Dangerous Breeds or Dangerous Biases

Why Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) Misses the Real Target -- attend Shelton, CT, meeting on Oct. 1

Update: BSL in Shelton is no longer up for consideration. Thanks to all who extended themselves and attempted to mobilize so many people who were prepared to defend and protect Pit Bulls and other breeds in the State of Connecticut.

Update posted by Tammy Heeber, Best Friends Network Team Leader

By Tracey Laszloffy, Best Friends Network Volunteer

In response to the recent death of Brewster, a five-year-old Pug who was attacked in his driveway by two pit bulls, the Board of Alderman in Shelton, Connecticut will explore what steps the town can take to control ownership of dogs considered dangerous. This will occur during the next Pubic Health and Safety Committee meeting scheduled for October 1 at 7 p.m. in City Hall.

The pit bulls' owner, Hiriam Gonzalez, voluntarily signed the dogs over to the city. After being held in quarantine, the dogs will be euthanized. Gonzales was charged with two infractions for letting dogs roam.

When the Shelton Board of Alderman meet on October 1 they are expected to consider adopting Breed Specific Legislation which would ban or restrict particular dog breeds on the grounds they are deemed to be dangerous to humans and other animals. Such breeds typically include Rottweilers, American Staffordshire Bull Terriers ("Pit Bulls"), Chow Chows, German Shepherds, and Doberman Pinschers.

Proponents of BSL argue that certain breeds of dogs are genetically predisposed to higher levels of aggression and, therefore, it is in the public interest to limit or restrict these breeds. Opponents offer many arguments for why BSL, much like racial profiling, unfairly targets individuals based on group membership. They also refer to a growing body of statistical evidence that indicates aggression is not a characteristic of specific breeds and, therefore, that BSL does not render reductions in the rates of dog bites or attacks.

What the Evidence Says

A study conduced in 2006 by Dr. Scot E. Dowd, Ph.D. of the Matrix Canine Research Institute evaluated the temperaments of over 25,000 dogs of various breeds, including 1,136 dogs from the Pit Bull group and 469 American Pit Bull Terriers. The results of rigorous pass-fail temperament tests revealed that there is no statistically significant relationship between breed and temperament.

Studies conducted by numerous municipalities that have adopted BSL confirm that this tactic does not improve public safety, and to make matters worse, it is extremely expensive to implement and enforce.

For example, in 2003, the Vicious Animal Legislation Task Force was formed to study the effectiveness of the Prince George’s County, Maryland, pit bull ban. The Task Force estimated that the County spends more than a quarter-million dollars each year to enforce the ban and yet, according to a report to the County Council, public safety was not improved as a result of the ban. Moreover, of all of the transgressions that were committed by a dog or an owner, it was possible to address these using another, non-breed-specific portion of the Animal Control Code (e.g., vicious animal, nuisance animal, leash laws). Hence the Task Force recommended that the county repeal the ban.

Not only is it statistically untrue that certain breeds of dogs are more dangerous than others, even if it were true, efforts to restrict or ban certain breeds are impossibly difficult to enforce. Physical appearance with dogs, much like with humans, is a highly inaccurate method for determining genetic history. The only way to know for sure if a dog is of a certain breed is to test his or her DNA. It’s hard to imagine towns implementing DNA testing to assess which individual dogs pass the “safe gene test.” Moreover, what standard of “purity” should be applied? Would a dog whose genetic composition is 50% of a so-called “dangerous” breed be considered “safe” or “dangerous.” Questions such as these expose the absurdity of the logic underpinning BSL.

Addressing the Real Culprit

Of the many problems associated with BSL, perhaps one of the most serious is that it distracts from the real cause of the problem, which is not certain breeds of dog, but rather irresponsible human “owners.” Injuries inflicted by dogs on humans or other animals occur for a variety of reasons but in most cases such incidences can be traced back to human misconduct. Dogs who are abused and treated aggressively by humans, as well as those who have been encouraged to be aggressive, are more likely to attack a human or another animal, irrespective of breed. Humans who fail to properly monitor their dog’s mobility also contribute to the risk of aggressive incidents, irrespective of a dog’s breed. Failure to sterilize also increases the risk of aggression, irrespective of breed.

In other words, the issues that are associated with increased risk of aggression are largely tied to human actions (or inaction), once again, irrespective of breed. Prevention of incidents is best achieved by implementing licensing laws, leash laws, ordinances that outlaw organized dog fighting, and laws and ordinances that impose stiff fines and penalties upon humans who fail to appropriately manage their canine companions.

The death of Brewster is tragic, and it also was preventable, not through BSL, but through responsible human behavior. When the Board of Alderman meet this October 1 in Shelton, Connecticut they will consider steps they can take to reduce the probability of future tragedies like this. Hopefully, they will recognize that BSL is not the answer, and will instead consider implementation and enforcement of non-breed specific laws and ordinances that hold humans responsible for their canine companions.

What You Can Do

1. If you live in or near Shelton, Connecticut please write a letter to the Board of Alderman expressing your opposition to any BSL. Click here for City of Shelton contact information.

2. Attend the Public Safety Committee meeting on October 1 at 7:00pm at City Hall.

3. If you live in a town, city, or county that is considering BSL, please contact your local officials to express your opposition. An example of a letter you might use as a model is as follows:

Dear (insert name here):

To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforceable, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY i.e., city council, etc,) that would fail these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge.

A careful review of the statistical evidence demonstrates that there is no single breed of dog that is innately vicious and aggressive. Studies confirm time and again that aggression cannot be correlated with specific dog breeds. For example, a five-year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and pit bulls, concluded in part that, “Statistics did not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous. When legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is unenforceable, confusing, and costly, focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

In light of this and other studies, I urge you to take the following actions:

1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of responsible ownership.

2. Actively pursue legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.

I strongly ask you to please reject legislation that wrongly focuses on the problem and unfairly targets entire breeds, when he problem are individuals, humans in particular.

YOUR NAME

4. Educate yourself about alternaties to BSL

Posted by Tracey Laszloffy, Best Friends Network Volunteer
Photo coutesy of istockphotos/com

(1) Heise, L., Ellsberg, M. and Gottemoeller, M. Ending Violence Against Women. Population Reports, Series L, No. 11, December 1999 


(2) The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999.

(3) Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000).