The heated debate over Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) carries a lot of emotion for many people. Some are those who have suffered the terrifying experience of a dog attack while others are dealing with the hurtful discrimination of their loving furry family members. Pit bulls who are service dogs for the disabled, therapy dogs, and loving family dogs that have never harmed anyone are being seized from homes and killed just because of legislation that targets genetics, not behavior.[i] The objective of BSL is to lower the number of dog bites and fatalities by creating additional regulations or by banning breeds believed to be the cause. Primarily, BSL targets American Staffordshire Terriers and pit-type dogs but it can also expand to include Dobermans, Rottweilers, and other breeds thought to be inherently dangerous. However, BSL is emotional legislation that is ineffective at lowering bite statistics and blames dogs for their owner’s irresponsibility.
On January 5th, 2011, James McWilliams published an article in the New York Times titled “Breeding Killers?” discussing the topic of BSL and breed bans. He attempts to describe the nature of pit bulls and uses his personal experience to qualify the argument that pit bulls are, “genetically hardwired to be anxious, aggressive and defensive.”[ii] Dr. Jim Ha, a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist and professor at the University of Washington, responds, “There is no scientific evidence for this. When people make statements like that, they need to back it up. There are a lot of un-sourced statements out there.” Like so many other journalists, instead of reading and citing studies that would present scientific evidence contrary to his personal opinion, McWilliams justifies his genetic pontificating with personal anecdotes. His evidence is that he owned a pit bull in which “no amount of training or socialization helped him in the least”. Needless to say, his experience with just one pit bull does not constitute a scientific study and from a research perspective, this is a sample size of one dog that he uses to characterize millions of dogs.
Thanks to perpetually poor journalism, the pit bull needs advocates with a voice of reason. Opinions have become so polarized that any dog even resembling a pit bull is often treated with fear, paranoia, and hate. Richard Major, a professional dog trainer and owner of Victory Dog Training in Seattle comments, “I see it all the time. Sissy and I will be walking down the sidewalk and people will awkwardly cross the street away from us. A person meeting her will immediately stop petting her if I mention the words ‘pit-mix’.” Attorney Kenneth Phillips, a legal expert who is known as the “Dog Bite King”, comments, “Usually about five pit bull owners a day seek me for legal help because people want to remove their dogs from their homes.” Denver’s pit bull ban has seized 5,286 pit bulls from homes and families and euthanized an estimated 3,497.[iii] When the ban was enacted, families were forced to either relinquish their dog within 30 days or to move out of Denver.
Dr. Ha points out, “every municipality has ‘dangerous dog legislation’ that defines what a dangerous dog is and what should happen to a dangerous dog, and that legislation is not being enforced”. If the energy that was spent trying to exterminate the pit bull were diverted to enforcing already written laws regarding all dogs, we would start to see the effects in bite statistics across the board. This has been proven in Calgary, Canada, where they cut the number of aggressive dog incidents in half by enforcing licensing laws, not BSL. Phillips creates a potent analogy: “BSL is like saying you don’t want kids to smoke tobacco, so you create an advertising campaign of ‘Don’t smoke Marlboros’. It misses the point.”
Poorly raised, socialized, and cared for dogs, no matter what breed they are (even the ever perfect Golden Retriever), will be prone to inappropriate aggression. Several scientific studies have conclusively shown this.
“It is beyond controversy that dangers, hazards, and annoyances can emanate from dogs, no matter which breed they belong to (Podberseck, 1997; Feddersen-Petersen and Ohl, 1995; Lockwood, 1995). This situation can only be counteracted by good upbringing and keeping of dogs. In contrast to regimenting them, more emphasis should be placed on educating dog owners about responsible dog ownership.” [iv]
“Comparing the results of golden retrievers and breeds affected by the [breed-specific] legislation, no significant difference was found. A scientific basis for breed-specific lists does not exist. Therefore, legislation in Lower Saxony was changed, and the breed lists were withdrawn.” [v]
People in favor of BSL spend a great amount of time trying to find and track bite numbers. The problem is that bite statistics misrepresent the truth because they don’t qualify the type of bite. The literature does not show whether a bite was from an aggressive assault or an accident and until they do, legislation that is defended by these statistics will be ineffective at addressing the issues. A bite by definition is any incident in which a dog’s tooth or nail breaks human skin, irrespective of intention or circumstance.[vi] Nips from puppies developing ABI (see article: Razor Fanged Puppies), scratches from a dog’s toe nail, and accidental scrapes from a dog’s tooth are just a couple examples of non-aggressive reactions that are still recorded as bites.
Most embarrassing is that bite statistics also include the number of bites from working K-9 dogs in the performance of police duties. Many of these working dogs are not only trained to be aggressive but they are also armed with an attack command. It is sad there is so much intolerance for pit bulls that society feels justified in exterminating an entire breed when they don’t even first characterize the nature of the statistics.
Dogsbite.org is a website devoted to promoting the concept that pit bulls are inherently evil. Colleen Lynn created the site after a dog that appeared to be a pit bull attacked her while she was jogging along 15th Ave South here in Seattle. I asked Dr. Ha how he responds to the statistics presented by dogsbite.org and his response was, “I don’t. It’s unsubstantiated information and rumor and you can’t prove any of the claims”.
Propaganda, as defined by The New Oxford American Dictionary, is “chiefly derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view”. Not only is Colleen Lynn and others like her disinformation spin artists, but their propaganda also lacks statistical relevance and is designed to generate fear. Her death toll numbers that experts like Dr. Ha have reviewed and determined “unsubstantiated” still broadcast asking visitors to donate money and take action. But even if you were to believe her very questionable statistics for dog bite fatalities, it is important to understand the big picture and not fall prey to the fear-mongering tactic of claiming certain breeds “pose substantial danger”.
