 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
4PAWS UNIVERSITY POSITION STATEMENT
ON BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
|
SB 861 is legislation recently put forward by Jackie Speier in an effort to address the recent attacks by a number of Pit Bulls in the Bay Area, specifically the Nicholas Faibish situation. We do not disagree with Jackie Speier, or anyone else, that something needs to be done to prevent dog attacks and dog bites. We disagree, however, that allowing breed specific legislation premised on declaring an entire breed of dogs to be "potentially dangerous and vicious" will be an effective solution. |
Before you skip over this information thinking the legislation does not affect you because you do not have a Pit Bull...think again.
As it is currently drafted, the bill makes no mention of Pit Bulls. It can and likely will affect other breeds as well. The mostly likely immediate candidates are Rottweilers, German Shepherd Dogs, Doberman Pinschers, Akitas, Chow Chows and Great Danes. But there is no guarantee that it will be limited to those breeds. The truth there is no guarantee that breed specific regulation will be limited to the more "obvious" breeds can be found in the experience of Italy. Italy started down the breed specific legislation path and now has approximately 92 different breeds that are restricted. Some of the "dangerous" breeds included are Pit Bulls, Bull Mastiffs, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherd Dogs, Newfoundlands, Corgis and Border Collies. http://www.petplanet.co.uk/petplanet/domino/index.htm
Please contact your local assembly member(s) and urge them to vote no on SB 861. 4Paws University, Inc., authorizes the use of any pieces of this statement. However, verbatim copies of the entire statement will not be given proper consideration by your Assembly member
Current Law
Under current law, each locality in the State may adopt or enforce its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of the state regulations, including punishing violations as a misdemeanor or imposing a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. However, currently no locality can create such a program that is breed specific.
Amended SB 861
SB 861 proposes to "no longer prohibit local governments from adopting a program regulating dangerous and vicious dogs that is specific as to breed". It has been amended to limit such programs to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements. It would also require the localities that do implement such breed specific programs to provide quarterly statistical reports relating to dog bites to the State Veterinarian. Put another way, any locality can determine that any breed of dog is "potentially dangerous or vicious" and impose the mandatory spay and neuter programs and breeding requirements.
Unintended Consequences - Homeowner's/Renter's Insurance
Some insurance representatives have indicated that if a breed of dog is declared "potentially dangerous and vicious" in any locality in California, that breed will be excluded from homeowner's insurance or renter's insurance throughout California . So, if German Shepherd Dogs are declared "potentially dangerous and vicious" in Daly City, California, German Shepherd Dog owners in Sacramento, Redding, Los Angeles and everywhere else in California will not be able to maintain their homeowner's or renter's insurance. Depending on how the specific locality's regulations are drafted, this will most likely also include "mixes" of any breed declared potentially dangerous and vicious.
Speier believes that by separating the bills, she will avoid this unintended consequence which will likely causing thousands of dog owners to lose their homeowner's or renter's insurance. The bill as currently written does not avoid this consequence, as the only basis for instituting the mandatory spay and neuter programs and breeder regulations is the finding that a breed is potentially dangerous and vicious. The failure to make this finding by the locality would likely make the local regulation unenforceable as not being rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
Lack of Standards
The egregiousness of the situation is compounded by the fact that there are no standards at all in the bill by which the localities declaration that a breed is "potentially dangerous or vicious" can be reviewed or appealed. If one Boston Terrier bites off the fingertip of his owner will that be sufficient? If one Jack Russell Terrier bites a child in the face and leaves her requiring 57 stitches, will that be enough to declare the entire breed potentially dangerous and vicious? If a mixed breed Rhodesian Ridgeback/Sharpei/Labrador Retriever/Boxer attacks two dogs and bites three different people, including one bite which requires 52 stitches in a teenage girl's face, which breed will be declared potentially dangerous, or will they all be declared potentially dangerous based on that one dog?1 How many incidents will be enough to declare a dog potentially dangerous? Will it be the same number and type of incidents for each breed, or will certain breeds get a few free passes? Will the standards for declaring dangerousness be the same for Pit Bulls as it is for Labrador Retrievers? Will the declaration only be related to attacks and bites directed at humans or will fights between dogs also serve as the basis for such a declaration?
