Sponsored Links








Add to Technorati Favorites

Lazy Legislation

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Reading through the many comments posted regarding Ontario's ban on pit bulls tells the tale on how we as a society feel about dog attacks. There were many that are against breed specific legislation (BSL), while some seemed to be in favor of it. DoggieNews.com attracts dog lovers, so it's easy to see why so many commenters are opposed to banning dogs.

As a libertarian, I don't like government deciding what dogs we can own and not own. The problem is the irresponsible dog owners. I don't agree that pit bulls are like any other dog. They were bred for fighting. That in itself is a tragedy for this breed. But anyone who seeks to own a pit bull, must understand that this breed carries additional responsibility. In the end, the dog owner is responsible for the dog.

That being said, the laws should target the dog owners. But the problem is how do we protect our freedom and our privacy, while protecting the general public from a potentially deadly weapon? That's why I brought up the analogy between pit bulls and guns in one of my earlier posts.

It's the government's job to protect its citizens. When the media sensationalizes every pit bull attack, the people look to their elected officials for solutions. This is what happened in Ontario. Unfortunately, no one in Ontario presented lawmakers with a better solution.

One of the commenters said that they indeed gave solutions, and here was the comment:
We pit bull owners have gave solutions. Instead of punishing the breed target the irresponsible dog owners. There are two ways to do that. One, start having owners answer personal questions of why they want the dog. Next is to educate the buyers about the breed and dog training. If they feel they don't have what it takes to train a dog themselves, sign them up to a professional dog trainer for free. If the goverment cares about protecting people over making money, they should make acess to professionals dog trainers free.
While this solution could in fact reduce pit bull attacks, the problem is that it costs money. That is the REAL issue. Let's look at the commenter's solution point by point:

  1. "start having owners answer personal questions of why they want the dog". Answer to whom? Do we set up a government agency to regulate "dangerous dog" ownership? Or, do we force dog sellers to act as quasi-government agents to make decisions on whether someone is eligible to own a pit bull? If we make dog sellers responsible for policing prospective buyers, then can we sue the dog seller if a dog does end up biting someone? It's going to cost money to set up a state-mandated profiling system.


  2. "educate the buyers about the breed and dog training". Again, who is going to do the educating? Will the government set up a training program for this? Will the government reimburse dog sellers for providing "pit bull classes"? Or will the government print up pamphlets?


  3. "If they feel they don't have what it takes to train a dog themselves, sign them up to a professional dog trainer for free". Is the government going to hire hundreds of dog trainers so that people can own pit bulls? Or, are they going to set up reimbusement programs? Again, money.
Now, take a look at Ontario's pit bull ban. It simply says that no one can acquire any pit bull, and that anyone who already has a pit bull must keep it muzzled and restrained. Does that law cost the government any additional money? No.

That's the key.

The problem is that no government has an abundance of money to throw around. In fact, governments must allocate a budget for everything they do. If legislators write up a law that would require funding, then it has to go to a budget committee to decide where the funding will come from. If you read the news about government budgets, you'll know that they are not an easy thing to pass.

Hence, it's a law of convenience. It's "lazy legislation". But there was also the fact that legislators didn't have better solutions, and that the media was pushing legislators into doing something.

Are we as a society prepared to raise our own taxes so that we may reduce the number of pit bull attacks? Is it that fair that some people are so irresponsible that it would force us to pay higher taxes just for the freedom of owning pit bulls? I suppose this is the question.

I could go on and on about government and funding. But DoggieNews really isn't about politics. Yet, dog ownership is affected by politics. I don't want to ban any kind of breed, period. I think freedom and liberty must be protected. I also don't want to raise taxes to support educational and training programs. If we're going to raise taxes, let it go to hiring more animal control officers.

If it turns out that the number of pit bull attacks are reduced in Ontario, then look out.

11 Comments:

  • This is a sign that the goverment is interested in money or lives.If they cared about lives over money they'll spend some to protect the people.
    Besides,as countless of people have wrote,instead of spending money on BSL they could just convert that money over to educating the public.Too often-and especially will i live-you see a lot of chained, thin,and abused dogs.Keeping a dog in that condition is a good way to creat an aggresive pet.
    And as for bringing up the pitbull fighting history,thats a very wrong thought.Back than the fighting pitbulls were still fully train and under control.If anyone showed any aggression toward people they'll be put to sleep.
    It was only now that amatures dog fighters started breeding aggressive fighting dogs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:22 AM, March 09, 2005  

  • There is an article that I thought dog lovers would be intrested in reading. It is at fataldogattacks.com. It just points to the fact that irresponsible dog owners are the cause of animal attacks. The end of the article states facts that show this. I personally am a dog/cat groomer and I have more fear in grooming other breeds of dogs than any pitbulls that comes into my saloon. Pitbulls if raised in a loving and caring home are wonderful dogs. They love people and are eager to please them.