A perspective on the relativity of dog bite fatalities
Total Deaths in 2007……………2,423,712
- Heart disease……………………....616,067 25.4%
- Cancer..……………………………..562,875 23.2%
- Stroke………………………………..135,952 5.6%
- Accidents (unintentional injuries)..123,706 5.1%
- Alzheimer’s disease………………..74,632 3.1%
- Diabetes……………………………...71,382 2.9%
- Influenza and Pneumonia………….52,717 2.2%
- Intentional self-harm (suicide)…….34,598 1.4%
- Parkinson’s disease………………...20,058 0.8%
- Assault (homicide)…………………..18,361 0.8%
- Dog bite fatalities from all breeds....35 0.00001%
Statistic 1-11: fatalities among some of the leading 15 causes of death in 2007. [vii]
Statistic 12: dog bite fatalities in 2007. [viii]
It’s a non-event. In 2002, over 420 children were killed as the direct result of physical abuse by a parent or guardian.[ix] Yet despite this, many politicians and lawyers attack and seek the destruction of the pit bull, a singular breed in a questionable death-toll statistic of 35 that encompasses all dog breeds. Kory Nelson, Assistant City Attorney of Denver, Colorado has declared, “… [pit bulls] should be terminated as simply being a time bomb waiting to go off.”[x]
It is difficult to explain to people that pit bulls are not bred to be killers as people like Colleen Lynn and Kory Nelson would have you believe. Dr. Ha, who works with many aggressive dogs with Companion Animal Solutions, explains:
“The vast majority of the offspring of pit bulls are not of fighting dogs. It takes several generations and the breeding has to be maintained. Plus, there is a huge difference between being bred to fight dogs and to be aggressive. Pit bulls are genetically hardwired to sleep all day. They show what we call ‘spurt behavior’. They have no stamina and they can’t exercise all day (unlike a herding dog), which is why a pit bull can make a wonderful apartment dog. It is not my experience with the dogs whatsoever that they are more likely to be aggressive than any other breed.”
Attorney Kenneth Phillips writes on his website:
“The debate about ‘dangerous dogs’ cannot progress without clarification of the meaning of ‘dangerous.’ A thing, activity, dog or person should be considered ‘dangerous’ if it or he presents an unacceptably high risk of serious injury, even before causing harm. This definition uses the word ‘risk.’ Cars, plastic bags, electrical cords and other mundane objects are considered dangerous to some degree because of their potential for harm, not their individual history of crashing, suffocating or electrocuting.” [xi]
While it’s absolutely correct to say that dogs have a potential risk to cause serious injury, scientific studies have shown us that neither dogs nor any particular breeds pose an “unacceptably high risk”. Cars, plastic bags and electrical cords are more dangerous then any single breed of dog, since empirically they kill more people. It would take almost 4,000 years for all breeds of dogs to kill as many people as those who die accidentally in just a single year. That’s almost a quarter of the entire estimated historical age of the domestic dog.[xii] The World Health Organization estimates that cars alone kill an estimated 1.2 million people every year[xiii], yet activists will label a breed attributed to fewer than 30 fatalities “dangerous” and “lethal weapons” and then toss teenagers the keys to the car.
While the term 'dangerous dog legislation' is controversial to many dog lovers, it is imperative to bypass our emotional reaction to the pairing of the words “dangerous” and “dog” and understand that this is not breed-specific and admits the fundamental truth: all dogs carry a potential risk. Every step towards breed-specific legislation and breed banning is two steps away from solving the true issue of owner responsibility. “I am completely and absolutely opposed to breed ban and breed-specific legislation,” states Dr. Ha.
The amount of energy spent on trying to exterminate breeds of dogs is not only entirely out of proportion to their actual risk, but also a poor appropriation of time and energy that could be spent on the issue of real concern: irresponsible owners. Phillips says, “my feeling is that if anyone is going to get angry about anything it should be the bad breeders and the bad owners. I had a case where pit bulls attacked an older lady, and in an open courtroom, he burst out, ‘Go ahead and take the dogs, I’ll just replace them!’ He didn’t care about the dogs, he just cared about the status of having that dog.” You don’t have to be an animal behaviorist to notice, as Phillips says, “Defective dog owners make defective dogs.”
“At perhaps no time in history has mankind been as ignorant of natural canine behavior as we are today. Perhaps at no time in history has mankind been more ignorant of the essence of the familiar bond between owner and dog—the bond which drives and directs most canine behavior. And perhaps at no time in history has man publicly forsaken or denied his command of the canine species.” – Karen Delise, Founder and Research Director of the National Canine Research Council [xiv]
The problem is with people. Without responsibility, education, and compassion, dogs from all breeds will continue to be treated inhumanely and euthanized for their owner’s sins. They are wonderful animals that need training and socialization (see article: Seattle dogs get a paw up in training). They are man’s best friend and they deserve our respect.
References
[i] Roverlution.org. (2010) Denver Wants Family Dogs Exhiled or Executed. Retrieved from http://www.roverlution.org/remember_denver.html
[ii] McWilliams, J. (2011) Breeding Killers?. New York Times, Retrieved from http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/breeding-killers/
[iii] It’s the Pits Rescue. (2010) Dead Dogs and Other Numbers from Denvers Pit Bull Ban. Retrieved from http://itsthepitsrescue.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/3497-dead-dogs-and-other-numbers-from-denvers-pit-bull-ban/
[iv] Schalke, E., Ott, S. A., Gaertner, A. M. von., & Hackbarth, H. (2008). Is breed-specific legislation justified? Study of the results of the temperament test of Lower Saxony, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3, 97-103.
[v] Ott, S., Schalke, E., Gaertner, A. M. von., & Hackbarth, H. (2008). Is there a difference? Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed-specific legislation regarding aggressive behavior, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3, 134-140.
[vi] National Canine Research Council. (2011) What is a Dog Bite. Retrieved from http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/
[vii] CDC. (2010) National Vital Statistics Report, 58, number 19. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf
[viii] Dogsbite.org, 2007 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities. Retrieved from http://www.dogsbite.org/bite-fatalities-2007.htm
[ix] Delise, K. (2007) The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression (pp. 124). Anubis Publishing.
