Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Amadou Dioffo 105892395

Ousmane Amadou Dioffo Prof. Holly Batty English 114A Progression C Essay 3 December 2013 The Killing Has got To Stop What would you do if someone were to snatch your dog while you were walking it to go put it down just because of the way it looks? For centuries dogs have been living amongst us humans, some people have them as companions, some people have them a training dogs, other people have them just because the dogs have no where else to go. There has been a controversial issue over the euthanizing of dangerous dogs. Some people might argue that dangerous dogs, or dogs that have attacked people should be killed. Others might argue that killing dogs is unfair and that there are better alternatives to euthanizing them. The laws on dangerous dogs seem unfair and seem to come without warnings in some places. And most states in the US have similar dangerous dog laws. However, in a couple of states such as Michigan or North Dakota, if a dog is found to be dangerous and has caused serious injury or death to a personor to another dogthe court must order the dog to be destroyed. The killing of dangerous dogs is a current issue that you do not hear often about but that is a real problem, because innocent dogs are being put down because of prejudice or the wrongdoing of their owners. There are two sides to the topic of euthanizing dangerous dogs. On one side people agree with the fact that if a dog or even a whole dog breed was deemed dangerous than it should be killed. Most states have established laws that would legally allow people

Amadou Dioffo 105892395

from Animal Control, under the right circumstances, to pick up a dog and put it down. Looking at this side of the topic from a neutral point of view I could understand why people would agree with those laws. While researching I came across an article that had testimonies of random people about what their thoughts were on euthanizing dogs and one person said: "I would be in favor of a law banning specific dog breeds that display aggressive or violent behavior. Law-abiding citizens should be able to walk the streets without wondering if someone's pit bull is going to go ape on them."1 Many people have been attacked and/or injured just for walking past a dog, so I can see why many people are angry with that. That is why I believe that if we are the ones influencing them to become dangerous then we should find a way to reverse the process and influence the "dangerous" dogs into becoming friendlier. There is a process to euthanizing a dog; first a complaint has to be made, by someone directly related to the incident with a dog, after that the judge decides of the fate of the dog. If the dog is found to be dangerous but manageable then the judge will order the owner to take the necessary precautions with the dog to make sure that an incident never occurs again. However if the judge finds the dog to be dangerous and to be a possible future threat then the judge can order that the dog be killed or removed from the city. Also if the owner does not comply with the orders of the judge then he is subject to a fine or jail time. This process seems to be a fair one, expect for the part that dogs might be killed and that this does not prevent those incidents in the first place. On the other side we have people that agree that we should never put down a dog because of its breed or because of an incident since we are the ones influencing them to
1

John Morabito, planner, East Fishkill, N.Y.

Amadou Dioffo 105892395

become dangerous in the first place. I agree with this side because no dog is bred dangerous, only us humans make them become dangerous and aggressive by training them that way, I even find that in many cases some of the smaller dogs are the most dangerous and aggressive ones. A dog once bit me, and it wasnt even a pit-bull or a Rottweiler or any of the common dangerous dogs, it was a small dog, I believe it was a Maltese Bichon. So it really is not fair at all that some dogs are being discriminated the way they are just because of physical appearances. "I am sorry to hear about the knee-jerk ordinance passed by Denver. The violence inflicted by mistreated animals, and by animals that have been trained to fight or attack other animals or humans, is the responsibility of the owner(s) of the animal. They say that guns don't kill people; people kill people. We don't destroy guns and claim that we're curbing violence, Said Dean Whitehead, from Los Angeles. He is right, this debate is very similar to the debate of guns, however guns are still legal to possess while some dogs are not. When looking at the laws and process when dealing with a dangerous dog they seem to work to a certain extent but like any other situation we have people who will follow the rules and people who will break them. I think the hardest part is to get the owners to actually follow the law's guidelines. In this case if the rules are broken it could result in dogs being put down. I don't think these laws really work because they're not strict enough. For example the owner would get in less trouble than his dog if there were an accident whereas the dog is probably only doing what the owner trained it to do. While reading the different opinions of people about the euthanizing of dogs, someone who agreed that the laws were not really fair said this: "In Germany, animals are a part of

Amadou Dioffo 105892395

the German Constitution and have the same rights as humans. Denver's law against pit bulls and any animal that resembles a pit bull is barbaric! To judge whether a particular dog is bad simply by its appearance is an insult to all Americans' intelligence!2 I agree with this statement, whether a dog is dangerous or not is determined solely on how that dog was raised and what that dog was taught. A dog cannot grow up and suddenly decide to try to eat people just because it is a pit-bull or Rottweiler etc., so the fact that a breed of dog can be banned is absolutely unfair to those dogs. Its like banning a specific race from entering a country, that would be racist wouldnt it? This is the same thing. Not to be hyperbolic, during World War II the Nazi Germany was killing people of other races for no other specific reason than their race. Now we have dogs dying just for being the breed that they are; I dont see any difference between those two situations. That is what makes dog euthanasia completely outrageous. Putting any dog down is wrong in my opinion, we humans are quick to blame a dog for any incident involving people and dogs but never try to put ourselves in the dogs position. We should find another way to deal with dogs involved in incidents instead of just putting them down or having them in a cage their entire life. There should be rehabilitation centers for dogs, centers that teach them not to be aggressive for no reason, and that trains them to listen to their owners. Owners with warnings about their "dangerous" dogs should be forced to pay to train their dogs. "Dangerous dogs" should always be given an opportunity to redeem themselves just like humans are. We are not giving dogs any chance by euthanizing them, and the only reason they are being euthanized is because they are dogs and not humans. I dont see the logic in
2

Dawn Dippell, Long Island

Amadou Dioffo 105892395

putting a dog down because it accidently injured someone when we have people that have actually taken the lives of other human beings and are only serving time in jail. Even euthanizing humans that have killed other humans is not legal in most of the world, so why should euthanizing dogs be allowed? I dont think that it should. Instead of putting dogs down, there are many things that can be done differently. Dogs too are somewhat humane because they still feel pain just like we do, they might have emotions because dog owners notice attachment from their dogs, and they are alive. Dogs are not that different than us in the spectra of live beings. That is why I don't think euthanizing dogs is fair. Most of the blame for dog related injuries should be on the dogs owner instead. When you acquire a dog, you are responsible for it and should put in the time and effort to train that dog so that accidents do not happen. If anyone can afford to buy and feed a dog then they should be able to afford to train it and take care of it, a well trained and well taken cared of dog will always behave accordingly.

Amadou Dioffo 105892395

Bibliography: 1. "Breed-Specific Dog Bans." American City & County 120.10 (2005): 10-12. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.

2. Nolan, Jenny. "Legalized Euthanasia in the Netherlands Raises Serious Ethical Concerns." The Ethics of Euthanasia. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.

3. Ortega-Pacheco, Antonio, and Matilde Jimnez-Coello. "Debate for and against euthanasia in the control of dog populations." Intech: Open Science, Open Minds. N.p., 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.

4. Randolph, Mary. "Dangerous Dog Laws.Nolo Law For All. N.p., Dec. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dogbook/chapter12.html>.

5. Randolph, Mary. Very Dog's Legal Guide: A Must-Have Book for Your Owner. 6th ed. Los Angeles: NOLO, 2007. 277-90. Print. 27 Nov. 2013.

Amadou Dioffo 105892395