For my argument class we had to pick a topic and write less than 275 words about it as a letter to the editor of some publication. I choose the local bias newspaper and of course, BSL alternatives. Everyone in the class seemed to like the argument and agreed that my suggestions seemed to make more sense. I hope I at least convinced a couple classmates to see a different light if no one else.
“I am writing in response to the regular position of some of your writers in support of Breed Specific Legislation. When people say that pit bulls are dangerous, they are making a generalization, just as insurance companies use generalizations when they charge young men more for car insurance. Generalizing what “pit bulls” are capable of, or any other breed, is profiling, a practice frowned upon in the human world and no fairer for canines. Contrary to these generalizations, there are a lot of pit bulls who are licensed therapy dogs and in a drill by the American Temperament Test Society to test temperament, “pit bull’s” rated 85% positive ahead of “family dogs” such as Airedales and Beagles. Also, some governments are finding out that BSL laws just don’t work. Holland and Italy have after many years of seeing no positive change, lifted their breed specific bans and instead implemented stricter owner regulations.
Many more productive solutions can be implemented domestically as well that will appease supporters and non supporters of the legislation. Programs to regulate breeding, educate the public on pet ownership, stricter screening at adoption agencies, mandatory maximum penalty for negligent pet owners and aggressive campaigning for spay/neutering are just some of the programs that could do much more than banning specific breeds. The overly simplified solution of BSL cannot replace the effects of action and education. Ultimately, finding alternatives to BSL laws would show an active interest in pleasing both pro BSL and anti-BSL supporters, both of whom deserve their rights considered in an issue so controversial.”
Oregon legislators sent a strong message to those who participate in dogfighting with the passage Senate Bill 1072, a piece of legislature that will make being a knowing spectator of a dogfight a class C felony in the state. A class C felony conviction carries a fine of $125,000, a five-year prison sentence, or both. The bill was sponsored by Senate President Peter Courtney (D-Salem) and was passed during a special supplementary session in February.
“Dogfighting is a despicable and indefensible practice,” says Kelly Peterson, Oregon state director for HSUS. “Spectators finance dogfights through admission fees and gambling, and Oregon’s law was deficient in handling these people who cheer and enable this cruelty.”
Although watching dogfighting doesn’t carry the same notoriety as training dogs to fight, spectators enable the “sport” to make a profit. Under the previous law, spectators weren’t held accountable for viewing a fight. The new law differentiates between people who purposefully view dog fights and those who accidentally come across one. The bill makes advertising dogfighting equipment and possessing dogfighting paraphernalia class C felonies as well.
“Oregon has some of the toughest animal-cruelty laws in the nation,” says Sharon Harmon, executive director of the Oregon Humane Society. “This bill is one more step in demonstrating compassion for those who can’t speak for themselves.”Portland Tails Magazine – April 2008
Recent Comments