Proposal

Why BSL Is Ineffective and Needs to Go

Imagine, for a moment, the pain and heart-ache of having a beloved family dog forcibly removed from your home and placed in a shelter just because he looks like a certain breed  He hasn't done anything to hurt any member of the public, but because he looks a certain way he has been marked for death. Imagine, trying in vain for a year and a half to get the local government to release him from impound because he isn't want he looks like. He is a Labrador/Bulldog cross and you have the DNA evidence to prove it. Unfortunately, the council refuses to recognize your evidence, citing lack of "chain of custody". Your dog was unfortunate enough to be born looking like a pit bull and now the city council has marked him for death. Imagine, desperately reaching out to the world through the internet for six grueling months, to dog trainers and behaviorists like Victoria Stillwell and Ceasar Millan, to anybody who will listen, in an attempt to get a stay of execution from the city council, or even from the Queen after the council finally pronounces death upon your beloved pet after a year and a half of legal battle. Imagine the heartbreak you feel when that stay of execution never comes and after two long years of fighting to free your dog, he is put to sleep in the wee hours of the morning and your family was denied the chance to say "good-bye". This is what happened to a dog named Lennox in Belfast, Ireland on July 11, 2012, and every day more innocent dogs are put to sleep because they were born looking a certain way and their families are unfortunate enough to live in an area that has breed-specific legislation written into the local ordinances.

Lennox

Right now breed specific legislation (also known as breed discriminatory legislation or BSL/BDL) is currently in place in hundreds of cities across the U.S and around the world. Breed specific legislation goes on the assumption that dogs of a particular breed are more likely to bite and maim humans or other animals than any other, and as such should be considered "dangerous". BSL will place restrictions a particular breed, in an effort to keep the public safe. Restrictions can include mandatory sterilization (which means certain breeds are required to be spayed or neutered), muzzling when in public, stricter licensing, notification of transfer when the dog is given away, or in some cases cities will place an out-right ban on certain breeds. Proponents for BSL legislation will often cite the CDC's report on fatal dog attacks from 1979-1998 as evidence for why BSL should be put into place. What the report actually says, though, is this:

 "Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites" (CDC)

This report has been significantly damaging to the reputation of pit bull–type dogs and Rottweilers because it has been misrepresented as being for the introduction of BSL when what the CDC recommends is that BSL cannot be used as an effective solution to curbing dog bites in the community. The AVMA  (American Veterinary Medical Association) asserts in their own publication, titled, "A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention", that "singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens." They go on to say that any dog can bite if provoked and the more popular a breed is the more likely it is to be listed in bite reports because there are more individuals of that breed within the community.

Further complications result when a specific breed is banned. When a breed is banned it forces the families with that breed underground for fear of being caught and having their dog taken away and put to sleep. It also creates health-risks to the community as a whole as well as the dog because it deters owners "from seeking routine veterinary care, including having their dogs inoculated against rabies." (ASPCA) Owners fear that if they show up to a veterinary clinic with a banned breed they run the risk of being reported, possibly by the staff of the clinic or other patrons.

Normally, when a breed is banned, the families who own that breed either have to move out of the city or surrender their dog to be euthanized, often at the expense of the community as a whole. (Not to mention the fact that BSL is typically based on appearance rather than the dog's true disposition and so it wrongfully accuses animals of a certain breed as being aggressive and unpredictable [like Lennox] when the truth is that any dog can bite, no matter the breed) It puts more pressure on government-run animal shelters who have to house the dogs seized under BSL during lengthy court proceedings, where the animal shelters, and consequentially the tax-payers, are paying for the food and shelter for the dog. "Prince George County (Maryland's) pit bull ban [has] place[d] significant pressure on the county shelter, which has limited space and yet must hold pit bulls during the pendency of lengthy legal proceedings. As a result, the shelter has had to euthanize hundreds of otherwise adoptable dogs of many different breeds due to lack of space, and has suffered decreased adoption rates because there are so few dogs available"  (ASPCA) County shelters are typically paid for by taxpayer money rather than private donations so the majority of the cost to house and feed the dogs confiscated from their owners under a breed ban falls on taxpayers as a whole.

Then we have the issue of actually being able to accurately identify dogs of a specific breed. Pit Bulls on the Web has a very effective test to prove just how accurate it is to identify a dog on sight. That test can be found by clicking here.

