Everything Wrong with the Pit Bull Ban

Pit bulls, the world’s most controversial dog. Are they born bloodthirsty or are the owners to blame, is the question that is always asked. Recently, Springfield, Missouri has decided that they know the answer: bloodthirsty. As of October 2nd the Springfield City Council passed legislation banning all unregistered pit bulls and pit mixes from city limits. The ban affects the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and it also blankets in any dog that closely resembles any of them. After January 1st any unregistered pit bulls will be “seized and disposed of.”

Problem number one: the wording. Let’s start with that the ban affects any dog that closely resembles pit bulls, so can someone please tell me who this expert on how pit bulls look is? Did our government really just circle back to the biggest problem in American history? You cannot judge a dog (… person) on how they look, I mean we have learned this from day one! Then we move on to my personal favorite, “seized and disposed of.” Some laws have been known to use nice language to make it sound better, but you can’t even make this sound good! The Springfield Greene County Health Department defines “dispose of” as, “If the dog cannot be adopted, euthanasia is a possibility.” Any dog that they deem unadoptable will be killed, and a lot of “factors” go into adoption.

Problem number two: what is being said. While writing this article I am certain I have read every possible website related to pit bulls and BSL (Breed Specific Legislation). What astonishes me is the arguments for passing the ban. Craig Fishel, Springfield city council member, told Springfield News-Leader that, “As the United States Constitution confirms that citizens have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In my opinion, that includes freedom from fear of attack from vicious animals.” The News-Leader then had to add, “Though the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is often attributed to the Constitution, it actually comes from the Declaration of Independence.” I’m sorry, but what?  Someone that Springfield residents trust to run their government can’t even tell you where one of the most important lines in American history comes from; as an outsider, I have very little faith that this is what the people of Springfield wanted. That being said, this is still not the main problem I have with this line. The problem is that if every citizen is given the right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” isn’t taking away their pets an encroachment on their basic rights? My dog makes me happy, can a pit bull not? My next favorite thing that has been said for the banning of pit bulls is “Pull out their teeth,” said by Springfield resident, Danny Lee Henderson. News-Leader reported that this had been said during a public hearing over the pit bull ban. He also had the solution to how they would eat with no teeth, pureed food! Obviously this was a very well thought out plan, with no apparent consequences at all. What is being said about this ban has got to be some of the least thought about things I have ever heard in my life, nobody wants to eat pureed food for the rest of their life.

The argument for passing such an extreme law was simple, to protect the public health, but these laws have gone too far. Pit bulls are not inherently dangerous, they are not guns with the ability to pull their own trigger. Pit bulls are people’s families, their children, and maybe all they have left. If you want to protect the public health from dog attacks you cannot ban all the dogs, you need to keep the owners responsible.

Information from: www.springfieldmo.gov and http://www.news-leader.com