Please Take Time To Read Pit bulls and “pit bull type dogs” are often targeted by breed bans, although bite statistics often demonstrate that other breeds of dogs are responsible for more bites. For example, according to bite statistics gathered by the Franklin County (Ohio) Board of Health for the period of 1/1/2007 through 12/31/2008 (see Appendix A), “pit bull type” dogs were responsible for fewer bites than Labrador Retrievers (which inflicted the most bites) and “Mix” breed dogs, yet no officials in Franklin County have suggested that Labrador Retrievers be banned. Why Breed-Specific Legislation Does Not Work NOTE: Authored by Robin Rock -- Director, Measle’s Animal Haven Pit Bull Rescue Yes, were talking to YOU Reynoldsburg and Bexley (both Central Ohio cities where pit bulls are BANNED)!! Congratulations, your forefathers responded to the media hype and flawed stereotypes of pit bulls and they enacted a law that bans pit bulls within your city limits, regardless of the temperament or behavior of the individual dog. Have you figured out yet that your ban has done NOTHING to deter criminals and irresponsible owners who flout the ban?! Dogfighters and other bad guys dont care about your ban!! Breed-specific legislation is inherently ineffective because it attempts to regulate the wrong end of the leash, instead of focusing on enforcing laws already in place (e.g., leash laws) or penalizing criminal and irresponsible owners of all breeds of dogs. Bad things are still happening to pit bulls in Bexley (where pit bulls have been banned since 1991) and Reynoldsburg (banned since 1996). And your bans have caused the death of way too many innocent pit bulls!! Its time for Bexley and Reynoldsburg to catch up with the State of Ohio and enact laws to regulate dogs based on their behavior, not their breed!! When elected officials respond to media hype and flawed stereotypes of large-breed dogs such as the pit bull and enact breed-specific legislation or bans, they do nothing to deter criminals and irresponsible owners who conduct dog fights or deliberately breed to produce dogs that are potentially dangerous toward humans. These ordinances regulate or prohibit certain breeds regardless of the temperament or behavior of the individual animal. Breed bans and breed-specific legislation (BSL) are ineffective because they attempt to “regulate the wrong end of the leash.” Instead of focusing on enforcing laws already in place (such as leash laws) or penalizing criminal and irresponsible owners of all breeds of dogs, BSL and bans restrict or try to eradicate a targeted breed of dog. Law enforcement officials confirm that community laws are followed by upstanding law-abiding citizens, but they are not a deterrent to criminals. Breed bans affect responsible owners by causing their beloved family pets to be put to death, or causing the owners to move from the community or be criminalized because they refuse to give up the banned pets. Meanwhile, criminals in the community still own, breed, abuse, neglect, and fight “banned dogs” in the community. Many research studies have focused on which breed of dog is responsible for biting the most humans. Basic scientific principles mandate that to form a valid conclusion, many studies must be conducted independently and reach the same or similar conclusions. To be certain that a conclusion is not flawed, the research must not be geographically limited. Research studies on breed bans that have been legislated in the United States and other countries have made it clear that this legislation has resulted in the death of a lot of non-aggressive dogs who happen to conform to the appearance of the focused on breed(s); laws of this type have no hope of decreasing dog bites or protecting their constituency. In the United States each year, approximately one dog in five million (the breed varies among virtually all breeds) attacks a human fatally. Eliminating a breed of dog to prevent a bite is analogous to banning cars to eliminate the almost 43,000 fatal accidents that occur every year. Basic systems theory has proven that it is folly to change the system to eradicate the exception – and dog bites are the exception, not the norm. Pit bulls and “pit bull type dogs” are often targeted by breed bans, although bite statistics often demonstrate that other breeds of dogs are responsible for more bites. For example, according to bite statistics gathered by the Franklin County (Ohio) Board of Health for the period of 1/1/2007 through 12/31/2008 (see Appendix A), “pit bull type” dogs were responsible for fewer bites than Labrador Retrievers (which inflicted the most bites) and “Mix” breed dogs, yet no officials in Franklin County have suggested that Labrador Retrievers be banned. A problem inherent in any breed ban is the difficulty of identifying the breed of dog, as visual breed identification of a dog is inexact. Breed bans and other BSL do not punish owners who are irresponsible or criminals who use dogs for illegal purposes, but rather the legislation targets dogs for simply existing. It is equally