(Short) Research Proposal

1

Working with Sample Proposals

Sample A

Camilo Perez

Katie Pacheco

ENC 1102

03 April 2012

Finding a Better Solution to Pit Bull Bites in the US.

Since pit bull attacks began to be a problem to society, lawmakers have passed breed specific legislation (BSL) in certain cities around the US. The enforcement of BSL has been a polemical issue from the very beginning; some people a pro-BSL and a lot of people against it. BSL doesn’t respond to specific dog attacks, but rather covers an entire breed regardless of behavior, temperament, etc. of specific dogs. This method of tackling dog attacks is poor due to the inefficacy, high costs and almost impossible method of pit bull classification. You might think for a second that the only ones suffering the consequences of BSL are pit bull owners, who have to move from one place to another to avoid having their pet euthanized, or the dogs, which suffer the consequences directly, but society as a whole is being affected by such consequences, public safety is not improving, but only getting worse. Having had several pit bulls as part of my household throughout the years, and never having any incidents, makes me believe that BSL is not the solution to pit bull attacks. Of course, I do not base my believes only in personal anecdotes, there is extensive research to support my claim.

I believe that for change to happen we need to start somewhere and in my case it is by directing this project towards the right people with the power and willingness to stop BSL, and consider new ways of tackling this issue. When finally reaching my audience, I hope my message is obvious enough to be able to convince them and get them started to make changes in legislation. These people will have the power to stop BSL and enact dangerous-dog laws, which will tackle the issue more efficiently. I will be able to do this by highlighting the bad aspects of BSL towards pit bulls (there are barely any good ones) while making dangerous dog laws the better solution to the problem.

After analyzing the nature of BSL and how it is first proposed, I believe the people with the power to make a change are lawmakers and citizens from cities where BSL is enacted. I think the reason for choosing the citizens is very obvious; the purpose of BSL is to improve public safety, and the ones who should benefit from it are the citizens of such cities. If I reach out to these people and make them see that BSL is futile then there won’t be any incentive to enforce these laws, therefore lawmakers will have to look for other solution. On the other hand, lawmakers are the ones that hold the final decision. Once again, if I persuade these people and make them see why BSL is not fulfilling its purpose, then they might give it a second thought before enforcing BSL when it is proposed.

What I am going to be offering as a second option to this audience is dangerous-dog laws. Dangerous-dog laws are not breed specific, meaning that they do not ban an entire breed based on single attacks by one individual, instead they tackle the problem by analyzing dogs that have a record showing that the dog might be in fact dangerous, therefore actions will be taken against the dog and owner of such dog. This better method will not harm good owners and dogs that do not deserve to be discriminated; it will only be enforced on “dangerous dogs”. The research done so far explains why BSL is futile.

From the research done so far, I found out by reading an article by Carmen Battaglia, a judge and researcher for the American Kennel Club, that in most of the cases, BSL is proposed and enforced due to a single attack that was widely spread by the media. I also found out through a study carried out by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, a federal agency of the US, which allowed me to see statistical data and compare the number of pit bull-type dog bites to other breeds, that pit bulls bite just as much as any other dog, plus, there is a larger population of pit bulls. After further research I found a source that analyzes the classification method used to classify pit bulls which allowed me to see a code from the city of Denver that literarily reads that any dog that looks like a pit bull is a pit bull, and also found a checklist used in San Francisco by Animal Control Officers (ACOs) to determine whether a dog is a pit or not, which can be interpreted in many ways and could mislead the ACOs. Not only I found that these methods are ineffective, but also found a report of a Task Force from Prince George County, Maryland which helped me discover that the costs of enforcing BSL are in fact really high, and that it is not worth it. All this research supports my stance against BSL and shows why it is a total failure.

Of course, not all questions in mind were answered; I must do further research to find out why cities would go so far as to pay millions to enforce these laws, why not enact dangerous-dog laws, and what are the pros and cons of such laws. Also I would like to find out if any cities in or out of the States have enacted dangerous-dog laws, and how effective they have been.

I will use the research done so far, plus I will be covering the issues that are still unanswered and which were described above to show my audience that BSL is futile. I will research how effective dangerous-dog laws have been in those places where they have been enacted and how they can replace BSL, and act as a better measure to improve public safety.

