Dog Bites & Breed Specific Legislation
In my prior posts, I discussed some of the triggers that can "cause" dogs to go bad. Now it is time to discuss solutions. Here are some FACTS for Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St Paul) on Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) from a lawyer.
"A study reported in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Ass’n (JAMVA) showed that over a 2-year period, 82% of all human dog bite-related fatalities, involved unrestrained dogs who were either on or off their owners’ property. Analyzing these statistics, it would be prudent to stay away from dogs that you are not familiar with if they are off a leash.
Despite concluding that Rottweiler and pit bull-type dogs accounted for a 67% of all dog bite-related fatalities between 1997 and 1998, the JAMVA study concluded that “Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive.” (emphasis mine)
My point exactly! The Fordham Law Review takes a reasoned look at BSL and quickly finds the shortcomings of BSL.
"Though all breeds of dog can and do inflict severe injury and death, extensive media coverage of serious pit bull attacks has resulted in public fear of these dogs in particular. [FN10] Despite the existence in the majority of the United States of dangerous-dog laws, which regulate ownership of dogs based on the animals' prior conduct, [FN11] legislators have proposed an additional quick-fix solution in response to public outcry and extensive media coverage of pit bull attacks. The solution is breed-specific legislation, a type of law that restricts or bans ownership of certain dog breeds, most commonly the pit bull terrier. [FN12] Unfortunately for Diane Whipple, however, legislation targeting ownership of pit bulls would not have protected her. She was killed by Presa Canarios, [FN13] a breed which does not fall within the common statutory definition of a pit bull terrier. [FN14]" (emphasis mine)
Best Friends Animal Society of Utah has a document that shows the REAL stats regarding these "dangerous breeds".
"Statistics are also flawed as to naming pit bulls as the instigators. It appears that in many cases in which pit-bull-type dogs are blamed for fatal attacks, the dogs were few of the recognized pit bull breeds. Glen Bui, vice president of the American Canine Foundation, using statistics on the American pit bull terrier from the AKC, A.D.B.A. and UKC and for the other breeds, AKC/UK statistics, found:
Numbers registered No. of Fatal Attacks Breed Percentage
240,000 12 Chow Chow .705%
800,000 67 German Shepherds .008375%
960,000 70 Rottweiler .00729%
128,000 18 Great Dane .01416 %
114,000 14 Doberman .012288%
72,000 10 St. Bernard .0139%
5,000,000 60 American Pit Bull .0012%" (emphasis again mine)
Now these are fatal attacks. What about attacks that do not result in a fatality.
"Americans are feeling the bite of a growing dog population. There are approximately sixty-eight million dogs kept as pets in the United States. [FN17] Every year, these dogs bite an estimated four to five million Americans, representing about two percent of the population, and that number is on the rise."
Hmmmm that is what...a whopping 7.35% of the dog population in the country??
"A study reported in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Ass’n (JAMVA) showed that over a 2-year period, 82% of all human dog bite-related fatalities, involved unrestrained dogs who were either on or off their owners’ property. Analyzing these statistics, it would be prudent to stay away from dogs that you are not familiar with if they are off a leash.
Despite concluding that Rottweiler and pit bull-type dogs accounted for a 67% of all dog bite-related fatalities between 1997 and 1998, the JAMVA study concluded that “Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive.” (emphasis mine)
My point exactly! The Fordham Law Review takes a reasoned look at BSL and quickly finds the shortcomings of BSL.
"Though all breeds of dog can and do inflict severe injury and death, extensive media coverage of serious pit bull attacks has resulted in public fear of these dogs in particular. [FN10] Despite the existence in the majority of the United States of dangerous-dog laws, which regulate ownership of dogs based on the animals' prior conduct, [FN11] legislators have proposed an additional quick-fix solution in response to public outcry and extensive media coverage of pit bull attacks. The solution is breed-specific legislation, a type of law that restricts or bans ownership of certain dog breeds, most commonly the pit bull terrier. [FN12] Unfortunately for Diane Whipple, however, legislation targeting ownership of pit bulls would not have protected her. She was killed by Presa Canarios, [FN13] a breed which does not fall within the common statutory definition of a pit bull terrier. [FN14]" (emphasis mine)
Best Friends Animal Society of Utah has a document that shows the REAL stats regarding these "dangerous breeds".
"Statistics are also flawed as to naming pit bulls as the instigators. It appears that in many cases in which pit-bull-type dogs are blamed for fatal attacks, the dogs were few of the recognized pit bull breeds. Glen Bui, vice president of the American Canine Foundation, using statistics on the American pit bull terrier from the AKC, A.D.B.A. and UKC and for the other breeds, AKC/UK statistics, found:
Numbers registered No. of Fatal Attacks Breed Percentage
240,000 12 Chow Chow .705%
800,000 67 German Shepherds .008375%
960,000 70 Rottweiler .00729%
128,000 18 Great Dane .01416 %
114,000 14 Doberman .012288%
72,000 10 St. Bernard .0139%
5,000,000 60 American Pit Bull .0012%" (emphasis again mine)
Now these are fatal attacks. What about attacks that do not result in a fatality.
"Americans are feeling the bite of a growing dog population. There are approximately sixty-eight million dogs kept as pets in the United States. [FN17] Every year, these dogs bite an estimated four to five million Americans, representing about two percent of the population, and that number is on the rise."
Hmmmm that is what...a whopping 7.35% of the dog population in the country??
The other thing that BSL proponents forget is that the folks that want a "tough" dog are going to ignore or otherwise work around these laws as they already do existing laws such as dangerous dog ordinances and leash laws.
"On the other hand, irresponsible owners and criminals could care less about BSL. They really don't care about the laws anyway. They already fail to license and vaccinate their dogs. They don't follow leash laws. Their dogs are unsocialized, untrained, and neglected. How can BSL change the way these owners act?"
BSL treats all owners the same, whether they are responsible law abiding owners or not. Rather than go after the responsible owners, I wish Rep. Lesch would do something to make it harder for the irresponsible owners. Most current dangerous dog ordinances don't have a punishment for violations of the ordinances other than a minimal fine and the loss of the dog. That hardly does anything to change the human behavior....change the human behavior - make it painful for the owners of dangerous dogs and you just might fix the problem.
Labels: Breed Specific Legislation, Dogs
posted by The Lady Logician at
7:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home