The Truth about Breed Bans ©

Of a fiction which may be what your tomorrow will be made of

Welcome to our town!!! Young couples finally buying their first house, retirees with a lifetime of wandering the neighborhood streets, you will not be spared. Yours truly, your friendly animal control agent, will knock at your door, today or tomorrow, on the whim of your elected officials, and drag your faithful and loving companion to be put down without trial. You now live in a place where you pay your taxes but where your dog is not welcomed anymore. We don’t care if it has earned multiple titles, if it saved your life at some point, if it served the community as a search and rescue volunteer or, most importantly, if you consider it a member of your family. We leave you the trouble to explain to your kids why Buster must die.

But what was Buster crime to begin with? It was simply born the wrong breed, mostly one of the long and increasing lists of working dogs which have been stamped, mostly due to media frenzy, as dangerous. If you thought that only pit bulls were concerned, this is a list which should shatter your illusions: American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Neapolitan Mastiff, Spanish Mastiff, Dogue de Bordeaux, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Roman Fighting Dog, Chinese Fighting Dog, Bandog, Tosa Inu, Akbash, Briard, Beauceron, Bullmastiff, Doberman, Komondor, Kuvasz, Maremma, Great Pyrenees, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Tibetan Mastiff.

Sound far-fetched? That is already the fate of countless dog owners who had the choice of parting with their companion or witness it being killed. I confirmed that, indeed, you read the word killed, not destroyed, euthanized, put to sleep, but killed. Because, no tentative of objectification can alter the pain of those has to part with their dogs. Euphemisms serve only the when in need of a bleached conscience to do a dirty business. Breed ban is the living reality in many countries, countless communities and more to come if we, as dog owners, do not act as a cohesive unit against the senseless discrimination against certain breeds of dogs. You may adore rottweilers, and fear pit bull but as you will read further one, all breed bans are illogical, ineffective and downright unconstitutional. Would those of you who have done little or nothing to help in the fight against breed specific legislation finally speak up and be heard?

From individual tragedy to collective action

I have owned dogs for the past 20 or more years. Though I have owned many breeds, my heart forever belongs to the Rottweiler. Why the rottie? As they say in French about love: le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas (heart has a logic which logic cant understand). I lost both of my Rottweilers, Max and Dakota this February of 2002 to cancer. I thought this would be the end of their story. But the god of faithful and beloved dogs had in mind something more than urns containing their ashes for a legacy of our years together.

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there has never been a Rottweiler bite fatality. Yet in March of this year, breed ban almost became my worst nightmare when St. John’s Mayor, Andy Wells, stirred up public controversy by proposing his city a ban on many breeds, including, but not limited, to the Rottweiler. There was simply no reason other than political posturing in hopes to garner public support on Election Day.

The thought that I would never again share my home and love with such a magnificent friend, shook me out of my lethargy. As I gathered information, collected evidence, a picture clearly different from that presented by the media frenzy started to emerge. What disgusted me the most about all of this was the” facts” spouted on national radio and TV by Mayor Wells. Too numerous to mention here, but needless to say they were not supported by any serious research for the reality behind the killing monster myths.

Based on all the evidence presented to different governing bodies, we won in our fight with St.John’s, Mt. Moriah, Newfoundland as well as in three more townships in Canada by working together with local breed clubs and rescue organizations. We fought as a collective group of dog fanciers and made it very clear to politicians, that under no circumstance would we support a breed ban or breed specific legislation.

I dearly hope it doesn’t take such a devastating loss to move you into action, you, the reader. If all dog owners do not make a stand together against breed bans and breed specific legislation, it will simply be a matter of time before no dog will be spared. Right now, I share my home with an elderly 9 yr old notweiler, a yellow lab named Riley. His soft heart has helped a little to ease our pain. But I am looking forward for the tiny muddy paw prints of my soon to be black and tan puppy in the porch. And for this, I will continue to my very last breath and penny (whichever comes first) to defend not only my breed of preference but all breeds under threat of banning or restriction.