    By Anonymous christina, at 9:02 AM, March 09, 2005  

  • whoops!! I meant salon not saloon...lol

    By Anonymous christina, at 9:03 AM, March 09, 2005  

  • An absolutely brilliant perspective on the subject!!!!!

    By Anonymous William Rhone, at 12:56 PM, March 09, 2005  

  • Of course it will cost Ontario money to enact their new Breed Ban.

    Think about it: How are they going to enforce the muzzling of pit bulls, for that matter- how are they defining a pit bull! How are they going to prevent people from acquiring a pit bull?

    What about those nefarious back yard breeders who don't respond to the law anyway? i.e. they still breed and fight their dogs- what makes Ontario law makers think that they'll stop now, because its illegal?

    Breed bans do cost money and often, they don't work. There are so many other aspects that aren't addressed in the breed ban and cost is a major factor- enforcement, housing, euthinization- I could go on. The government is going to pay for all of this? - but not education programs or strict punishment for irresponsible owners--You're right, it is Lazy legislation. One that will inheretnly create more problems that it will solve.

    By Blogger Savvy, at 2:41 PM, March 10, 2005  

  • I agree with you a hundred percent.
    The Canadian Governent still have to pay.Thats why instead of spending money on BSL they could spend it on that law I suggested.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:25 PM, March 10, 2005  

  • I found another great web site you dog lovers may like to take a look at. It is blackpearldogs.com and at this site if you go to "Contrary to Ordinary " on the left of the home page there is a great story about a pit bull and also a video. I highly suggest to you to watch the video. Also some other great stories on this site. Thanks

    By Anonymous Christina, at 10:31 AM, March 19, 2005  

  • Steve,
    Re Pitbulls.
    You are the voice of reason!
    Thank you for laying it out in a calm manner.

    And thanks for explaining the cookie thing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:15 AM, March 24, 2005  

  • Two Pit Bulls Rescue Woman From Red Chow

    18 minutes ago Strange News - AP



    OMAHA, Neb. - Two dogs whose breed has a reputation for being mean played the roles of rescuers for a woman who was being attacked by another dog.



    A red chow was on top of Angie Pecoraro, 22, in her yard on Monday when two pit bulls jumped over a fence and fought off the chow, Nebraska Humane Society spokeswoman Pam Wiese said.


    Witnesses said the chow had bitten Pecoraro several times on her hands, arms and stomach, Wiese said.


    An ambulance took Pecoraro to a hospital, where she was treated and released, Wiese said.


    The Humane Society impounded the chow, and its owner was ticketed for not having the dog restrained and for harboring a dangerous animal. It will be quarantined to make sure it doesn't have rabies, Wiese said.


    ___


    Information from: Omaha World-Herald, http://www.omaha.com

    By Blogger Jo, at 5:37 AM, April 13, 2005  

  • It starts with pit bulls, then other dogs will be targeted next. Anyone who owns a Husky, a German Shepard, a Rottweiler, a Chow, the list goes on and on.
    Soon all large dogs will be labeled "a threat"...breed bans do nothing to keep certain people from wanting "tough, killer dogs". And as sad as that may seem, it's the truth. Only responsible dog owners will be following these unfair laws.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:33 AM, October 07, 2005  

  • Actually, Pit bulls were bred for agricultural use, like many other dog breeds. They were intended to help wrangle bulls on farms, thats why they are built so solidly and low to the ground. It is a recent breeding trend, I would say starting around the 1980s, that has made them into a 'fighting' breed.

    If you follow the history of aggresive dog breeds, you can see the real problem lies with the owners, not the dogs. These were respectable working breeds until they became status-symbols and cheap sport. Bad breeding led to bad dogs.
    If you take away the Pits, does this solve the problem? No. The trends in aggressive breeds has shifted over the decades - from German Shepards to Dobermans to Rotts to Pits and back again. Popularity has killed what could have been good dogs, over and over again.

    I agree that there should be mandates for dog owners wishing to aquire these breeds. (Such as training) And really, I think this should be a cost to the owner, not the government. Owning a dog is a pricey business, period. Make an effort. You want this nice, strong looking dog? Then work for it. Cost should not be an issue if you want something so specific. If you are not willing to commit to the well being of this animal, then you simply shouldn't have one.

    By Anonymous Mad Animal Scientist, at 6:00 PM, January 07, 2006  

Post a Comment
Back to Homepage