Is forbidding Pitbull’s solution or the creation to an even bigger problem?

by mAlba1581 on September 12, 2016 - 10:39am

In the article “SPCA threatens to end pound services if Montreal bans pit bulls” by Michelle Lalonde a writer of the Montreal Gazette, she discusses how the soon to be implemented law to ban pit bulls is now going to affect the SPCA’s future. The banning of this race forces the SPCA to go against what their purpose is. The SPCA was created with the intentions to protect, care for and to rehabilitate animals who have been neglected and mal treated until they find their forever home. They believe that it is discriminatory and highly impossible to banish an entire race thus leading them to threaten to end their pound services.

            A big factor when looking at this issue which angers a lot of dog lovers is the fact that Pitbull’s are being killed for what has happened in a few extreme cases as that of Christiane Vadnais. The 55year old Point Aux Tremble resident was viciously attacked in her own back yard. Solely basing our opinion about these helpless animals on these arbitrary extreme cases can cause up to 800 of them a year to lose their lives as stated by Marie Christine Trottier of le Journal de Montréal. That for one goes against a few moral claims such as right to life, do no harm and don’t judge a book by its cover just to name a few. Moral claims are set in order to keep a society in check based on what they view as right or wrong but if the city goes through with the decision it will cause an uproar. 

            On the other end of the stick people might see this as a positive thing as it may bring the feeling of living in a safer environment knowing that these so called “vicious” animals are no longer roaming the streets. But who is really to blame here? The animals are certainly not. It is however their owners who have trained them and cared for them. They have no way of knowing right from wrong if they are never taught the difference.  In many of the cases we hear the animal has almost always gone through some kind of neglectful or abusive situation causing them to rebel. Another reason people might see this as a positive thing is because they strongly believe that the chances of people’s lives being taken because of animal attacks will be lessened. As mentioned before all this can be avoided if stronger measurements are put onto the owners.

            To conclude, I feel strongly that implementing this law is a huge waste of time as it won’t solve the problem which already exists but is rather creating an even bigger one. In doing this will be extremely time consuming and the results are not guaranteed. On the other hand, a more ethical approach for what can be done is have owners register their pets in training facilities to ensure a safer environment for their pets, themselves and society. Is applying this law going to stop society to go to certain extremes to obtain the animals one way or another?

                                                                                       

 

Refernces 

Lalonde, Michelle. “SPCA threatens to end pound services if Montreal bans pit bulls.” The Montréal Gazette, 31 Aug. 2016, http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/spca-threatens-to-end-pound-services-if-montreal-bans-pit-bulls. Accessed 9 September,2016  

 

Trottier, Marie-Christine. "Règlement sur les pitbulls: Plus de chiens errants en liberte." Le Journal de Montréal online, 7 Sept. 2016, http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/09/07/chiens-dangereux-la-spca-menace-de-ne-plus-offrir-son-volet-canin. Accessed 9 September, 2016.

 

Comments

Hi! This was a very interesting article on a topic for which I feel very passionate - since I am a dog owner and an animal rights advocate. However, I did find one element in your post that made me question the validity of your premise. Here it is: in your second argument, you mention how banning pit bulls might bring a feeling of greater safety once these “vicious” animals are no longer allowed. You then say that these measures should not be applied upon the dog itself but upon the owner. In this case, you should probably support your argument with reliable statistics or facts proving that the pit bull’s aggressive attacks were not the result of years of breeding but in fact from the way its current owner is treating it. Without this type of justification, the argument is simply an unreliable argument. Furthermore, if the statistic used was based on a survey, you should recognize that many dog owners would not admit to mistreating or abusing their dog, especially if they are encouraging pit bulls to be more vicious and aggressive. Therefore, it is even doubtful that reliable sources exist to support this argument.

I would be happy to discuss this topic with you if you feel like I’ve maybe misunderstood your point.

Your article is very interesting and I loved your choice of topic since I own a dog myself. I feel like you might have a biased opinion mostly shown through your use of vocabulary; you do not advocate lot on the positive aspects of the law. You mentioned one argument positive and you immediately bring a counterargument. I feel like you are giving your opinion rather than informing the reader. Even though, I agree with you we should not do harm to animals because a few accidents happened, the public is generalizing these incidents for every pit bulls. The problem mostly comes from the owners, they are responsible for the actions of their dog; if the dog is well trained, then the risk of potential attacks will automatically decrease. I think that banning the pit bulls will lead to potentially banning others threatening breads of dogs because they will be seen as violent. If not the pit bulls, which bread?