Another problem with the bill, is there are no standards by which one can establish that their dog is not of the breed declared to be dangerous. This is particularly problematic for those owners of mixed breed dogs, who will not be able to rely upon a breed standard to help establish what breed of dog they have. But, it is also a problem for owners of pure bred dogs that are frequently mistaken for other breeds. Will the owner of an unpapered but pure bred boxer who is frequently mistaken for a Pit Bull be subject to regulation? How will she establish to her homeowner's insurance company that she does not have a Pit Bull? Will the owner of a Belgian Malinois and a Belgian Tervuren be able to establish his dogs are not German Shepherd Dogs? Will the owner of a Greater Swiss Mountain Dog be able to establish that her dog is not a Rottweiler mix?
Fallacy of Dog Bite Statistics
It is also important to realize that one simply cannot use the existing statistical data in the manner it is being used. The primary sources generally sited to support the contention that Pit Bulls are fundamentally more prone to bite and attack are the statistics found in the CDC/AVMA report "Which Dogs Bite?" and another CDC report published in the JAVMA, Vol. 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998." However, the reports themselves specify that their statistical data is fundamentally flawed. The AVMA Task Force noted a similar difficult in their statistical data, " Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite ." (JAVMA, Vol. 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001, p. 1733, emphasis added.)
The AVMA Task Force went on to state, " Statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs cannot be responsibly used to document the 'dangerousness' of a particular breed, relative to other breeds, for several reasons . First, a dog's tendency to bite depends on at least 5 interacting factors: heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), and victim behavior. Second, there is no reliable way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed in the canine population at any given time (e.g., 10 attacks by Doberman Pinschers relative to a total population of 10 dogs implies a different risk than 10 attacks by Labrador Retrievers relative to a population of 1,000 dogs.) Third, statistics may be skewed, because often they do not consider multiple incidents caused by a single animal. Fourth, breed is often identified by individuals who are not familiar with breed characteristics and who commonly identify dogs of mixed ancestry as if they were purebreds. Fifth, the popularity of breeds changes over time, making comparison of breed-specific bite rates unreliable." (JAVMA, Vol. 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001, p. 1736, emphasis added.)
The September 2000 report similarly noted, "to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods [of data collection] may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. [B]ecause identification of a dog's breed may be subjective (even experts disagree on the breed of a particular dog), dog bite related fatalities may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. [I] is not clear how to count attacks by cross-bred dogs." (JAVMA, Vol. 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 838.)
This inherent problem with "dog bite statistics" further exacerbates the problem caused by the lack of standards in the current legislation.
Creation of a Breed Du Jour
As a long-term solution, breed specific legislation is simply ineffective. There is nothing which will stop those that want to create an aggressive dog from doing so with another breed of dog, not currently restricted. Stephen Zawistowski, senior vice president and science advisor for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in New York City and an animal behaviorist has said, "the difficulty with breed-specific legislation is that it doesn't address the root problem: dogs are bred and created by people. If you want to make Pit Bulls and Rottweilers illegal today, give somebody a couple of generations and they'll make German Shepherds into the dog of danger." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0617_040617_dogbans_2.html
The AVMA similarly reports, "Another concern is that a ban [or restrictions] on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the same qualities they sought in the original breed (eg, large size, aggression easily fostered ). Breed specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. " (JAVMA, Vol. 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 839, emphasis added.)
