Dogs and their breeds are now being banned in our country and foreign countries as well. The very reason why dogs are being banned due to the safety of mankind, they say some aggressive breeds really get irrational and at times a pest for the society. Now just eradicating something out of the country or the town do you think that it would be the best solution. If tomorrow bill boards would be become a problem due the wind blowing would you simply remove all the boards and make a loss. The answer is NO. So then how can just by eliminating a breed the world would come to peace.
If a breed is banned, ultimately only those who are responsible owners of the breed will be affected. Are these the people causing the problems? No. Those who are using dogs for fighting, protecting drugs or as weapons and status symbols will continue to own the dogs and ignore the laws. As to those who think so. These kinds of owners are actually a pest for the state and not those who love dogs and keep them for the sake of love and not for the sake of fights.
Now if you ban dogs then these kinds of people are going to have a great amount of advantage over the law and would start to smuggle dogs. This would become more over like a symbol and help these kinds of ruthless and heartless breeders to symbolize this word ban and exploit the government on a higher scale. If the fact is that the dogs would not be treated so badly so then one would even comprehend this act. But the very reason the government is taking such a step is due to those people who train the dogs to fight and be irrational. They are the ones who actually have been viewed by the state. This is a fact that those dogs are very dangerous but why even killing or eliminating them. Why can’t we fetch those criminals who are behind this entire move and punish them?
If you ever have a detailed research you would actually know why dogs bite? Anywhere from 75-80% of all dog bites occur from the family pet regardless of breed or cross. This means 20-25% of all bites are from other dogs - like ones roaming loose. So, you round up all the dogs running loose, it will not have much of an impact in reducing dog bites overall - just those bites caused by loose animals. So then it would be pointless to reducing after looking at the consensus that in general cases why dogs bite. So if elimination is the answer then I would disagree. It all depends on the way a dog is brought up. If we speak with utter justice then 80% would be just conservative. Reason being they are mostly bitten by their own dogs at home and that’s what bugs them the most. If a person does not know how to treat a dog and just keeps and getting by that particular breed then it is not the dog it is him.
If he is not training his dog in a proper manner then how can he keep one, instead of the breed being banned the owner should be banned of keeping dogs. If the breed is banned the owner just due to his fancy could get another breed and get himself bitten just the same way he got bitten by the old one.
The dogs that are left out side without paying any attention develop more bad behaviors than the other dogs. The reason is that the dogs become more aggressive and do not learn proper mannerism that he should be learning. In a different home, the dog would probably be a great companion. But in the one the dog is in, the dog is now a risk. Would banning the breed work? No. Another dog will be brought in and the scenario play out again - regardless of the fact that has he been trained or not. What about animal control? According to the Animal Planet Network show Animal Precinct, New York City has about ten animal control officers to police about 5,000,000 pets. How can the officers keep up with this number? Now is this justice to all the animals that they have no one too look after and how far can one animal controller look after. He would rather give decision made on his own estimation than having a proper consensus done. These officers are not even paid well then how they even do justice to their duty. I have seen them traveling on cycles. Now please explain how many dogs would the officer would be able to inspect if he has a CYCLE and how would he able to give a big decision to eliminate such a big number. This would make his decision also void.
According to the Washington Animal Foundation in Seattle, WA, of the 24 dog bite fatalities in 2001, two were from Pomeranians, one from a Beagle and one from a Labrador retriever; only one was from an American Pit Bull Terrier. Maybe we should look at banning Pomeranians? They killed more people than the APBT that year! In other years, Dalmatians were reasonable for more dog bites. Why? Well it was in the year following the release of the live 101 Dalmatians. Irresponsible breeding, owners are giving into children's wails or falling for the hype of Hollywood and having to get that new fad but that is wrong. Now if you see dogs are not just going to be used for irresponsible breeding or to have the trend to be settled. They are living things, they have all five senses active then how can we mistreat them so much.
As owners who leave dogs unattended when no one is home are creating a greater risk. In many areas I have lived, there always seemed to be a core of dogs (not one was any of the breeds mentioned in bans) that were always loose or escaping. The owners could care less. This is one of the very reasons why dogs go out of hand. This is what makes the dogs have a bad impression in the society. Habitual offenders need to lose the PRIVILEGE to own another life. Most punishments for irresponsible pet owners are presently a joke. I would like to conclude on this one that dogs are supposed to be well trained but will also that well educated too. If a dog is not well educated then he would act without mannerism and can also be irrational. A dog is not a pet that is only to be called at orders but he should also understand sentiments. This is what makes him an actual friend. So the idea is not to eradicate a particular dog breed or dogs but the breeders who are involved in this crime.
