Dear Sir or Madam from DogsBite.org,
Thanks for reading my letter. After
browsing your website, I’m really impressed with the work you have been doing
with victims of dog attacks, so I’m writing this letter is to express my
understanding in your support for Breed Specific Legislation and to thank you
for your efforts in preventing dog attacks. At the same time, as you may know,
there are many organizations and individuals that strongly oppose Breed
Specific Legislation, so I would also like to offer a few suggestions that may
help you improve the status quo and ease their concerns.
First of all, I understand your support
for BSL. According to some statistics and scientific researches posted on your website,
dangerous breeds account for most dog attacks every year and BSL really works in
reducing dog attacks in many communities. I can tell that your arguments are not
supported by anecdotal evidence; rather, your website has listed much
scientific evidence of dangerous dogs and many true stories of bites of vicious
breeds to back up BSL. Furthermore, besides reducing dog attacks directly, I
think your support for BSL also helps raise the public’s awareness of safety
issues related to dogs and popularize the common safety rules associated with
dog attacks. Moreover, I understand that unlike what many people may assume,
BSL is not only about dogs; rather, it also promotes owners’ responsibility and
accountability since it requires owners to use labels, spay/neuter their dogs
and so on to prevent dog attacks.
At the same time, I can see that you
have been doing many practical works for dog bite victims since your organization
is also raising funds for dog bite victims. I can also see another benefit
brought by Breed Specific Legislation, which is covered medical payment. While
dog attacks caused by dangerous breeds usually lead to severe injuries, the
required liability insurance and fines under BSL help ensure the victims
receive medical payment, which is a great relief for the victims’ families.
Last but not least, while your
organization advocates the restrictions and banning of dangerous breeds, I’m
really happy to see that BSL also benefits the welfare of dogs. For example, by
banning dangerous breeds, much less resources of shelters are devoted to
special housing for pit bulls, thus saving much more shelter space and other
resources.
Overall, I would like to say that your
organization really cares about the welfare of victims of dog attacks and
public safety. I really appreciate what you have been doing for dog attack
prevention.
However, as you may know, there are
also many people and organizations that strongly oppose Breed Specific
Legislation due to reasonable concerns, so I would like to give you two
suggestions that may help ease their concerns. Firstly, I suggest your
organization advocate laws like mandatory spay and neuter instead of breed
ban/euthanasia. Under breed-ban laws, existing pit bulls must be seized and
killed, which will definitely harm their owners since the dogs haven’t done
anything wrong, thus inducing strong protest. Secondly, I hope your
organization can hear the voice from the opposite side. Scientific researches
are usually attached with human values and opinions so that they can’t be
absolutely objective. The evidence of dangerous breeds is not conclusive right
now. I think conducting a research under the cooperation from the both sides would
be helpful and convincing in terms of determining whether BSL is necessary or not.
Sincerely,
Mei Yang
Sources Used:
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/06/cities-with-successful-pit-bull-laws.html
http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-bsl-faq.php
http://www.dogsbite.org/
http://www.dogsbite.org/staying-safe-from-dangerous-dogs.php
No comments:
Post a Comment