GSPCA Article Seven “Divide and Conquer”



GSPCA Article Seven – Breed Specific Legislation

“Breed specific laws are not based on science. [Laws] banning breeds will not make you safer,

and the illusion that they will do so is dangerous to humans and unfair to dogs.”

Dr Karen Overall, MA, VMD, PhD, Dipl ACVB, CAAB

According to a recent American Kennel Club news article, “47% of local legislative issues deal with Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)”. AKC states in the article that, “Breed Specific Legislation continued to dominate all other local dog issues, accounting for more than one third of the local measures addressed by the AKC Government Relations Department. Local dog owners successfully opposed breed-specific measures in numerous communities and instead recommended the enactment of laws that hold all dog owners accountable for the actions of their dog, regardless of the breed or physical appearance of the dog.” (AKC, “Canine Legislation Year in Review,” 2011)

Breed Specific Legislation is serious business. It specifically “bans or restricts particular breeds or mixes. A dog of a banned breed can be confiscated by the authorities and killed. A dog of a restricted breed must be confined, muzzled, chained, or restricted in other ways and owners must provide proof of liability insurance that covers dog bites. In some jurisdictions, dogs of restricted breeds and mixes must be identified by microchip or tattoo and have mug shots on file with police.” (Ohio Valley Dog Owners, Inc.)

Considering AKC statistics, there is a reasonable chance that BSL could be proposed in your community. These proposed new laws often appear after a dog bite/attack related incident. While people might assume that these incidents are specifically related to pit bulls, according to a preliminary report released by the National Canine Research Council (NCRC) on the topic of Dog Bite-Related Fatalities in 2011, “There is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog.” Regardless of their findings, and the fact that NCRC has been a highly respected source on dog bite research for over twenty years, most people still believe that dog bite incidents are specifically caused by pit bulls.

Add the results of the NCRC study to data available on dogs that successfully pass our national Temperament Test (TT), and one could begin to get the idea that pit bulls are getting a bum rap. American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (ATTS) is a non-profit group who has administered the temperance test for all breeds since 1977. ATTS breed statistics (as of March 31, 2011) show that 86.4% of tested American Pit Bull Terriers and 89.7% of tested Staffordshire Bull Terriers have received a TT title, in comparison to the success rate of Golden Retrievers at 84.9%, Cocker Spaniels at 81.9%, Beagles at 80.6%, German Shorthaired Pointers at 76.4%, and Chihuahuas at 71.1%, to name a few. (Look up other breeds at )

Regardless of abundant scientific data proving otherwise, pit bulls still remain the number one breed of choice targeted by supporters of Breed Specific Legislation. This focus is often based on nothing more than incorrect myths about the breed. One of the more popular myths regarding pit bulls is that they have exceptional biting power registering thousands of pounds of bite pressure per square inch. Yet, when Brady Barr measured the bite force of various animals for a National Geographic program, ”a hyena was measured at 1,000 psi pounds of force, a lion’s bite force measured 691, a shark 669, and a Rottweiler 328 psi pounds of force. A German Shepherd came in at 238, and a pit bull’s bite was measured at 235 psi pounds of force.”

There are many reputable organizations who also agree that there is no scientific merit in the banning of specific breeds of dogs, including “the American Medical Veterinary Association, American Dog Owners Association, American Kennel Club, [United Kennel Club], Westminster Kennel Club, and National Centers for Disease Control, citing that dog owners bear the burden for properly training and socializing all dog breeds and properly confining and leashing dogs. They argue that the breed itself is not the problem…” (Linda Weiss, “Breed Specific Legislation in the United States,” Michigan State University College of Law)

Although the idea of BSL isn’t new, the focus of banned breeds seems to change with time. The German Shepherd was the target of BSL in the 1970’s, in the 1980’s it was the Doberman, in the 1990’s it was the Rottweiler, and currently it is pit bulls. The most frightening thing about Breed Specific Legislation is it’s potential for unintended consequences. Once a particular breed of dog is legally banned, what will stop additional breeds from being added to the list? Will there come a time when other breeds are added to local breed bans or vicious dog “black lists” simply because of a single dog bite incident? Is such a thought even possible?

An interesting case in point would have to be Italy who passed BSL in 2003. Their Breed Specific Legislation certainly demonstrates the “unintended consequences” of poorly thought out legislation. Italy’s BSL law “was passed by emergency decree following several highly publicized dog attacks.... Eventually, a staggering 92 breeds of dogs were classified as threatening…but after April of 2009, the list has been repealed altogether.” Italian Health Under Secretary Francesca Martine stated that since BSL was introduced in 2003, there had been no decrease in the number of incidents of dogs attacking people. “The measure adopted in the previous laws had no scientific foundation. Dangerous breeds do not exist. With this law we have overcome the black list [of banned breeds], which was just a fig leaf (over the larger problem), and we have increased the level of guarantees for citizens.” ()

It has been proven, both nationally and internationally, that BSL doesn’t work. Spain passed their Dangerous Animal Act in 2000, placing restrictions on nine breeds of dogs and additional dogs “possessing characteristics of those breeds.” A scientific study during a five-year period before the ban and a five-year period after the ban found that there was no significant change in the number of dog bites in Spain. In June of 2008, the Dutch government announced a repeal of their fifteen yearlong ban on pit bulls due to its failure to ensure public safety. In place of BSL, they recommended better education for the public when interacting with dogs. The United Kingdom’s Dangerous Dog Act banned the American Pit Bull Terrier, and three other related breeds of dogs and their crossbreeds. The UK repealed their BSL in 2010, instead initiating a “Dog Control Act” that would make owners responsible for the actions of their dogs.