[x] Delise, K. (2007) The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression (pp. 120). Anubis Publishing.
[xi] Phillips, K. The meaning of "dangerous" and "vicious", dogbitelaw.com. Retrieved from http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#meaning
[xii] Savolainen P., Zhang YP., Luo J., Lundeberg J., Leitner T.,2002. Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs, Science Vol. 298 no. 5598, pp. 1610-1613. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1073906
[xiii] WHO. (2004) World report on road traffic injury prevention. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/en/index.html
[xiv] Delise, K. (2007) The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression (pp. 105). Anubis Publishing.
Comments
Great article Prescott. Thanks so much for the time you put into your research and the great dissemination of the info that is out there for anyone that really wants the truth!
Thanks so much for writing this. The attack on pit bulls in this country is something that needs to be brought to light more often. These poor dogs get mistreated and abused only to end up losing their lives, and what happens to the owners? Michael Vick is still making millions playing football.
test
Andrea everyone refers to Vick,what about Mayor Hinklehooper of Denver he is responsible for the cold-blooded murder of around 5,500 family-pets and the Coloradan voter rewards him with the Governorship of Colorada.
Pretty Sick.
Thank you so much for this article. There are so many out there who don't understand how to interpret statistics and /or have no knowledge about canine behavior and how it is affected by ownership. Thankfully the information is slowly getting out to the general public and we're seeing the image of these dogs changing for the better.
Exactly how would a law requiring the spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs "exterminate" even a single responsibly owned pit bull?
Even assuming one doesn't understand that breeding for aggression in dogs makes for more aggressive dogs and demand "studies" to "prove" that, don't you guys care AT ALL about the literally thousands of pit bulls killed every week in shelters across this country because of irresponsible pit bull breeders?
And while the slideshow link to the left purports to document the "massacre" of pit bulls in Denver, Denver killed fewer than 100 pit bulls last year according to "It's the Pits" blog. Compare that number with the approximately 500 pit bulls killed in Camden, NJ, where no breed specific legislation is in place. Why are pit bull "advocates" seemingly not concerned at all about Camden, but are frothing at the mouth about Denver?
You can't determine the kill rate in each of these cities based on just the number of pit bulls killed. You need to know the total population of pit bulls in each area, which one would assume is much smaller in Denver because they have BSL. Further more, people are less likely to surrender their pit bulls to the shelters in Denver, knowing that it will be an absolute death sentence. It might be better to find out the total number of pits surrendered at the camden shelter in order to determine if they are killing at a higher rate.
And if you want to get into why animals in general are being killed in such high numbers in our country, take a look at the work of Nathan Winograd. The No Kill philosophy identifies a lack of community education and resources as a main concern and estimates that spay and neuter is not a major factor. More so is the public's reluctance to adopt from shelters, and partially, the shelter system's inability to provide more resources to those who are considering surrendering their animals.
And while pit bull fanatics (I think I will stop calling you guys pit bull "advocates" because the irony of calling you guys "advocates" when you guys are advocating for a system that kills thousands of pit bulls per week seems too subtle to you) ceaselessly demand "proof" of self-evident realities that EVERY dog person knows (i.e. that breed and breeding MATTER when it comes to canine dangerousness), they accept without question utterl ridiculous statments if they support their view.
My own favorite (of many candidates) in this article: "At perhaps no time in history has mankind been as ignorant of natural canine behavior as we are today."
Of course, Delise kind of has to say that because the numbers of people killed by dogs keeps creeping up every year, despite far more male dogs being neutered and much better enforcement of leash laws. Too bad Delise isn't being as honest as she was when she wrote (about intentional breeding for dangerousness being a contributing fact to dog dangerousness:
"One only has to examine at the Pit Bull situation in today's society to see an example of how this can and does occur with alarming frequency."
pibbles,
Of COURSE Denver kills fewer pit bulls than does Camden because there are fewer pit bulls in Denver than in Camden because of BSL in Denver. That is the point. Without BSL (and I advocate for breed specific mandatory spay/neuter, not a Denver-style breed ban) irresponsible pit bull breeding is out of control and pit bulls glut shelters and fill shelter freezers. Why were fewer than 100 pit bulls killed in Denver "massacred" whereas NOBODY in the pit bull community is talking that way about the 500 pit bulls killed in Camden? Why isn't anybody in the pit bull community pointing the finger at pit bull BREEDERS and demanding the laws that are necessary stop the "massacre" of pit bulls all across the country because of irresponsible pit bull breeders?
We are dogcentric. It just doesn't involve BSL type tactics that further vilify certain types of dogs and drain tax payer funding. It involves putting pressure on legislators to place more importance on animal welfare overall and specifically to enact stiffer penalties for dog fighting. How can we stop irresponsible breeders in areas where puppy mills aren't considered inhumane, chaining dogs is legal, or in states where animal cruelty is still a misdemeanor? It is all related to how society views animals and in many communities they don't have much value, with Pit Bulls being at the bottom. We are also working very hard to change the image of these dogs so that irresponsible breeders can't continue to make a living off of selling these dogs to people who want something other than a family pet.
pibbles,
Dog fighting is already a FELONY virtually everywhere. What "stiffer penalties" do you envision? The death penalty?
While only a minority (probably a tiny minority) of irresponsible pit bull breeders are actual dog fighters, there is no doubt that the current laws against dog fighting are extremely hard to enforce. This is because convictions require catching people in the act of dog fighting (or the rare case of a breeder stupid enough to admit to selling dogs for dog fighting--pit bull breeders tend to be stupid, but not quite THAT stupid). Since dog fighting is a felony, dog fighters are extremely secretive and it is hard for authorities to get information about fights. Which of the pit bull registries has put up the money to pay the costs of putting undercover moles in place for the literally years it takes to gain the trust of dog fighters in order to make busts? (Uh...none, right?). Remember, building a case against dog fighters not only takes a long time, it involves significant danger. These are dangerous felons with a propensity for violence.
