Do we then go
forwards in banning all people from Iowa? No. We would try to fix the problem by perhaps
increasing free parenting classes in Iowa or increasing the amount of social workers that visit
these families. We should do this for dogs as well. If the owners have proven to be unfit then
the dogs should be taken away from them and allowed to be rehabilitated. Dog training classes
should also be offered more easily for owners of these breeds that have a tendency to attack.
Creating a stigma or placing a ban on a problem does not fix that problem, it can make it worse.