The truth of these concerns are pointed up when the history of Rottweilers, german shepherds and Pit Bulls are considered. There are as many stories of Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and German Shepherd Dogs engaging in acts of service for people as there are stories of those breeds being engaged in dog bite fatalities. Pit bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in particular have a long and continuing history of being assistance dogs, therapy dogs, police dogs, search and rescue dogs, customs dogs (sniffing out narcotics and other contraband)
Ineffectiveness of Breed Specific Regulation vs. Real Solutions
The experiences of locations that have enacted breed specific legislation demonstrate most poignantly it's ineffectiveness in addressing public safety concerns. Prince George 's County in Maryland has had breed specific legislation since 1997.2 A Vicious Animal Task Force was compiled including representatives from eight count government departments, members of the Maryland Dog Federation and the Prince George 's County Municipal Association. " Among the conclusions stated in the 300-page report were that the law is difficult and costly to enforce, and that it punishes many responsible dog owners while doing nothing to address the irresponsible ones." http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/taking_command/tcsept03.cfm Rodney Taylor, chief of the county's Animal Management Division. "The people who train these dogs to be vicious go underground," Taylor said. "It's the people who answer the door and you end up taking a good pet that hasn't done anything." Taylor said there are several problems associated with breed-specific prohibitions, mainly that the "dog of choice" has changed over the years. At one time, he said, the dog that was deemed dangerous was the Doberman pinscher, then it was the German shepherd, then the Rottweiler." (Prince George's Could Rescind Pit Bull Ban, Ovetta Wiggins Washington Post Staff Writer, 4/28/04, pg. B02.)
The Prince George's County is also informative in terms of real, effective solutions. The new bill comports with the recommendations of the AVMA and CDC, the Humane Society of the United States , the Association of Pet Dog Trainers and countless other animal professionals throughout the country. The new bill proposed in Prince George's County "includes another recommendation of the task force, that all potentially dangerous dogs, regardless of the breed, be registered with the county. "The task force found that we needed a broader and fairer approach to dealing with dangerous dogs," Hendershot [the bill's author] said. The bill defines a "potentially dangerous dog" as one that causes an injury to a person or domestic animal; provokes or chases a person or domestic animal in an aggressive manner; or is running at large and impounded by the county's Animal Management Division at least two times in a one-year span. If the bill is approved, the dogs would be required to have current vaccinations, be kept in an area where they won't escape, complete a behavior program and be implanted with a microchip containing owner identification information. If a dog did not exhibit the "potentially dangerous" behaviors for 36 months, it would be taken off the list." ( Prince George's Could Rescind Pit Bull Ban , Ovetta Wiggins Washington Post Staff Writer, 4/28/04, pg. B02.)
I do not have general objections to breeder regulations or to stronger spay and neuter programs. In fact, with appropriate exceptions I would probably support such legislation. The difficulty I have is with those requirements being imposed upon the basis of a declaration that a breed of dog is potentially dangerous and vicious. Frankly, any dog is potentially dangerous. Italy 's experience has certainly demonstrated that point forcefully. The declaration of one breed, or 92, as being dangerous and imposing restrictions and regulation on those breeds alone does nothing to address the issue of biting dogs, or dangerous or vicious dogs. The issue of biting and actual dangerous dogs is a serious one that is worthy of the legislature's time and consideration. The problem is that with this bill, the legislature will not have taken the time or given consideration to real and effective solutions to the problem.
Kelly M. Ryan,
CEO
4Paws University, Inc.
1 Each of these examples is taken from personal knowledge of various incidents which have occurred in the Sacramento area and were relayed to trainers at 4Paws University in the context of behavior modification programs.
2 The specific legislation was a breed ban.
 |
Regardless of whether or not you know and love the "Pit Bull" breed, this type of legislation concerns all California dog owners. We urge you to contact your state legislator. Sample Letters from understand-a-bull.com More Information on BSL |
Information about the "Pit Bull"
Update on SF Fatal Attack
Does Your Dog Bite? |
|
Education about targeted breeds, both pros and cons, is an important step in preventing tragedy. |
|
| |
|