And assuming law enforcement beats the odds and does catch a dog fighter in the act, what then? Prosecution involves seizing the dogs, right? So some tiny rural shelter with maybe a dozen runs suddenly has to deal with 40 or 50 pit bulls, all intent on trying to kill each other, for the months or years it takes to bring the case to trial. Plus they have to spend more of their tiny budget on round the clock heightened security to prevent dog fighters from stealing the dogs back., right?
And then when the case goes to trial, the prosecutor has to deal with the fact that at least half the jurors wonder why literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money was spent on a case that involved dogs. (Kind of the same argument that pit bull people are always making about how we should prosecute child abusers and rapists, not pit bull breeders, so it should be familiar to you).
No wonder dog fighting is rarely prosecuted and even more rarely prosecuted successfully.
Contrast the difficulty of prosecuting dog fighters under the current system with the way a law requiring the spay/neuter of all pit bulls except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs would work. If a known or suspected dog fighter comes to the attention of authorities, ALL they have to prove is that the intact dogs in his "yard" aren't registered as exceptions to the law. Dogs can be immediately seized and since the questions of fact are minimal, dog fighter knows he has little choice other than to sign them over.
Sure, penalties will be minimal, too (provided dog fighter signs the dogs over), but the dogs will be spayed/neutered and (if adoptable) placed months and months before they would have been under the current system. PLUS if you want to prosecute the guy under current dog fighting law, you still can. The only difference is that his dogs won't be going crazy in some shelter somewhere for years, and instead will have been placed in loving homes. (At a HUGE monetary savings to the taxpayers).
This makes it far MORE likely that dog fighters will be prosecuted, of course, because it removes thedisincentive to do so if prosecution involves longterm care of huge numbers of pit bulls, all at taxpayer expense.
And I love the way that pit bull fanatics always claim to be so worried about taxpayer dollars. Who do you think pays for the current system where THOUSANDS of pit bulls per week have to be caught, cared for and killed by authorities? Is that somehow free? And when a child is mauled by pit bulls, who pays the medical bills for numerous plastic surgeries and rehabilitation? (I'm pretty sure it isn't the American Dog Breeders Association--they just PROFIT off irresponsible pit bull breeding, they don't clean up the mess they make). And, of course, this doesn't even begin to cover the emotional costs of canine and human suffering caused by all this irresponsible pit bull breeding.
Note that at least one shelter in New York is currently offering a (breed specific of course) bounty of $250 to anybody who provides a home for a pit bull. (why no bounty for taking a lab? I thought that you guys were against having pit bulls "singled out."?) Uh...that would be $2000 of animal welfare money to pay for placing just one litter of 8 pit bull puppies. Meanwhile, the person who bred that litter can breed and sell another litter the next time his dog comes in season with absolutely no consequences, right? Pretty sweet for him, I'd say.
Ok. Better to spend millions of dollars to "enforce" BSL laws than ones that actually protect animals and the community. Most dog fighters aren't operating elaborate underground networks you know.
You keep referring to Denver and how they are killing less Pit Bulls than Pit friendly cities. Has the kill rate for dogs in general gone down in Denver too since the ban, or has it just decreased for Pit Bulls? We know that the number of dog bites hasn't decreased there, although the number of bites by Pit Bulls has. Is that really a success?
And the incentive program you are talking about in NY is giving money to rescues for pulling and placing a Pit Bull in an adoptive home. It isn't the shelter paying people to adopt them. This is a proactive approach to the problem of overcrowding in the shelters. Do we really need to explain the difference between this and BSL? Isn't the money better spent going back to these organizations to help save more animals than just used to hold and eventually kill one Pit Bull?
pibbles,
Huh? "millions of dollars?" Where do you get that? Why would it cost "millions of dollars" to enforce mandatory micrchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes and mandatory spay'/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs? Wouldn't MOST pit bull breeders obey the law simply because they aren't (and don't want to be) criminals? (If you want to argue that most pit bull breeders don't mind being criminals, that kind of speaks for itself...)
And the few that would ignore the law would have kind of a hard time selling puppies if they can't advertise and if every potential puppy buyer might rat them out to authorities, right? If YOU knew of an irresponsible pit bull breeder who you could stop simply by reporting him, wouldn't you do it?
Huh? If all the program in New York wanted to do was take a "proactive approach to shelter overcrowding," why not give $250 to ANY rescue who took ANY dog and placed it in a loving home. Why make the program BREED SPECIFIC and offer it only to pit bulls? And why don't people who claim to object to pit bulls being "singled out" not object to this blatantly BREED SPECIFIC program, or to any of the zillions of free spay/neuter programs offered to pit bulls (only) on a BREED SPECIFIC basis?
The reality is if a breed specific program (i.e. breed specific bonuses to rescues, breed specific free spay/neuter) offers a financial advantage to the pit bull community, they are ALL FOR IT. If a breed specific program actually asks them to do what every other responsible dog owner already does (microchip and spay/neuter dogs that shouldn't be bred), they whine about how pit bulls shouldn't be "singled out."
Yes, enforcing BSL costs millions of dollars.
•Prince George, MD—In the fiscal year 2001-2002, expenditures due to pit bull confiscations totaled $560,000. Income from pit bull registrations during that same period totaled only $35,000.
•A BSL Cost Calculator developed by Best Friends estimates that BSL in Indianapolis would cost the city over $1million per year to enforce.
•The U.K.’s Dangerous Dog Act is estimated to have cost well over $14 million to enforce between the years 1991 and 1996 (no more recent numbers are available).
•In 2001, a Baltimore, Maryland, auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.
•Citizens file lawsuits against municipalities with BSL, alleging unwarranted discrimination or breed misidentification.
Even just to enforce your type of legislation would be a huge drain on a community, taking away from funding needed for animal control and cruelty investigations. The cost alone for enforcement of the law in Miami-Dade county is $1,987,540.
And still the number of dog bites and attacks remain the same.
But again, you must know something that all of the experts don't...
Is $560,000 "millions" in your math? Of course that isn't the only bogus thing about the numbers you sling around.