Surprise Mister Legislator!!!

Breed bans are not supported by any authoritative canine organization, they are not supported by accurate statistical analysis, and they are not supported by agencies created to protect society. Below I will discuss briefly the facts surrounding dog related injuries and deaths, and attempt to dispel the myths behind the breed ban.

So what exactly is a breed ban? A breed ban is a ban on the ownership of, purchasing of, importing/exporting breeding of a proscribed breed (the breed(s) legislated for banning).

Breed specific legislation can include many restrictions on the ownership of a proscribed breed. These measures may include such things as muzzles while in public places, short leashes (3m), fenced yards, extra insurance premiums (average of 2 million dollars liability) and kennel/breeding licensing.

Authoritative organizations such as the Canadian Kennel club (CKC), American Kennel Club (AKC), The Canadian Safety Council, American and Canadian Veterinarian Medical Associations, Center for Disease Control, have clearly stated in their conclusions to their bite studies, that breed bans simply do nothing to prevent dog bites or fatalities.

The reasons are obvious, breed specific legislation only bans a certain breed or breeds but they do not address the factors leading to bites/deaths, causes behind why dogs bite, and the irresponsible dog owner(s) that simply continue to disregard animal control by laws as they stand.

The most recent statistics by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, following a two- decade study 1979-1998 concluded that some 25 breeds were involved in canine related fatalities. Many of the breeds involved are not of those communities are considering a ban of ownership on. According to the American Veterinarian Medical Association:

“Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.

A study done in England and published in the International Journal of the Care of the Injured (1996) found that the banning and/or restriction of three breeds (APBT, Rottweilers, and Doberman) did not decrease the number of fatal attacks or the degree of severity of the bites reported. What occurred was relatively the same number of dog bites but the breeds responsible were not of the proscribed breeds. Invariably, the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mix breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Secondly, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed and existing licensing data is then incomplete.

Among the few serious data available figure those of 2002 Report of Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program. Mister nice guy himself, the Labrador, on the top of the list for bites and bite related injuries requiring hospitalization. It totally makes sense as Labrador figures as number one family dog. Now, if we look at dog bites in accordance to prevalence of occurrence: German Shepherd , Cocker Spaniel, Rottweiler and Golden Retriever. Again, popular family dog such as cocker spaniel and golden retriever makes the top five. What we must observe is that dog bites and fatalities is more a reflection of the breed popularity than its propensity to bite. According to another report published in 1989 in the Journal of American Medical Association, over 66% of all dog related deaths are attributed to more media friendly type dogs such as the Labrador and cocker spaniel, while the other 1/3 are the pit bull, pit bull mixes, rottweilers and Shepard, the group more commonly portrayed in the media as “dangerous dogs” and are most often the breeds that are banned.

In fact, as stated by the Center for Disease Control: “American and Canadian Veterinarian Medical Associations, Humane Societies all presently studying the problem of dog bites, acknowledges that no breed has a propensity to bite humans more so than others, that in almost all instances of bites, it is the owner at fault be it by neglect, purposeful training towards aggression, breeding to supply the demand for bigger macho dogs with attitudes by back yard breeders, inexperienced dog owners. “ At this point in time, there insufficient available statistics gathering, their interpretation is poor therefore easily misinterpreted. All the present data can be subjected to manipulation to support a desired point of view.

The fact is that no breed has been identified scientifically to be more predisposed to being dangerous than any other. According to Dr. Porter:”At this point in time, to the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific proof that any breed of dog is inherently more aggressive or vicious than any other breed. I believe that socialization and training are the most important factors in producing the final temperament of an individual dog” In fact, according to behavior testing performs by the American temperament testing association, the Rottweiler and the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier scored as high or higher than the dogs the public consider to be family oriented,” safe” dogs.