important to note that breed bans deprive law-abiding citizens of their right to their own property (their dog) under the United States Constitution. The term pit bull or “pit bull type dog” does not refer to an actual breed, but is applied and misapplied to purebred and mixed breed dogs that are short-coated and medium-to-large size with a stocky muscular body and blocky head. The potential combination of breeds that may result in this appearance is staggering, and there is no scientific way to draw accurate conclusions on genetic predispositions or specific behaviors based on the appearance of a dog. Attempting to generalize about the behavior of dogs that could potentially be identified as pit bull type dogs based on only their appearance is like to trying to detect someone’s nationality based solely on their hair color. Most dog bites (regardless of breed) occur in the owner’s home, with the dog biting some member of the family after provocation; and therefore a breed ban will not prevent the vast majority of dog bites. Dog bite researcher Karen Delise has found that the factors contributing to canine aggression toward humans, regardless of breed, are the same factors that have consistently been found in dog attacks over the past century: Dogs obtained and maintained for negative functions, including dogs obtained for fighting, guarding, and protection, dogs used for intimidation, or as status symbols, and dogs being bred for financial gain. Failure of owners to humanely care for and control their dogs, including owners who “chain out” their dogs or allow the dogs to run loose, owners who fail to socialize, train, and supervise their dogs, owners who abuse or neglect their dogs, and owners who allow or encourage their dogs to behave aggressively (or who breed specifically for aggression). Unaltered (not spayed or neutered) dogs, including intact animals actively used for breeding, female dogs guarding puppies, pregnant dogs, and intact males in the vicinity of a female dog in heat. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, intact male dogs represent over 70 percent of the dogs (of all breeds) involved in bite incidents. Breed bans have been consistently proven to be ineffective and many jurisdictions have repealed breed bans after finding them ineffective at reducing attacks and dealing with problems related to aggressive dogs. Such bans are costly to the taxpayer, require a great deal of manpower, and are difficult (if not impossible) to enforce. For example, in Prince George’s County in Maryland, a task force concluded that the countys pit bull ban should be repealed because it had not produced positive results and was extremely costly. During the two-year period studied by the task force (2001-2002), Prince George’s County collected $35,061 in dog licensing fees but spent at least $559,570 to enforce the breed ban. Therefore, the county spent over half a million dollars enforcing their ban. Prince George’s County Animal Control reported that 720 of the 900 pit bulls euthanized were “nice, friendly pets.” In 2003, Prince George’s County authorized a task force to examine the results of a 1996 pit bull ban in the county. The task force findings estimated that the cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit bull was around $68,000. 96.4% of the dogs impounded were “maintained [at a cost of $18.00 per day per dog] and eventually euthanized at a substantial cost which is not offset by bond amounts collected” (source: Prince George’s County Government Office of Audits and Investigations Vicious Animal Task Force report of March 5, 2003). The task force found that there was no measurable benefit to public safety because dog bites had decreased among all breeds at about the same rate, regardless of the ban. Additionally, the task force expressed concern that the ban has a negative effect on public safety because animal control facilities and workers were overburdened because they were constantly responding to “pit bull complaints” and to house dogs alleged to be pit bulls, which hampered their ability to respond to other types of violations/complaints. The Prince George’s County task force findings are typical of findings in many other locations that enacted pit bull breed bans, such as the following: The U.K. Dangerous Dog Act, which includes a ban on certain breeds of dogs, is estimated to have cost well over $14 million to enforce between the years 1991 and 1996 (no more recent numbers have been published).Even small cities and communities can spend tens of thousands of dollars annually to uphold pit bull bans. Additionally, it is very expensive to house banned dogs when theyre evidence in a court case, and when the owner does not pay for it, the taxpayers do. The City of Cincinnati (OH), where a breed ban is still in effect, estimates that it costs $20.00 per day, per dog, to house dogs when the owner challenges whether the dog is a “pit bull.” Breed bans are also subject to legal challenges that are extremely costly for cities and counties. Lawsuits can cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and