One problem with all the numbers that the pit bull lobby throws out about the supposed "cost of BSL" is that nobody ever factors in the costs of doing nothing. Even assuming you don't care about the suffering of the pit bulls (and there really is no evidence that pit bull people do care about pit bull suffering--they immediately all become raving fiscal conservatives whenever anybody suggests doing anything meaningful to curb irresponsible pit bull breeding) , again, do you think that it is FREE to deal with the thousands and thousands of pit bulls who enter shelters every week?
And this doesn't count the quality of life costs, when elderly women are afraid to walk to the grocery store or young mothers are afraid to take their children to the park because of thugs with pit bulls on chains. Nor does it count the costs of rehabilitating children mauled by pit bulls.
And, once again, please describe how the law I propose (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes, mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs) would generate "millions" (or even significant) costs.
You establish a database at animal control and require pit bull owners to bring their dogs in for a one time registration. Charge each pit bull owner $10 to cover costs. They bring in the dog, proof of spay/neuter and you wave a microchip wand over them and record their microchip number and, if you really want to be obsessive, photograph the dog.
Responsible pit bull owners will comply with such a law, right? They will also get the benefits of knowing that this will make it far more likely that pit bulls will be microchip scanned if they end up in shelters (since a much higher proportion will be microchipped and this will give helters a really easy and much faster way to reunite responsibly owned pit bulls with their owners). It will also cut WAY down on pit bull thefts since criminals will know that all responsibly owned pit bulls are micorchipped and thus easily traceable to their original owners.
It shows that you have no understanding of how animal control or shelters work. What you are describing is basically how licensing laws work now, something that the majority of counties can't even enforce. In a lot of places, spay and neutering is already factored in and owners are charged less for a license when they show proof that their dog is altered and chipped. What is your plan for ensuring all owners comply? Enforcement(provided the county would put forth the effort) and then impounding dogs whose owners don't comply or pay an associated fine, costs money. It also costs money when you have owners who end up suing a shelter for situations like this.
http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/memphis-animal-shelter-dog-di...
Where do you want this money to come from, especially in counties where they dont even have an animal control office?
Maybe use the donations you receive through dogsbite.com.
As for pit bulls putting a strain on the shelter system, there are cities that have shown much more effective ways to increase the save rate of animals, without placing unrealistic restrictions that cost more money to tax payers. Take a look at places like Reno, that have gone no kill implementing changes such as free spay/neuter and focusing on education and supporting pet owners in their community who may otherwise have surrendered their pets. If you had an interest in actual animal welfare, you'd understand these things.
Pibbles,
Just as with every other law in the world, I don't have a plan "to ensure that all owners comply." As with every other law, I would assume that most pit bull owners will comply because it is the law, and they aren't criminals. Are you claiming that the majority of pit bull breeders ARE criminals, and will continue to breed pit bulls even if it is against the law to do so?
If so, things are worse in pit bull land than even I thought.
Re the sad story of Shocker, the pit bull who died in Memphis, that is a garden variety case of veterinary malpractice (assuming that the facts are as alleged by the writer, who obviously has history with the Memphis Animal shelter director, so I am not sure whether that is a good assumption or not.). It has nothing to do with the breed specific legislation in place in Memphis, except that if the owner of the dogs had chosen to comply with the law instead of letting his two intact male pit bulls get loose and get picked up by animal control, he could have had them neutered anywhere he wanted.
Pibbles,
Please answer this simple question:
Do you think that ALL pit bull breeders (except the very few who are responsible who are already only breeding health screened, AKC or UKC-PR registered show dogs and thus would be in compliance with the law I propose) are actual criminals, or that MOST are actual criminals or that SOME are actual criminals or that a FEW are actual criminals?
Assuming you agree wth me that probably the majority of people who are irresponsible pit bull breeders aren't actually CRIMINALS, then they aren't likely to risk criminal prosecution to keep breeding pit bulls, are they? Plus, pit bull people always claim that they devoutly wish there was a way to stop irresponsible pit bull breeding. The law I propose gives them the tool to report irresponsible breeders of pit bulls and put a stop to it.
Wouldn't YOU report an irresponsible (i.e. breeding unregistered pit bulls with no health screens) pit bull breeder if there was anything you could do about it?
Pibbles,
Google "North Star Pit bulls." This breeder of non-health screened pit bulls brags that "95%" of the dogs he breeds are "naturally" aggressive toward other animals and toward people, right? Wouldn't you like it if there was an easy way to put him out of the pit bull breeding business? Or is it okay with you that he keeps breeding the next generation of pit bulls who will make headlines for killing children?
By the way, one good enforcement mechanism for the law i propose would be to write it so that people who own pit bulls who are intact (in violation of the law) can maybe pay a small fine (could be waived if they can make a good argument that they were really clueless that the dog they owned was a pit bull) and go ahead and microchip and spay/neuter the dog. No harm, no foul.
But if the owner has actually BRED the dog, and particularly if s/he has advertised or sold the puppies as 'pit bulls," then s/he has to forfeit the dog as well as facing more serious fines/penalties. Note that the good thing about that is that it easily separates the people who just aren't taking care of business, from the intentional, irresponsible pit bull breeders. Plus, anybody who cares a whit about their pit bulls will comply with the law. The only dogs who will whelp litters under this law are people whose owners made a choice to put their dogs at risk.
Yes, we know that lots of such pit bull owners exist. But do we really want them BREEDING pit bulls?
Well, considering that animal control laws are generally ordinances, determined by local municipalities, I don't know if you could prosecute those who no not obey. You would need it to be part of a larger state or federal law that determines it to be a criminal offense. So, technically, I don't think we could call those who don't comply with your law a criminal. I believe they would be considered on the same level as those who don't license their dogs, vaccinate their pets for rabies, or who let their dog off leash in the park. And let's not forget about those who don't pick up after their dogs, which some may argue is more of a health hazzard than the breed of dog it came from.
