Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) should be banned

Dog Bite Statistics While it is true that many dog bite statistics might provide only some information, the information that is not provided is not necessary for legislators to come to the reasonable conclusion that certain restrictions should be placed on particularly dangerous breeds of dogs. PRO notes that dog bite statistics may “fail to accurately show which dogs bite, why dogs bite, or describe just how frequently owners irresponsibly allow their dogs to become a problem to people or other problems.” It is true that owners may be irresponsible when handling their pitbulls, and perhaps pitbulls might have some unclear motivation when they choose to bite, but knowing these factors is not necessary for legislators to determine that the dogs can and are dangerous, in general, to public safety. What matters is that there is sufficient evidence for legislators to determine that pitbulls, rottweilers, and related dogs – relative to other breeds – present an abnormal risk to human safety. The motivation of these dogs in choosing to bite, or the irresponsibility of the owners is not important. The dogs may very well believe they are being loyal and protecting their owner when they attack other animals or people, but as honorable as that may seem at some level, this is exactly the type of dog behavior that presents a danger to society. In the statistic that I presented in the earlier round, even if the amount of pitbull attacks was somehow skewed in favor of misidentifying pitbulls more often, that number could be reduced by more than two-thirds and still outweigh any other type of dog attack. For example, there were 207 deaths from pitbull attacks between 1982-2011, but only 22 deaths from Husky attacks, 12 deaths from German shepherd attacks, and 7 deaths from Doberman attacks.[1] Pitbulls are, invariably, the leading cause of dog attack death. Only an absolutely tremendous degree of misidentification of pitbulls could make this fact untrue, and my opponent has not shown that such a huge error exists, nor is there any reason to believe that it exists. Temperament Rating and military accolades PRO states that pitbulls excel in temperament testing and have well-respected military history. PRO notes that the reason pitbulls perform well in temperament testing is because they are bred to please their owners and have a fierce sense of loyalty. He also comments that “because it wants to please, it will fight and protect the owner.” This is the problem. Pitbulls are bred to viciously and zealously defend their owners against real and perceived threats. Because pitbulls are not always properly trained, and because pitbulls cannot perfectly determine what is a real threat versus a perceived threat, innocent bystanders and animals become the victims of pitbull attacks. Further, pitbulls may have a decorated military history, but this does not mean these dogs are not dangerous when owned and handled by lay people in society. A military environment is incredibly different from general society. Government legislation PRO argues that “all owners should be required to take a course to become licensed to own dogs.” The problem with this solution is that most breeds of dog don’t require special courses to own safely. If I purchase a Yorkshire terrier, I don’t need specialized training to protect myself and the public from my dog, because my dog doesn’t pose an inherent threat and is not innately likely to attack other people. It would be reasonable for the government to require specific courses be taken for the ownership of pitbulls, but this would – by definition – fall under the category of breed-specific legislation which my opponent is arguing should be banned. Further, requiring courses for owning pitbulls would be administratively more costly for the government than simply banning or restricting ownership, because the government must then set specific standards, course requirements, and so forth, to ensure that they are properly performed. Conclusion Breed-specific legislation is a reasonable and prudent method of protecting society from specific breeds that present an abnormal public safety risk. Thanks to my opponent for an enjoyable and enlightening debate! [1] http://www.dogsbite.org...