If a breed is banned, ultimately only those who are responsible owners of the breed will be affected. Are these the people causing the problems? No. Those who are using dogs for fighting, protecting drugs or as weapons and status symbols will continue to own the dogs and ignore the laws. As to those who think so. These kinds of owners are actually a pest for the state and not those who love dogs and keep them for the sake of love and not for the sake of fights.
Now if you ban dogs then these kinds of people are going to have a great amount of advantage over the law and would start to smuggle dogs. This would become more over like a symbol and help these kinds of ruthless and heartless breeders to symbolize this word ban and exploit the government on a higher scale. If the fact is that the dogs would not be treated so badly so then one would even comprehend this act. But the very reason the government is taking such a step is due to those people who train the dogs to fight and be irrational. They are the ones who actually have been viewed by the state. This is a fact that those dogs are very dangerous but why even killing or eliminating them. Why can’t we fetch those criminals who are behind this entire move and punish them?
If you ever have a detailed research you would actually know why dogs bite? Anywhere from 75-80% of all dog bites occur from the family pet regardless of breed or cross. This means 20-25% of all bites are from other dogs - like ones roaming loose. So, you round up all the dogs running loose, it will not have much of an impact in reducing dog bites overall - just those bites caused by loose animals. So then it would be pointless to reducing after looking at the consensus that in general cases why dogs bite. So if elimination is the answer then I would disagree. It all depends on the way a dog is brought up. If we speak with utter justice then 80% would be just conservative. Reason being they are mostly bitten by their own dogs at home and that’s what bugs them the most. If a person does not know how to treat a dog and just keeps and getting by that particular breed then it is not the dog it is him.
If he is not training his dog in a proper manner then how can he keep one, instead of the breed being banned the owner should be banned of keeping dogs. If the breed is banned the owner just due to his fancy could get another breed and get himself bitten just the same way he got bitten by the old one.
The dogs that are left out side without paying any attention develop more bad behaviors than the other dogs. The reason is that the dogs become more aggressive and do not learn proper mannerism that he should be learning. In a different home, the dog would probably be a great companion. But in the one the dog is in, the dog is now a risk. Would banning the breed work? No. Another dog will be brought in and the scenario play out again - regardless of the fact that has he been trained or not. What about animal control? According to the Animal Planet Network show Animal Precinct, New York City has about ten animal control officers to police about 5,000,000 pets. How can the officers keep up with this number? Now is this justice to all the animals that they have no one too look after and how far can one animal controller look after. He would rather give decision made on his own estimation than having a proper consensus done. These officers are not even paid well then how they even do justice to their duty. I have seen them traveling on cycles. Now please explain how many dogs would the officer would be able to inspect if he has a CYCLE and how would he able to give a big decision to eliminate such a big number. This would make his decision also void.
According to the Washington Animal Foundation in Seattle, WA, of the 24 dog bite fatalities in 2001, two were from Pomeranians, one from a Beagle and one from a Labrador retriever; only one was from an American Pit Bull Terrier. Maybe we should look at banning Pomeranians? They killed more people than the APBT that year! In other years, Dalmatians were reasonable for more dog bites. Why? Well it was in the year following the release of the live 101 Dalmatians. Irresponsible breeding, owners are giving into children's wails or falling for the hype of Hollywood and having to get that new fad but that is wrong. Now if you see dogs are not just going to be used for irresponsible breeding or to have the trend to be settled. They are living things, they have all five senses active then how can we mistreat them so much.
As owners who leave dogs unattended when no one is home are creating a greater risk. In many areas I have lived, there always seemed to be a core of dogs (not one was any of the breeds mentioned in bans) that were always loose or escaping. The owners could care less. This is one of the very reasons why dogs go out of hand. This is what makes the dogs have a bad impression in the society. Habitual offenders need to lose the PRIVILEGE to own another life. Most punishments for irresponsible pet owners are presently a joke. I would like to conclude on this one that dogs are supposed to be well trained but will also that well educated too. If a dog is not well educated then he would act without mannerism and can also be irrational. A dog is not a pet that is only to be called at orders but he should also understand sentiments. This is what makes him an actual friend. So the idea is not to eradicate a particular dog breed or dogs but the breeders who are involved in this crime.