As far as the number of breeders who are also criminals, I'm sorry but I don't know. I don't really spend my time seeking these people out or doing background checks on them.
If there were better laws regulating kennels and breeders, I would be in support of that. But as I mentioned before, there needs to be a shift in the importance of animal welfare overall for this to happen. And I know that I'm doing my part to try and make this happen. Maybe you could direct some of your energy that way too.
If the law isn't statewide, there can still be very signifcant penalties, including large fines and confiscation of the dogs for the intentional breeding of pit bulls that aren't properly registered as exempt show dogs. And, of course, the law COULD be statewide.
And OF COURSE you are in favor of "better laws regulating kennels and breeders," but you never tell us precisely what those laws would say. (Hint: You can't write a law that just says that everybody has to be responsible. You have to describe exactly what that means). Nor do you tell us why any taxpayer money should go to "better regulating kennels and breeders" of, say, toy poodles or portuguese water dogs when neither toy poodles nor portuguese water dogs are glutting shelters or killing children. It seems like Portugese water dog breeders are doing a fine job regulating themselves, doesn't it? So why should we "regulate" them?
Since pit bull breeders obviously can't regulate themselves, that is why we have to spend public money to do it.
Let me tell you about the pit bull i walked this past weekend at my local shelter; Intact male, basically black with a little white on his chest. Neither particularly attractive nor particularly cute. Probably about 11 months old. Incredibly strong. I have walked literally thousands of dogs in my life, and this dog was probably the single strongest dog i have ever tried to walk. (He was initially on a buckle collar, which didn't help). He literally pulled me off my feet and dragged me across the ground when he decided he wanted to go see another dog.
Somebody has put some energy into this dog (he is housebroken, and knows sit) but he would still be a MASSIVE training project for even an experienced dog trainer to even get him to the point where he can be safely walked. Walking him by the other runs, you could feel the leash tremble as he growled at the other dogs--I didn't give a chance to interact with any of them, but i am betting he will be overtly dog aggressive in a few weeks or months--if he lives that long.
So, who do you think is going to adopt this dog? Do you want him?
Lol, sounds like a lot of dogs that I walk at the shelter. And my two dogs sometimes, who can pull like crazy( one is a non-pit, I might add). Sure, I would take a dog like that AND I would be able to train him just fine to walk on a leash and not drag me towards other dogs, just like I trained my dogs and foster dogs. Plus, I 'll bet you anything that you are bigger than I am. Dog-reactive doesn't always mean dog-aggressive and you can't judge an animal's behavior while they are in a stressful shelter environment.
I'd like there to be licensing for breeding dogs and for all breeders to be inspected they way kennels are supposed to. The problem is though that most backyard breeders are under the rador, keeping dogs in basements or backyards. So how do we identify and target these people? I don't think we usually can, so our best bet is to educate the consumer. If the demand for these dogs goes down and more people see the importance of adoption, there will be less of an incentive for irresponsible breeding. And you really don't think a puppy mill over breeding poodles (which actually, I do see alot of at the shelter) and keeping the breeder dogs in horrible isn't a problem? I want my tax money going to humane laws for all animals, not bans.
I don't know what else to say other than I hope you see the big picture some day. I'll leave you with this link to a program that "get's it". http://www.petsmartcharities.org/grants/awarded/best-friends-pit-bull-gr...
Pibbles,
I am betting that the pit bull I described above is doomed. i can't imagine who will adopt him, and it is even less of a possibility that anyone will adopt him successfully. I personally am not 'lol' ing about that. It is extremely sad.
You say that you "would" take this dog. What does that mean? WILL you take this dog? If I can deliver him to you, are you going to take him? (It can be arranged).
I was loling because he doesn't sound any different from any other adolescent dog who is dumped with little training and needs more exercise and stimulation than he is getting in a kennel. At my local shelter the volunteers would work with him on training and exercise him to make him more adoptable. He would be marketed to adopters looking for an energetic dog or running partner. I am saying that he is not a lost cause and that I see a great many dogs like him come in to the shelter and get adopted. And I'm saying that I have taken dogs like him into foster care and have had them successfully placed into good homes. Unfortunately my inn is full right now.
You are in a position to help though. You must call yourself dogcentric for a reason. I could relay a bunch of organizations who would blast him out on their facebook pages to inccrease his chances. If you really want to help him I'd be more than happy to assist with the process.
Pibbles,
I got my 70 pound, year and a half year old labrador as a wild, untrained, intact male (his eartips were frostbitten from living outside) from our local shelter three months ago. The acting shelter director told me he couldn't get a leash on the dog without being bowled over and commented on my bravery (or stupidity) for taking him. Three months later, the dog is doing all the agility equipment off leash except the weave poles and would be a slamdunk to pass the CGC. On a good day, he might even get a leg on his CD. He did offleash stays at the mall this past weekend, while hundreds of shoppers walked by and stopped to pat him and didn't break his stay.
I have fostered and trained LOTS of big, strong dogs, including male dobermans, german shepherds, labradors, a golden, a collie and mixed breeds. So I know what it takes to get a rescue dog to focus and to make progress. i don't see anybody putting that kind of effort into this pit bull (and he would take WAY more work than even my labboy--focus does not seem to be his strong suit, although he is somewhat food motivated and was all too willing to play tug). But, hey, prove me wrong. Tell us that you will take this dog. He isn't, as I said, without virtues. If a seriously committed dog trainer wanted him and could put the enormous amount of effort that it would take to train him into it, maybe it could work out. I don't see that happening, though.
The rescue that I foster for pulls dogs from our local shelter. I don't even know what city this dog is in, but most shelters only release animals to rescues that are in the area and already approved. If you post a link to his petfinder bio I can get a better idea of what he is like and offer to help market him if your shelter isn't as experienced with that sort of thing. Pit Bulls are just about the easiest dogs to train in my experience. Especially when they are food motivated. I've found that clicker training and using "The Protocol for Relaxation" can do wonders with getting a dog to focus around distractions.