A study done in 2009 by the Western University of Health Sciences in Pumona, CA, proved that identification by sight alone is only 25% accurate. In the study they took 20 dogs of unknown parentage from adoption agencies in the area and preformed DNA tests on them to find out what their specific breed make up was. Of those 20, only 4 were correctly identified by the adoption agencies as being of a specific breed. (Voith) There is currently a breed DNA test available for order over the internet through Mars Veterinary that has proven to be at least 90% accurate in correctly identifying the specific breeds in a dog of unknown parentage. Unfortunately, these commercial tests are not recognized as evidence in some courts because there is no "chain of custody" involved with the samples and there is no way to tell if the evidence was tampered with. If there is no way to identify dogs of a specific breed at the DNA level that courts will accept then another solution must be found.

I believe that the solution is for municipalities and local governments to adopt breed-neutral dangerous-dog ordinances. Many areas have had success in adopting these types of ordinances, even Salt Lake County. Of the most note, however, is Calgary, Alberta, Canada. "Despite Calgary’s steady population growth (from 600,000 to 1.1 million between 1984 and 2008) and the absence of BDL, attacks by aggressive dogs are the lowest they've been in 25 years. " (Ready) In 1984 the city of Calgary had 621 reports of dog bites; in 2008 that number was reduced to 145. Considering that their population sits at roughly 1.1 million people, 145 is a very low number.  It is roughly .01%.

Calgary has been able to reduce the number of dog bites through innovative ordinances and programs.  They require that all dogs and cats within city limits be licensed and they use then use the licensing funds to provide low-no cost spay and neuter surgeries to residents as well as fund educational programs and public service announcements. Owners who allow the licenses on their animals to lapse could be fined up to $250 per animal as a penalty. Under their ordinances, owners are responsible for their dog's behavior. (Responsible Section 48) If a dog bites someone or another animal, the owner is fined anywhere from $350-$1500, depending on the severity of the bite. Owners that allow their dogs to run at large without tags are fined $250 each time their animal is picked up by animal control.

They also send Animal and Bylaw Officers to local schools (at no cost to the school)  to do a 1-hour presentation to school children in the 2nd and 3rd grade to help educate them about how to act around dogs and how to recognize when a dog is uncomfortable. They have found that since the implementation of this program, dog bite reports for young children has been reduced by 80%. (Grove)

Implementing ordinances and education programs like this is certainly costly, but the" fees go toward the cost for. . .humane education and other services " (Ready) and they allow for Calgary's Animal Control division to run virtually free of funds from the city government.

This model has been duplicated in most of the Salt Lake Valley. Over the past year, Salt Lake County Animal Services has been taking on the animal control duties for more cities within the valley and they are petitioning city councils to adopt a Calgary-type model in their jurisdiction. So far unincorporated parts of Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, and Midvale have adopted a Calgary-type model that removes the pet limits on residences, requires both dogs and cats to be licensed and implements stiffer penalties for irresponsible dog owners. The program at SLCo AS is still in its infancy so more time is needed to see if it helps to reduce the number of dog bites in the Salt Lake Valley.

A lot of the laws for nuisance animals and irresponsible owners are already on the books in most communities, but they are not being enforced with any great amount of effectiveness. If a program similar to the Calgary Model were to be adopted in communities with current BSL on record then the funds generated from that program could be used towards educating the public and enforcing current laws with greater efficacy.  

In conclusion, there is no evidence that shows that breed-specific legislation is effective at preventing dogs bites; it is costly and a burden to tax payers. Any dog can bite if provoked or scared, no matter what breed they are. The solution is education for dog owners, access to low-cost spay and neuter programs for those that would like to fix their pets, and stiffer penalties and fines for those that choose to allow their dogs to run at large and who do not take the necessary steps to ensure that their dog is not a danger to the public.

Works Cited

American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions. "A community approach to dog bite prevention." 01 06 2001. AVMA.org. 25 July 2012 <http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf>.

ASPCA. Postion on Breed Specific Legislation. 25 07 2012 <http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx>.

CDC. "Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks Between 1979-1998." JAVMA (2000): 836-840.

Find the Pit Bull. 25 7 2012 <http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html>.

Grove, Dana, Sean Myers and Nadia Moharib. The Calgary Model. 03 08 2012 <http://www.defendingdog.com/id38.html>.

Ready, Lynn. Calgary Dog Attacks Fall to Lowest Levels in 25 Years. Kanab, 19 05 2009.

"Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw." 29 November 2011. The City of Calgary. 25 July 2012 <http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fCA%2fcity-clerks%2fDocuments%2fLegislative-services%2fBylaws%2f23M2006-ResponsiblePetOwnership.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1>.

Voith, VL. "Comparison of Adoption Agency Breed Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs." Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12.3 (2009): 253-262. PubMed.gov. Web. 25 Jul 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20183478>.