I'm preparing a speech for a class that I'm taking. It's a speech against breed-specific legislation in regards to dogs. When first embarking on the journey of research, I knew that as the owner of an American Pitbull Terrier dog I was biased, and, while I hoped the research would support my views, in 100% honesty I wasn't entirely sure what the outcomes of the research would be.
All the most reliable stuff I could find, after hours and days, and weeks, supports my idea that breed specific legislation is a poor idea. I've been looking at four countries, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Germany.
In the United States, there is no perfect data on relationships between dog breeds and dog attacks. According to a study by the American Veterinary Association, a study of nine years of dog caused deaths, in 85% of such incidents the breed of dog cannot be verified. However, the media focuses on attacks by alleged pitbulls. According to the same study, 40% of newspaper reports state that the dog was a different breed than that stated by the actual Animal Control Officer.
In Canada, while perfect data also does not exist, it seems clear that most dog-caused deaths are from husky type dogs. Yet, once again, it is the American Pitbull Terrier, and similar breeds, that are discriminated against.
In the UK, the number of serious dog attacks appears to have drastically increased since 5 non-british pitbull type breeds were banned.
In Germany, it appears that German Shepherds are responsible for most attacks, yet there has been anti-pit-type hysteria, and there are stories of owners of pittish dogs being assaulted and their dogs killed in front of their eyes.
It seems clear that in every country, the greatest number of dog attacks come from whichever breed or type exists in that country in greatest numbers. This means that it could be the case that pittish type dogs are responsible for the most attacks in the United States, for, while perfect data is not available, it does appear that, when combined together, the pit-type breeds greatly outnumber other types of dogs in the United States. This doesn't mean they are more dangerous or aggressive than other dogs; indeed, data suggests not only are the they not more aggressive than other dogs, they may be predisposed to be friendlier towards humans than are most other dogs. (However, there do exists sick individuals who teach their dog to hate humans).
The media focuses on attacks by certain dogs, and ignores others. Without outright lying, the media can present a very distorted image. (and those findings from the above study suggest that sometimes some lying is involved).
All the most reliable stuff I could find, after hours and days, and weeks, supports my idea that breed specific legislation is a poor idea. I've been looking at four countries, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Germany.
In the United States, there is no perfect data on relationships between dog breeds and dog attacks. According to a study by the American Veterinary Association, a study of nine years of dog caused deaths, in 85% of such incidents the breed of dog cannot be verified. However, the media focuses on attacks by alleged pitbulls. According to the same study, 40% of newspaper reports state that the dog was a different breed than that stated by the actual Animal Control Officer.
In Canada, while perfect data also does not exist, it seems clear that most dog-caused deaths are from husky type dogs. Yet, once again, it is the American Pitbull Terrier, and similar breeds, that are discriminated against.
In the UK, the number of serious dog attacks appears to have drastically increased since 5 non-british pitbull type breeds were banned.
In Germany, it appears that German Shepherds are responsible for most attacks, yet there has been anti-pit-type hysteria, and there are stories of owners of pittish dogs being assaulted and their dogs killed in front of their eyes.
It seems clear that in every country, the greatest number of dog attacks come from whichever breed or type exists in that country in greatest numbers. This means that it could be the case that pittish type dogs are responsible for the most attacks in the United States, for, while perfect data is not available, it does appear that, when combined together, the pit-type breeds greatly outnumber other types of dogs in the United States. This doesn't mean they are more dangerous or aggressive than other dogs; indeed, data suggests not only are the they not more aggressive than other dogs, they may be predisposed to be friendlier towards humans than are most other dogs. (However, there do exists sick individuals who teach their dog to hate humans).
The media focuses on attacks by certain dogs, and ignores others. Without outright lying, the media can present a very distorted image. (and those findings from the above study suggest that sometimes some lying is involved).
