Unnatural Selection

Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St.Paul) announced yesterday that he was going to introduce a bill next session banning 5 breeds of dogs - Akita, Pit Bulls, wolf hybrids, Rottweillers and Chow Chows. His "logic" behind this proposal is that these breeds are "known" to be aggressive and therefore need to be eliminated from society. A concerned dog owner (and proud "mama" of a well trained and well socialized pit bull) wrote to Rep. Lesch on the eve of his announcement.

"Dear Representative Lesch,
I understand you are planning to introduce a piece of legislation banning "exotic species of dogs" and will have a press conference on this subject tomorrow. I am writing to ask that you reconsider.
There are several problems with such legislation. Dogs all belong to the same species: Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of gray wolves. There is currently no reliable, accurate scientific way to prove a dog's breed. There have been many court decisions in several states which have found that laws which single out a specific breed of dog are unconstitutionally vague and deny dog owners their constitutional right to due process. The latest such decision was handed down in 2006 in Ohio (975-Ohio-2006). Denver, Colorado is currently being sued in federal court on this very issue.
Another problem with such legislation is that it singles out one or a few breeds of dogs, when over 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in fatal attacks on humans--and many more in severe attacks. The issue is not the breed, but the individual dog. Owners who make sure their dogs are confined to their own property, socialized and trained to be good canine citizens can be trusted with any type of dog.
Please consider my own situation before going forward with your plan to introduce this legislation. I am the mother of an autistic son who sometimes runs away. This is a problem for many parents of autistic children--such children are often skilled at leaving a house undetected, but they have no social skills and little concept of danger. We looked into a global positioning system to track my son should he leave our home, but found the ease with which such devices can be removed to be impractical. As a result, we are now training our adopted American Pit Bull Terrier as a tracking dog. Rudy is a very sociable little dog who loves people, and he is doing fabulously well in his training. He could be the key to my son's safety.
Because I have a disabled child, I am in touch with many people with disabilities who train and use service dogs. I know several people whose service dogs are "bully" breeds--which are often targeted by dangerous dog laws that are breed specific. These people rely on their dogs to detect seizures, guide them, pull wheelchairs, retrieve items and perform many other tasks which make their owners able to be independent. Their dogs are trained to the highest standards--would you wish to target these people with such a law?
Please reconsider introducing a law targeting one or more breeds of dogs. Instead, demand that owners keep their dogs confined, and train their dogs to behave in a calm, unintrusive manner around strangers. In doing so, you will serve the interests of all your constituents.
Sincerely,
K B"

First off - thanks to KB for permission to use her emails in this post. I'll get to Rep. Lesch's reply in a moment.

KB lays out a lot of important facts here. Breed specific bans ARE impracticable. Too many people don't know a pit bull from a pug (I had a pug at one time and someone actually INSISTED that he was a pit bull - despite my protestations to the contrary). Pit bulls are actually one of the most MIS-identified breeds in the country. However, the larger point (as addressed in the previously linked Dog Bite Law webpage) is that if "pit bulls" are banned all a determined owner needs to do is get a Presa Canario or another dog that can (if treated or trained poorly) be equally dangerous. Being pack animals, a dog's instinct is loyalty to and protection of it's pack and that is something that can never completely be bred out of a dog - no matter the size of the dog (more on this later).

One of the primary causes of dog bites, the one that Rep. Lesch conveniently leaves out of his bill is the human cause. A lot of people don't know how to react to strange dogs. Our border collie, who is bred to herd and protect her herd, is a quiet docile dog. However, many times I have had kids come up to her in such a manner that it could (if she were not well trained) spook her. They come running up to her (sign of aggression to a dog), they go to pet her on the head first (another sign of aggression to dogs), they squeel and make lots of high pitched kid noises (which activates the prey instinct) - basically they do everything wrong. However, because we have put her into situations where she is exposed to this kind of behavior (5 years of the Junior Logician training her with other kids) she knows that she is to sit there calmly regardless of what happens around her.

The other primary cause of dog bites in dogs is bad owners. These are the owners that don't bother to train or socialize their dogs. The two cases that has Rep. Lesch so concerned dealt with two dogs that were "known biters" meaning they had biten others before this. Why were the owners not made responsibile for the bites? Why weren't the owners required to restrain their dogs? Or keep them muzzled or take them to training? Why are the owners not being held responsible?

Aggression is also not the only reason why dogs bite. Timid or frightened dogs do too. If a dog is stressed - THEY BITE! If they are afraid - THEY BITE! It is a multi-purpose defense mechanism.

Which gets us to Rep. Lesch's reply...

"Dear Ms. B:
I had to figure that I'd hear from someone who contends that banning dangerous breeds which maul children is actually BAD for children. I am sure you have an individual pit bull which you have trained thorooughly (sic) not to attack helpless toddlers. Similarly, there are exotic species like tigers, bears, alligators and the like, many members of which have never killed a human - but that doesn't mean they're safe.
No one ever heard of a cocker spaniel killing a child on the street. If you made yours safe (so far) it doesn't mean the rest of them are. I have a duty to keep the children in Minnesota safe. I urge you to support our efforts.
John Lesch"

I will leave the dripping condescention aside for the moment and simply deal with the facts here. ANY breed of dog, no matter the size can potentially kill a child. A 4 pound Pomeranian mauled an infant to death in California - does that mean we should "ban" Pomeranians? I am certain that I am one of many who (as a child) was attacked by a cocker spaniel and I have also seen Labrador Retrievers - by far and away the most docile people friendly breed in the world - turned mean by the actions of humans.

But this is what gets to me...

"Under Lesch's proposed legislation, anyone owning one of the banned dogs would be subject to misdemeanor charges and face as long as 90 days in jail and a fine of as much as $1,000."

If Representative Lesch were really concerned about his "duty to keep the children of Minnesota safe" you would think that there would be more than just a $1000 fine and 90 day jail term. I mean aren't our children "worth" more than that? He would also not have so blithley dismissed KB's service dog comments. No, this bill is NOT about the children at all. It is simply another blatent power grab. Rep. Lesch obviously knows more about this than responsible dog owners and breeders do therefore he is going to dictate to us what we can and can not do. I'm sure then next thing he will ban (for the children of course) are small fuel effecient cars because they can kill kids too...if they are used incorrectly.

UPDATE: Chief (an Akita owner) has a few things to say about this proposal.