Sample B

Lexy Parra

Professor Pacheco

ENC 1102

20 March 2011

Research Proposal for Stopping Marine Animal Captivation

Marine animals are often removed from their natural habitat without an environmental or health reason and placed to live in aquariums around the United States as a means to entertain the public. With isolated lifestyles where some are forced to perform, the animals are put under a tremendous amount of stress, which has caused many of them to become ill or even take their own lives. Consequently, animal suicide is a prominent issue among captivated animals, although very few people know about this phenomenon. Animal rights activist groups have accused many aquariums of animal abuse for these actions, and they have even taken them to court to stop the acts, but these animal rights activist groups have failed to offer a permanent solution to this problem. Consequently, animals are still unnecessarily being removed from their natural environments by aquariums; the New England Aquarium in Boston – one of the most popular aquariums in the U.S. – is one such aquarium guilty of these acts of animal cruelty.

My aim for this paper is to convince people that captivating marine animals is not only unethical and cruel, but also bad for business. I also want to convince someone in power to stop captivating marine animals within their own aquarium in order to begin this trend within aquariums. Lastly, I want to convince that person in power to establish an ethical code of ethics that all aquariums will have to abide by in order to avoid losing accreditation.

A very popular aquarium in the United States is the New England Aquarium in Boston, Massachusetts, which is why I have chosen to tackle them specifically, for they can act as a model for other aquariums. As the president and CEO of the aquarium, my paper will be addressed to Howard "Bud" Ris. I am targeting him in particular because his position as president and CEO of the aquarium gives him the power to do what it takes to end the captivation of marine animals unless they are being rescued from harm; additionally, his aquarium is one of the greatest in the nature. In order to show him why captivation causes animals harm, I will inform him on the research I have conducted and present them with all the startling facts I learned about how captivation affects the animals; this would appeal to his pathos by allowing him to see that this is a serious issue that affects the health of animals. Additionally, I will appeal to Ris’s logos by discussing how The New England Aquarium has been constantly harassed by Animal Rights Activists, and how I believe that if the aquarium made it known that they will no longer captivate marine animals without a specific medical or environmental reason, the Animal Rights Activists would stop attacking them in the media. I will suggest to him that the aquarium could benefit from strictly only rescuing animals instead of capturing them because in the eyes of their customers and Animal Rights Activists, they will seem more humane towards the marine animals, and that impression could possibly stop the harassment they constantly receive, and it could potentially increase their amount of customers/visitors. Hopefully, with that knowledge, I will be able to persuade them into believing that needless captivation is indeed animal cruelty – and bad for business.

Various websites and articles helped me see that needless animal captivation is not only animal cruelty, but also bad for business. PETA.org website showed me the marine animals’ less then ideal living conditions and the negative affects that captivation has on them. A vulture.com interview with Richard O'Barry showed that Cathy, the dolphin he trained for the show Flipper, committed suicide because of the depression she fell into from being in a small, isolated tank for so long. On the opposite side of the argument, on the Animal Rights Foundation of America website, I discovered that captivity negatively affects a marine animals life span and can cause them to die younger then they would in the wild. "Should Willy be Freed?" in Time Magazine, and "The Lonely Whale" in the website Maclean's, both argued the good side of captivation, such as the educational benefits and promoting conservation. A Los Angeles Times article titled "Connecticut Aquarium Earns Reputation for Whale, Dolphin Rehab” showed me how there are instances where the animal has to be rescued due to various reasons, such as malnutrition. All the research I accumulated showed me how captivation can negatively affect the marine animals and put them under a tremendous amount of stress, but there are instances where the animal will not be able to survive out in the wild. Aquariums could be their only chance of survival, and that is why I believe only rescuing those that are in danger should be acceptable.

In order to solve that problem, I propose that The New England Aquarium stop captivating marine animals unless they are in need of being rescued due to environmental disasters or illnesses. Instead, they will have a rescue problem with only animals that are in the process of being rehabilitated. I propose that this solution begin at 2012 and that it involve a code that the aquarium will need to obey and abide by in order to avoid losing their accreditation. This code should include the specific time periods that the aquarium has to help the marine animals that are in need of being rescued, with enough time to assess if they are fit enough to be released back into the wild or permanently settled into the aquarium.

There is still research that has to be done, and I hope to pursue other questions that I have in mind. For example, I want to discover how trainers go about training the marine animals for the performances they are forced to participate in. I feel like I will be able to show the animal cruelty in their methods due to what I have read in my previous sources. I have to find more answers to this question to ensure that it is possibly animal cruelty. The next step to my research plan is to find better ways for me to appeal to Howard "Bud" Ris's emotions, knowledge, and beliefs. Hopefully with that information, I will be able to reach out successfully to him and stop the captivation of marine animals that are not in need of being rescued.