On August 30, 2002 the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a Trial Court decision that American Pit Bull Terriers are not vicious. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the Washington Animal Foundation’s petition to participate in the proceedings as Amicus Curiae because the Foundation is an expert on canine genetics. The Foundation provided expert testimony to prove that Pit Bulls and other breeds are not inherently genetically dangerous and must be trained to fight.

Evidence shows that the legislation of one breed eventually leads to other breeds banned simply because it will do little to lower dog related injuries.

The alternative to breed ban

First, it must be established exactly what constitutes a dangerous dog. The criteria should not be breed specific as this only discriminates against certain breeds, instead of evaluating individual dogs by their behavior.

The answer to dog aggressions are to be found in Dangerous Dog By Laws. These are non-breed specific and address the underlying cause of most dog-related deaths and injuries, which is the irresponsible dog owner. Many knowledgeable and authoritative organizations support non-breed specific legislations. Those address the facts that any dog can bite; any dog can be made aggressive and be trained to attack. (You are skeptic? There is at least one bite fatality attributed to a Yorkshire Terrier). They place the owner in the position of ensuring that their dog(s) comply with all municipal and provincial standards of care and safety. Fines for infractions can vary, but the leading principle is that dog ownership is more costly to the irresponsible individual.

Ideally, legislation should be based on what we have already learned about the factors leading up to and surrounding every incident of canine related injury is the answer. Most of them related to the owner, not the specific dog. In other words, stricter regulations on dog ownership, no matter what the breed. After all dog ownership should not be an inherent right; it should be carefully regulated and properly enforced. Recognized factors that increase risks of bites include: Unaltered dog or bitches, male dogs, unsocialized, negative early experiences, poor health, neglected, abused, more than one dog, lack of training, poor breeding, previous aggression, pregnant and/or lactating bitches. An example of regulations would be higher licensing cost for unaltered dog.

The National Companion Animal Coalition (NCAC) members consist of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association, the Pet Industry Advisory Council and us the Canadian Kennel Club. Each member of NCAC support the intent contained within those sample by-laws:

“Dangerous Dog By Laws are non-breed specific and address the underlying cause of most dog-related deaths and injuries, which is the irresponsible dog owner.”

Non-breed specific legislation is cost effective in comparison to the outright breed ban and is more readily accepted for the most part. More importantly, a well-thought non-breed specific legislation addresses the root cause of most if not all dog related injuries and deaths, which is the irresponsible canine owner.

Consequence and speculation on the impacts of breed ban

The Implementation and enforcement of breed bans is costly and difficult. In Cincinnati, Ohio, during a ten-year period, the police department spent over $160,000 per year trying to enforce their Pit Bull ban. Among the many seized dogs were Boxers and Golden Retrievers. Many Animal Control officials cannot accurately identify the 800+ dog breeds in the world, let alone the 157 breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club. There is no legally proven method of distinguishing a dog with recent wolf ancestry from another type of dog so how does a community ascertain one breed from another that is proscribed?

Banning a breed will include the mixes thereof, who is going to be able to determine what a particular mix dog has in its genetic makeup? In cases where there are disputes as to a mix dog parentage, expert testimony will be necessary. Courts place the burden of proving that a dog is of the proscribed breed on the enforcing agency. In the meantime, said dog will have to be housed, fed and treated in a humane manner for a period no less that it takes for the courts to process the challenge on the animal seized.

As it stands now animals is personal property, if a community wishes to destroy a person’s property the community has the legal obligation to prove without doubt that that property seized is correctly identified as illegal. Cincinnati. Family sues over wrongful euthanization of family dogs, reported to be in the 6 figures out of court settlement. Lucas County Ohio, Dog Warden; Tom Skeldon stated ”since breed specific legislation passed in Ohio in 1987, people are getting around the law by calling pit bulls by different names”.