The list of failed Breed Specific Legislation in the U.S. is lengthy and well documented:

Denver, Colorado enacted their BSL in 1989. “Thousands of dogs have been seized and killed, some literally snatched from their owner’s arms. All of this government-sanctioned animal cruelty has produced no increase in public safety. In fact, Denver’s citizens have suffered a higher rate of hospitalization for dog-related injuries than neighboring breed-neutral Boulder which has half the population of Denver.” (National Canine Research Council, “World-wide Failure of Breed Specific Legislation)

Prince George’s County, Maryland instituted their pit bull ban in 1996. In 2003, a task force determined that public safety had not improved because of the ban. They also determined that animal control facilities/workers were over-whelmed with supposed “pit bull” complaints and cost related expenses, thus causing the county budget to add an additional yearly budget expenditure of $250,000 in order to enforce their pit bull ban. Not surprisingly, the final opinion of the task force was to urge the county to rescind their BSL.

In 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld a decision that pit bulls were no more dangerous than other breeds of dogs. (AKC, Issue Analysis: Why Breed Specific Legislation Doesn’t Work)

Cincinnati overturned its 13-year-ban on several terrier breeds and their mixes when the cost of enforcement skyrocketed…. nine years after [BSL] was put in place, [they found themselves] with dozens of dogs in custody and court cases to decide. (Ohio Valley Dog Owners, Inc.)

The list goes on and on, but local municipalities are not the only ones who have been asked to consider BSL. At the present time, Ohio is the only state in the U.S. to enact BSL at the state level. Their state law [955.11 (A) (4) (a) (iii)] includes “a breed commonly known as a pit bull dog” in their definition of “vicious dog.” but there is currently a bill in the Ohio House of Representatives (as of January 15, 2012) that would lift Ohio’s state mandated BSL by removing pit bulls from the definition of “vicious dog” criteria. Interestingly, while Ohio is the only state to enact BSL, there are presently twelve states that officially ban Breed Specific Legislation. Additionally, the state of Florida currently has a bill pending in their state legislature to prevent cities from enacting BSL.

There are other serious legal issues with Breed Specific Legislation. “BSL is a violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. The Department of Justice issued a ruling that the ADA trumps any state or local breed restrictions, and service dogs cannot be restricted. Per the Department of Justice: ‘State and local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that particular animal’s actual behavior or history - not fears of generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave.’” (UKC “Points against Breed Specific Legislation”)

Beyond the documented failure of BSL and its numerous litigation concerns, breed bans are also difficult and costly to enforce. Authorities often have the burden of proof when determining the breed of any dog accused of being in violation of BSL laws. Who will have the authority and knowledge to make breed-specific evaluations on “questionable” dogs? How will animal control and law enforcement personnel be trained to determine breed type based on nothing more than subjective visual observations? (Refer to for a demonstration on how difficult it is to visually determine if dogs are “pit bulls”) Who will pay for the killing of any dog that has the appearance of a pit bull? Who will maintain and dispose of the dogs in question? The questions and ramifications of BSL are endless.

Finally, it should be noted that BSL is harmful to both humans and animals, thus bringing nothing but grief to all concerned. BSL causes the deaths of thousands of innocent dogs simply because of their appearance while innocent people continue to be harmed or killed by non-targeted dogs. Sadly, the loving owners of pit bulls are either shunned by members of their community, or worse, they must give up their beloved dogs, all because of a law that judges one breed as a whole and not individually. “Like racial profiling, BSL punishes responsible dog owners without holding owners of truly dangerous dogs accountable.” (AKC, Issue Analysis: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Doesn’t Work)

If BSL comes to our communities, we must speak out. It is crucial to convince our elected officials that the best way to deal with dog bites/attacks is not through Breed Specific Legislation, but rather through laws that require all dog owners to be held accountable for the behavior of their dogs. The enactment of BSL is nothing more than a “knee-jerk” reaction to horrible events that require far more than a simple legislative band-aid. Most importantly, it is the deed that should be focused on, not the breed; and that can only be addressed through proper legislation that will emphasize and enforce responsible pet ownership for everyone.

“A dog is only as dangerous as its owner allows it to be.”

Diane Jessup, Founder LawDogUSA, Author, retired Animal Control Officer

Connie James, Legislation Chairman

German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America

March / April Issue, GSP Journal

This article is re-printed with permission of the Editor and the Author. The article originally appeared in the March / April 2012 issue of the Shorthair Journal and is re-printed in its entirety.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download