Pibbles,
If you don't want the black pit bull at our shelter, how about the tan and white one? . The shelter sign says 'dog aggressive, but fine with humans." He actually is a cute pit bull, but who, in their right mind, will CHOOSE a dog to adopt who is dog aggressive? I have walked him, too, and he is also strong although not nearly so strong as the black one. Temperamentwise, towards people, he isn't anything special. i am betting he will end up getting put down, too.
Nope. If you want either of these dogs, I will certainly do my best to make it happen, but I won't "blast them out" on Facebook. This is because I am pretty sure that anybody who is remotely interested in adopting a pit bull can find one within a few miles, and frankly, can probably find one that is less likely to become a danger (the first because of his EXTREME strength and potential for dangerousness at least to other dogs--the second because of his dog aggression) and to be successful than either of these dogs. I absolutely would NOT recommend to any of my friends that they adopt either of these dogs. I have a good record helping people pick dogs from shelters and i want to keep it that way.
I don't WANT to "market" either of these dogs. Again, if I wouldn't recommend to my friends that they adopt either of them (and I absolutely wouldn't), why would I "market" them to other people?
One HUGE problem that pit bulls have is the attitude that the pit bull community that they should CONVINCE people to take pit bulls through "marketing." The opposite is true. Responsible dog rescues and breeders try to convince people NOT to take the dogs (by being brutally honest, and even a bit too negative--"do you know that dalmatians shed? Did I mention that they also need huge amounts of exercise? And they shed. A lot.")
See, now I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you actually did care, but now I just have to call BS on your whole story. Including your dog training ability. If you actually do volunteer at a shelter and these dogs do exist then they made it through the behavior assessment and are considered adoptable, even if one doesn't like other dogs. Do I need to tell you about the two labs that I personally know who are also dog aggressive? Or the one I know that is so skittish of people he runs when his owner has guests over? But it doesn't matter because they have owner who understand them and realize that they are good bets regardless.
I would have marketed your fictious dog to "pit bull community" and just so you know the dogs that I adopt out only go to homes that show themselves to be knowledgable and capable of training. I don't try to convince people to adopt one because I don't have to. Most people are becoming progressive and smart enough to look past your outdated stereotype.
Sigh... so pathetic.
Pibbles,
Well, if you really have no problem finding experienced, committed homes for adult pit bulls, you should share your secrets with the rest of the pit bull community, because the estimate is that only one in 600 shelter pit bulls ever finds a permanent home, right? (Source: Missouri Pit Bull Rescue, and many other pit bull resources).
You can send all these supposed qualified adopters to the BARCs shelter in Baltimore where they have virtually nothing but pit bulls available for adoption, only put down pit bulls, and recently hired a person to concentrate only on getting pit bulls adopted (more "marketing" sigh) on a BREED SPECIFIC basis. Or start your own rescue with your waiting list of qualifed adopters and take the $250 per dog bounty offered by the long island shelter to any rescue that takes their unwanted pit bulls.
As to whether these two dogs have passed any sort of temperament assessment, they haven't. Our shelter is small and underfunded, and currently lacks even a full-time director. Nobody does anything meaningful in terms of assessing temperament. If a dog is overtly dangerous to people, he gets put down (probably) Short of that, he is considered adoptable.
And isn't this kind of the pit bull community's position as to what SHOULD happen? Sue Sternberg is vilified in the pit bull community for developing temperament tests that most pit bulls can't pass, right? What have I told you about either of these dogs would you think would make them fail the kind of temperament test you would support?
And, yeah, if one of my dogs became dog aggressive (the lab is an adolescent, for all I know, he still might), I'd deal with it. But what kind of adopter would CHOOSE to adopt a dog knowing it to have the serious temperament flaw of dog aggression? I know that the pit bull community loves to act like it is no big deal but it really makes owning a dog a whole lot less fun. With so many dogs who don't have that major temperament flaw, why would you choose one who does?
One of the things that happens in the pit bull community is that there are so many pit bulls out there dying for want of homes, shelters and rescuers (rightly) skim off the tiny percentage who are most adoptable to make it to the adoption floor. If only one in 600 pit bulls is going to find a home, (despite Pibble's claim to have a waiting list of competent, experienced, eage pit bull adopters) it makes sense to pick the one that is the most adoptable, because 599 others will be in the freezer.
Even if this estimate (and remember, it is the pit bull communities own estimate) is a gross, gross exaggeration and the numbers are a hundred times better for pit bulls, that still means that only one pit bull in six will emerge from the shelter alive. Not good odds.
Piblbles,
Here is my good idea: . Since you claim to have so many contacts in the "pit bull community," who are eager and qualified to adopt pit bullwhy not make Baltimore, Maryland (or any large urban area, you choose) your test case. Adopt them all. Make Baltimore a no-kill for pit bulls town. Again, Baltimore just hired a person specifically to get pit bulls adopted, so you wouldn't even be alone in your quest. I am sure that they will welcome all your many referrals.
When can we expect to hear the announcement that Baltimore is no longer putting down pit bulls?
By the way, I haven't yet responded to your suggestion that all breeders be "registered" and "inspected." You haven't said why, yet. In places (such as Baltimore, Maryland) where virtually no adoptable dogs or no adoptable dogs except pit bulls are put down, and when other dogs are not killing people disproportionately, why would anybody vote to spend taxpayer money to fund a huge bureaucracy to "inspect" breeders? The only people who are for this are pit bull people who don't have a solution to their own mess, but their feelings are hurt when they are "singled out."
Get over it.
And haven't you (the pit bull community, if not you personally) been trying for literally years to "educate" pit bull breeders not to want to breed dangerous dogs? Why hasn't it worked? The answer, of course, is that many in the bull market don't want a stable companion dog. They want a weapon or a dog fighting dog or a staus symbol. You can "educate" them all you want that they SHOULDN'T want these things, but they do.
