Dangerous dog breeds and owner responsibility: solutions and advantages

Bad Owners Not Bad Dogs

Bad Dogs or Bad Owners

Bad Owners, Not Bad Dogs

It is not debatable that some dog breeds are inherently more potentially dangerous and lethal. A pit bull or Rottweiler, by its very genetic and physical makeup, is going to win a lot more fights than a Chihuahua or a Maltese. However, the key word in that first sentence was "potentially." There are no bad dogs…just bad owners. While the author of this paper does not argue against ownership restrictions for certain breeds, an outright ban on certain breeds being owned at all is a bridge too far and is symptomatic of laziness on the part of government and other regulatory agencies.

A Common-Sense Solution

As stated in the literature review, punishing owners to the extent of banning dog breeds outright is not the right solution because the true problem in play is the owners and not the dogs themselves. German Shepherds, as an example, are a go-to breed for police and military agencies as they are very easy to train and they are quite adept at following orders. However, a German Shepherd that is abused and not instilled with good values during its early life would be a very dangerous dog. The fact that most dog fighting rings focus on pit bulls should not be mistaken for the fact that the exact same thing could not be done with Germen Shepherds, or other built-to-fight breeds like Rottweilers and the like.

The solution is to not ignore that some breeds have a high degree of lethality and/or ability to injure, but instead restrict the ability of people to easily own such dogs and make sure strings are attached. All owners of potentially nasty breeds such as pit bulls and Rottweilers should be made to enroll their dog in obedience training. This might be a hard sell but something that must be involved, or there's no "teeth" so to speak, is swift and irrevocable removal (and destroying, if necessary) of dogs from owners that cannot (or will not) restrain their animals. Owners that are forbidden from owning aggressive breeds should be monitored for indications of them not following the ban once it's in place, as some people will no doubt ignore the law.

The first advantage to this plan is that people who show responsibility and diligence will be allowed to own the dog breeds that they wish. Some people prefer the larger and historically more aggressive breeds, but that's fine as long as they put in the needed work and have the proper environment for the dogs. Those folks should not be punished for the misdeeds of the few bad apples.

The second advantage to this plan is that there is also a framework to bar bad owners from owning breeds that can be abused and misused. A hidden gem in these miscreants is that they will no doubt try and violate the law and they should be fined heavily each and every time they try to get one over on society and the law. They put people in danger and should be punished for it. Those that say these fines will be excessive should be reminded that nobody is putting a gun to their head and making them violate the law and that they will be dealt with if and when they do.

A third advantage is that disaffected breeds (pit bulls in particular) will be shown to be the good dogs they are and that bad owners lead to bad dogs just like bad parents lead to bad kids. Garbage in, garbage out is the lesson to be learned and people that are doing the right thing should not be burdened too much. There needs to be some regulation that applies to everyone, just as all drivers must get a new license if they want to keep driving, good record or not, and so forth.

The fourth advantage to this plan is that is presents a balance between rewarding people who behave well and stripping rights from those that show they are not going to cut it as potentially aggressive breed owners. Pit bulls themselves are not bad, but people that teach their dogs to "sic" others and otherwise terrorize people on the whim (or with the neglect) or the owner cannot be allowed to occur unabated. For every adverse action, there needs to be a strong reaction but only against the people that are not doing right.

Support from Research

The literature review had some great gems to reference but there are three more that should be brought out in this report. One such article points out that owning a dog in a city like New York City is a "perverse" adventure given the lack of greenery and "suburbia" in that city. Indeed, the expansive yards and heavy use of cars is a forgotten afterthought to most New Yorkers, and this inexorably leads to a different way in which dogs in New York City must be kept and taken care of. In short, there is adapting that must be done and this is not unlike owning a breed that is built to damage. If the proper discipline is instilled, then the dog won't pay it a second thought just like a dog in New York City will live entirely differently than a dog in suburbia in some other town, but neither will know anything of the other and that will be of no consequence to either dog. Like humans, dogs can adapt to their situation and surroundings, but people need to be reasonable when they choose their dogs. Owning a Great Down in a 10th floor walk up, for example, is less than wise (Debord, 2001).

Another article points out that even responsible pit bull owners are well aware of a sticking stigma that comes with owning a pit bull and this is unfair if the particular owner who has the dog has not done anything to warrant that stigma. Indeed, it's the actions and inactions of others that unfairly affect that owner (Twining, Arluke & Patronek, 2000). Unfortunately, people's mindsets travel in packs and they associate their experience within one instance of the breed with the breed as a whole and that is unfair. It is akin to hating all Ford cars because one gets into a wreck in one. One has little to do with the other. One can get very badly hurt in a car wreck, but abandoning a brand (or all cars in general) because of that would be obtuse (Cohen & Richardson, 2002).