The relatively small numbers of dogs to be removed from a community will have minimal to no affect on the number of bite incidences, since the breeds that are cited as to being more likely to bite will typically not be banned.

Banning also means that reporting is necessary, each and every community person will be legally responsible under the law to report if their neighbors house a banned breed, this makes law abiding citizens law breakers should they not wish to report infractions on the fellow citizens.

Bans do not stop the bad owners from taking any breed and make it aggressive. All dogs can and will bite, they all will protect their home and owners. Any dog can be taught to attack.

Policing breed bans and breed specific legislation is expensive even if enforced as proscribed. Office administration, court time; add costs to municipality’s budget .It will also place significant burden onto the already deluged judicial system.

Local shelters and rescues will be deluged with surrendered animals; the irresponsible owner will simply turn his animal loose for others to deal with. As a proof, there is only to look at the appalling number of pit bulls ending their life in shelters and pounds all over North America, despite the fact the American Temperament Testing Association established once and for all that the breed displays no more aggression toward humans than the golden retriever of the beagle.

Responsible dedicated dog owners and breeders of a proscribed will simply move when faced with restrictions that are unfair and irresponsible. For a community, this means that the very people one wishes to live within their area will be gone. Those owners that participate in search and rescue, pet therapy programs, and are law-abiding citizens, the breeders who carefully and ethically breed for stable wonderful canines will leave when faced with losing their loved companions. . In Germany , where breed bans have been legislated in some regions, dogs have been allowed under a grandfather clause. The proscribed dogs have been the victims of beatings, stabbing and even death while helpless owners attempted to simply walk their friends in public according to the law. Is this where you want to live?

Breed bans may actually increase the number of dog related injuries and death.

By banning a breed, the available sound dogs used for breeding by responsible ethical breeders will be severely limited

The irresponsible dog owner will likely let their dogs lose rather than pay to have them placed under special licenses or make modifications to their properties to comply with new regulations as with breed specific legislation i.e. higher fences, increased insurance coverage.

What may remain is any one’s guess, but more than likely it will be the very same people who have contributed to the increasing numbers of dog bites and deaths in the first place. They will simply keep the proscribed breed out of sight so that the dog will not be able to receive proper care or humane treatment. The back yard owner will still produce the puppies, but there will be an increase in the number of un-socialized unhealthy and potentially more aggressive animals to feed the demand for big tough dogs.

As all the above mentioned authoritative organizations that have studied the data available on dog related injuries state in their conclusions, through education of the public as to dog safety and responsible ownership the rates of injuries will decrease .Non breed specific legislation utilizing the term. “Dangerous dog” should be non-breed specific and be based on accurate information as to a particular dogs behavior and not its breed alone. Harsher penalties, stiffer fines and mandatory special licenses for certain breeds is acceptable by many owners. The American Kennel Club as well as The Canadian Kennel Club have excellent examples of this type of legislation and are more than ready to assist any township requesting assistance with animal control issues.

Conclusions

Breed specific legislations are based on faulty statistics, media hysteria and politicians looking for a quick answer to the increasing number of people being injured or killed by dogs in North America and abroad. It is often stated that deaths from dog bites are about one per 10 million of the population. Any death is not acceptable but let us be practical, reaching zero risk is not only improbable, it is simply impossible. All human activities entailed a level of risk, from eating chicken to crossing a street. More of our children die from accidents in the playground, skate boards and bicycle riding each and every year. Have you heard of banning either activity? Of course not, but sensible regulations and parents whom teach their children responsible behaviors and provide them guidelines as to their use hopefully will lower the numbers each year. Breed ban are an illogical answer which may makes certain individual safer, but will not do a thing to reduce bite accidents.

It is the same approach we, as concerned and responsible dog owners, ask that the public accept and that government officials implement through legislation. This is what we mean by the slogan Punish the deed, not the breed. When it comes to dog, responsible ownership foster the same results, a considerable increase of the public safety, regardless of the breed.