place a heavy burden on both the court system and animal control departments. The pit bull ban in Denver, CO has been in litigation constantly since it was passed in 1989, and another lawsuit challenging its constitutionality was filed this past year. These lawsuits are filed for reasons including: Owners of targeted breeds feel that breed bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and deprive them of the right to own property (the dog). Dog owners dispute the breed designation and are willing to pay an attorney to save their beloved family pets. Breed-specific legislation violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (if, for example, a pit bull is a service dog). In an economic study commissioned by the Utah-based Best Friends Animal Society, John Dunham and Associates researched breed-discriminatory legislation that targets pit bull-type dogs. This study concluded that breed-specific legislation (including breed bans) is an expensive waste of tax dollars. The study serves as core information for a new online Fiscal Impact Calculator, which was designed to be used by city, county, and other governmental entities, to allow anyone to estimate by state, county, or town the costs for implementing and enforcing a breed-specific law (guerrillaeconomics.biz/bestfriends/). There have been numerous studies conducted that conclude that community breed bans do not decrease the total number of bite incidents. One example is Aurora, CO, which banned pit bulls via a Restricted Breeds Ordinance in October of 2005. On January 16, 2008, the Aurora Animal Control Division released a report that documented the total number of bites in the City of Aurora over the previous five years that showed that after passing the ordinance, the number of bites in Aurora (which had been decreasing prior to the ban) increased in the years following the ban: 2003: 185 bites from all breeds of dogs 2004: 178 bites from all breeds of dogs 2005: 110 bites from all breeds of dogs (ordinance passed and published October 24, 2005) 2006: 129 bites from all breeds of dogs 2007: 157 bites from all breeds of dogs In recent years, many breed bans have been repealed after the number of dog bites did not decrease and there was no measurable improvement in public safety, including the following: The Netherlands repealed a long-standing ban on pit bulls after research proved there was no improvement in public safety, and no decrease in bite incidents. Middletown, Ohio (population 51,605) repealed their ban on pit bulls because it was prohibitively expensive to enforce and did not reduce bite incidents. It was noted that animal control/police resources are best spent dealing with the small minority of people who are irresponsible owners, rather than trying to enforce a breed ban. A new law in Italy just replaced that countrys long-standing ban on certain breeds of dogs, including pit bulls, with laws that target irresponsible owner behavior. Several years ago, Italy narrowed its breed-specific law from 92 banned breeds to 17. Beginning in April 2009, no breeds are banned in the country. Italian Health Undersecretary Francesca Martini stated, “This is a historic day because we have established for the first time the responsibility of the owner or person who is momentarily in charge of the animal. The measures adopted in the previous laws had no scientific foundation. Dangerous breeds do not exist. With this law we have overcome the black list, which was just a fig leaf over the larger problem.” On the other hand, pit bulls are banned in the United Kingdom (UK), but a research study in 2008 found that attacks by aggressive dogs were on the increase in that county, and the number of people hospitalized for dog attacks has increased by almost 50 percent in the past decade (most of these attacks have been by “legal” breeds of dogs). The UK ban on pit bulls has also increased their demand among the problem owners. While the point of the UK Dangerous Dogs Act (originally passed in 1991), was to eventually eliminate “dangerous” dogs from the island, it has not had that effect. By attempting to remove one breed from circulation, the people who want dogs for criminal purposes moved on to other breeds of dogs. Additionally, pit bulls are more alluring to criminals because criminals believe the “outlaw status” of the dog confers them with additional status because they own a banned dog. It is important to recognize that a dog’s socialization, reproductive status, and other environmental factors are a much greater influence on the negative behavior of a dog than its breed. Most, if not all, of the problems with dogs in our communities stem from problems related to human misconduct, negligence, and irresponsible dog ownership. Breed bans undermine responsible dog ownership by diverting attention from the real issue. Ultimately, the problem is not with the dogs – the problem is at the other end of the leash.
Posted on: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:14:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015