To Dogcentric,
I see where you're going with your logic, but it is kinda flawed...a few posts back you asked who paid for the medical bill when a child gets mauled by a Pit Bull. My answer: The medical bill would get paid EXACTLY the same way if a child was mauled by a lab, or a Cocker Spaniel, or a.... Dog bites occur, kids being the major victim, and NEVER does the dog actually pay. Regardless of breed or mixes. Trust me. I know. I sport the scars from a lab, and a Shiba Inu...neither one paid my bills!! But is that worthy of a BSL against Shiba Inu's or Chocolate Labs? No.
My other issue with your argument is that you said again and again that you are for spaying or neutering Pits and pit mixes unless they are for AKC, WKC, etc. Well, I'm afraid to say, unless the dog has its actual papers FROM AKC, WKC, etc, one CAN NOT be 100% of what the breed or mixes the dog is. MANY MANY dogs are mistaken as pits or pit mixes and they are not. What about how much is too much of a mix, or how little of the "pit" mix is enough to warrant mandatory spaying and neutering? Where is that line drawn? When asked what my dog is, I sometimes say, West Coast Bull Frog Terrier. Guess what...people believe me!! Can I prove one way or another? No...nor can they. You (speaking generally) have NO proof that my dog is anything but who he is, therefore destroying him for something he MIGHT be is unjust.
Plus, didn't you know there are over 50 breeds of dogs that lump under “Pit Bull”. How can the line be drawn that ALL Pit Bulls are bad?
This issue is not monetary, but education. Adults need to teach their children how to act around dogs..any dog, adults need to show some restraint when it comes to caring for a dog..any dog, adults need to use..oh..what's that thing...you know..oh ya..COMMON SENSE when caring for a dog, adults need to be able to provide a good home for a dog PRIOR to actually owning a dog...and so on. We as humans always look for the easy way out..the finger to blame cause well, we simply can not be the wrong. But we are. Again and again and again. And yes, many adults need to prove they can have children first too, let alone owning a goldfish!!
Bottom line is, BSL is not the answer. Mandatory spaying/neutering also is not the answer. Regardless of the target breed. Its merely the easy way out.
Nightowl,
Pit bull people are always reporting how they have been bitten by labs. (Hint: If you own a pit bull, stay away from labs. They apparently will hate you for some reason).
And I am for mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls except AKC and UKC-PR (NOT WKC) registered show (or titled) dogs. If a person wants to qualify to be a pit bull breeder, get a lousy CD on the dog first. Is that too much to ask when pit bulls are glutting virtually every shelter?
And, yeah, for pit bulls to remain intact under the law I propose would require "actual papers" from AKC or UKC. Is it possible to fraudulently register dogs with either registry? Yes, but it isn't easy and you might get caught, and most pit bull breeders aren't going to bother.
Nightowl,
In the second paragraph of your first post, you start off (accurately) saying that I am for mandatory spay/neuter of almost all pit bulls and pit bull mixes. Then, in the last sentence, you say (inaccurately) that I am in favor of "destroying" your dog. Huh? \
Maybe you mean that, without his testicles, your dog would be "destroyed?" If so, get over it.
Nightowl,
Giving a long list of things people "need" to do (such as get educated and care about dogs) is lovely, but how is that going to be accomplished? Even if you could get mandatory animal education in classrooms (and I think that is a somewhat dubious proposition in classrooms where kids are barely being taught to read and write) , if the teacher tells a student that it is important to be kind to dogs and then he goes home and goes to the dogfights with his Uncle Eddie, who thinks that dogfighting is the ultimate macho entertainment, which message do you think he is going to internalize?
As to mandatory spay/neuter being "the easy way out," why, yes, it is. Thanks for noticing that.
Dogcentric....
First of all, my dog is neutered. He came from the pound and even if I did get him from an actual breeder, he'd still be neutered. I'm OK with animal control on that aspect, but you missed my point when I said "You" were out to destroy "my" dog via mandatory spaying and neutering.
As for the labs. Ok..explain this to me. If my dog is ON LEASH, on HIS property, a loose intact male lab comes and ambushes my guy its somewhat our fault as we didn't avoid that lab?! I don't think so. First of all, I went to the hospital from the bite that lab delivered on my hand, my pit went to the vet from the bites the lab delivered and the lab went to animal control. The lab did not have a scratch on him from my pit. You still think its our fault? You still think the pit is the bad guy here? The pit nearly lost his eye, had a through on through bite on his jowl, and his ear was torn. Really. If my dog is not safe on his own property, while under control of the leash and owner...how is it my guy's fault? Explain that to me. Shall I tell about the other 3x a lab has attacked my pit and my pit lost? How 'bout the charging dashound? Or the dominate Shiba Inu?? ALL in which my pit lost to. Every last single one. Yet "I" have the bad dog?!!
Parents should teach their kids control when it comes to how to treat animals. Not teachers! If "Uncle Eddie, who thinks that dogfighting is the ultimate macho entertainment..." then don't you think something should be done about Uncle Eddie?
One can train ANY dog to be a fighter and holy hell on 4 legs. ANY breed, ANY size. ALL canines are fully capable of biting a human and doing some serious damage. Big dog, little dog...a dog bite hurts and leaves scarring...mentally and physically.
Nightowl, don't even waste your time with this one. dogcentric is affiliated with dogsbite.com, an "organization" that is run by someone who, in my opinion(and I'm not alone!), has the same mental capacity as the people who started the West Baptist church. They don't believe any of the rational, scientifically proven information out there because it doesn't suit their agenda. If you look back at articles from years ago with anything to do with pit bulls, there is dogcentric spitting out nastiness and mistruths. Most sane and rational people would at least begin to rethink their position after years of having it disproved. Who in their right mind spends all day trolling pit bull articles on the internet, for years at that? If someone is this concerned about the safety of their community, you'd think they'd get off their ass and maybe start a dog safety program, or work with animal control to go after all the irresponsible breeders they've googled.
It's actually kind of sad. What a miserable life it must be to have all that hate inside. I admit, it is a little funny though to think about this person seething behind the computer everytime a positive piece about these dogs is posted. And there are a lot of them these days: )
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!