So. What is a dangerous dog? The common sense definition is a poorly trained animal inclined to bite humans, other dogs, or livestock. Common sense does say that larger dogs are ‘more’ dangerous than small ones, given their bites are likelier to cause serious injury. However, statistics indicate that more people are bitten by small dogs, although those bites often go unreported.
According to proponents of ‘Breed Specific Legislation’ however, a dangerous dog is one that might, somewhere, have an ancestor used in dog fighting. The breed most commonly targeted is the American Pit Bull Terrier. This breed is banned in many countries throughout the world or, if allowed, placed under restrictions that include mandatory spay and neuter, muzzling and, in some cases, twelve inch leashes. A quick search of the internet will see a picture of the Pit Bull next to ‘number one most dangerous dog breed’…generally a chained, slavering animal that looks like it’s about to maul somebody any moment.
Statistically, they might have a case. Almost three quarters of dog bite related fatalities involve either ‘Pit Bulls’ or Rottweilers. However, let’s look at this a little more. First of all, there is the fact that many people can’t identify a specific dog breed. In fact, Pit Bulls have such a reputation for aggression that an aggressive dog tends to be seen as a Pit Bull by the very fact of being aggressive. Staffordshire Bull Terriers, a similar breed, are often confused with American Pit Bull Terrier and a lot of breed specific legislation attacks both.
However, all kinds of other mistakes are made…Bull Mastiffs and even Chows have mysteriously morphed into ‘Pit Bulls’ after attacking humans or livestock. And, of course, a lot of so-called ‘Pit Bulls’ are mutts that might look vaguely like an APBT. Not only do most dog bite studies rely on visual identification, but so does the determination of whether an animal counts as a ‘Pit Bull’. Owners of dogs found innocent are often stung for significant costs. American Pit Bull Terriers actually pass the American Temperament Test Evaluation, one measure of a dog’s suitability as a pet, in a similar percentage to other popular breeds such as Golden Retrievers. The media is also to blame, with attacks by so-called Pit Bulls reported far more than those by other breeds of dog.
The other issue that affects the Pit Bull’s reputation is the fact that Pit Bulls and mixes are still used for dog fighting. Obviously, an animal that has been trained to attack and kill other dogs is going to be a dangerous animal. In many cases, dogs rescued from fighting rings cannot be rehabilitated and have to be euthanized. These are disproportionately Pit Bulls, but should not be compared to well-bred Pit Bulls from lines bred to be family pets. The overall result of BSL is much loved family pets being killed if they stray…even if they are not Pit Bulls or remotely connected to them. It also denies people the right to own certain breeds of dog.
Pit bulls that are well bred and properly socialized make good pets, good service dogs…and very bad guard dogs. Additionally, breed specific restrictions occur at other levels. For example, apartment complexes may ban the ownership of certain breeds. New York City also has a ban on Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Dobermans for residents of public housing. When introduced in 2009, it resulted in the mass dumping of large numbers of dogs (they also, at the same time, dropped the maximum weight for dogs from forty to twenty-five pounds, which also led to dogs ending up in shelters). As Pit Bulls are hard to place, Pit Bulls that end up in shelters are almost always euthanized.
So…how big is the Breed Specific Legislation problem? Most BSL covers Pit Bulls and similar types. However, many other breeds are included in one or more laws. Fairfield, Iowa, even bans all dogs over a hundred pounds…when was the last time you met or heard of a dangerous St. Bernard and male Labrador Retrievers can top this weight limit easily. Mastiffs and Bulldogs are also often targeted. In most cases, the grounds are even more tenuous than the statistics supporting the ‘danger’ of Pit Bulls. While eleven states actually have statues banning BSL, thirty-eight have some form of breed specific legislation at the state level. These laws cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payer money to enforce, and often prove hard to do so.
More and more, dog owners are using DNA testing as a defense, the expense of which would be considerable for jurisdictions. When governments have limited resources, it makes no sense to waste those resources enforcing these laws instead of targeting animal abuse and neglectful owners. There is no proof that breed specific legislation reduces dog bite incidents or makes anyone safer. All it does is make certain people feel safer…sadly, our society is very keen on ‘feeling’ safer these days.
Breed specific legislation needs to be repealed and the money spent on trying to enforce it spent on owner education, subsidized spay and neuter programs or simply saved for more important things than banning dogs because they look vaguely like they might be ‘Pit Bulls’.
No comments:
Post a Comment