SPECTRUM 2007-2008

“Punish the Deed, not the Breed.”? That’s the slogan Californian dog owners chanted last year as California enacted its highly-controversial breed-specific legislation aimed at dangerous breeds of dogs–most notably the American pit bull. This certainly isn’t the first bout of breed-specific legislation in the U.S., but it’s been the most publicized, bringing America’s attention to the alleged dangers of these once-loved and cherished breeds. This legislation, most often aimed at the American pit bull terrier, is the result of recent media hype and its negative portrayal of the breed, painting the dogs as vicious and unpredictable toward humans because they were bred for fighting. Pit bulls are, in actuality, one of the least human-aggressive breeds of dogs, and legislation aimed at them and breeds similar to them is based on skewed facts in a misplaced effort to end the problem of dog aggression by eradicating breeds deemed dangerous instead of punishing neglectful owners raising temperamental dogs of any breed.

Breed-specific legislation, or BSL, is any form of legislation aimed at specific breeds of any animal. This includes not only dogs, but cats, horses, fish, and pigs, though dog legislation has currently taken center stage and is the most hotly-debated issue. When people think of BSL, too often they think of outright bans of the targeted breed, which is rarely the case. BSL generally puts stiff regulations on the breeds, including high insurance fees, expensive licensing fees, muzzling laws, chaining laws, spay/neutering laws, and fence laws where the fence must be at least six feet high and three feet underground. Though these regulations do not outright ban the targeted breeds, it makes it difficult if not impossible for many people to own their adored pets (”Breed-Specific Laws: A Basic Primer”?).

California’s new law is an example of the regulations previously listed, rather than an outright banning. There are places, however, that have gone so far as to ban the pit bull and all dogs resembling pit bulls entirely. The province of Ontario, Canada, is one of those places, and according to Canada’s Ministry of Attorney General, this legislation “prohibits individuals from owning, breeding, transferring, importing, or abandoning pit bulls.”? A pit bull, according to these laws, is not only an American pit bull terrier, but also a Staffordshire terrier, a Staffordshire bull terrier, a pit bull terrier, and “a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to any of those dogs”? (Dog Owner’s Liability Act). Thus, although pit bulls are condemned as the targeted breed, many other breeds are affected and targeted simply for having short hair and a block head that resembles a pit bull’s, and if, as BSL supporters argue, pit bulls are targeted for their temperament, why are dogs resembling them automatically targeted as well?

Dog breeds can be a fuzzy way to characterize a dog, especially pit bulls, because there is some controversy and confusion as to what exactly a pit bull is. The American Kennel Club does not recognize pit bulls as a breed, but considers them a Staffordshire terrier, while the United Kennel Club considers the two as separate breeds. This discrepancy not only makes it difficult to implement effective BSL, but also affects statistics gathered related to dog bites. As the Humane Society of the United States puts this dilemma, “there is no central reporting agency for dog bites; thus breed and other information is not captured”? (”HSUS Statement on Dangerous Dogs”?), so dog attack statistics based on breed are highly unreliable.

Although pit bulls are not always considered a separate breed, it will be assumed for the purposes of this analysis that they are. And, just like any breed, they have a history which has impacted perceptions of the dogs today. A more primitive ancestor to the pit bull was bred for a sport known as bull baiting, which was popular for gamblers, but eventually banned. Left with fine-tuned fighting dogs, owners developed a new sport, known as ratting. “This is in fact where the “˜pit’ in the American pit bull terrier name came from; not from fighting other dogs”? (American Pit Bull Registry), despite popular beliefs regarding the origin of the name. From ratting, the sport developed further in the 1900s to the tastes of gamblers and thrill-seeking working class citizens. The modern form of dog fighting emerged, where two dogs were put in a ring against each other until one was declared the winner (American Pit Bull Registry). This history of this inbred aggression for fighting other dogs has now been confused with human aggression, when in fact the two are extremely independent. As the Positive Pitbull Awareness Society brings to light about the breed’s fighting past:

What is not common knowledge is that in the days of organized dog fighting, the handlers of the combatants were habitually in the pit with the dogs for the duration of the fight. They were required to pick up and separate the dogs several times while the dogs were in full fight frenzy. Before the fight, the handlers were required to wash each other’s dogs, and after the fight, the badly injured dogs were often treated at ringside by strangers. Any dog that attacked or bit a handler (even if it was the other dog’s handler) or anyone else at any time was culled, often on the spot, and would never have been bred. (”Pit Bull Information”?)

As a result of this type of breeding, the pit bull has a very unique temperament, one that differs substantially from the vicious, snarling dog found in the media.

Due to their fighting past, “most American pit bull terriers exhibit some level of dog aggression”? (”American Pit Bull Terrier”?) and can’t be trusted not to fight with other animals, be it dogs or cats. This does not mean, however, that pit bulls are also aggressive toward humans. Pit bulls have, in fact, been bred to be one of the least human aggressive breeds of dogs, scoring higher marks for temperament than the Golden retriever (”ATTS Breed Statistics”?). Again, as per their breed history, pit bulls are “not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers,”? and “aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed”? (”American Pit Bull Terrier”?). Pit bulls with proper temperament for the breed are noted for their love of children and tolerance for rough play. So, just as a Labrador retriever that attacks children shows improper temperament, a pit bull that attacks another human without provocation is not an appropriate example of the breed’s temperament.

Regardless of the breed’s defined temperament, in the media today, it is often portrayed that the entire pit bull breed is on a mass biting rampage. Every time it happens in a community, there is an immediate outcry against such a dangerous breed. The facts, however, paint a much different picture. Again, because breeds involved in dog bites are not mandatory to report, statistics surrounding the issue are fuzzy at best. During a study by Jeffery Sacks and associates on dog attack fatalities between 1979 and 1988, it was, in fact, found that there were twenty-five different breeds or mixed breeds that had caused the more than two hundred deaths, including Chow-Chows and even Labrador retrievers (837-38). Although it appears in the study that pit bulls are among the most likely to kill, Sacks carefully notes:

For the 20-year study, we excluded 4 human deaths from attacks by guard or police dogs “at work”? and approximately 90 deaths when breed information for the attacking dog was unavailable; thus, this study included approximately 72% of cases of human DBRF [dog bite-related fatalities] and is not exhaustive. (Sacks, et al. 837)

Also, as breed information is not required to be reported in dog attacks or deaths, it may also be inferred that pit bull related deaths may be more likely to be reported, resulting in the disproportionate number of deaths attributed to them. In this case, the study is also flawed because it does not offer percentages of total deaths caused by a breed, but percentages of deaths where the breed involved was known or assumed.

When it becomes known as a result of this study that even the classic family dog, the Labrador retriever, can kill, one must wonder the circumstances surrounding such a killing. Surely the dog was being provoked in some way, or was defending itself or its master? This benefit of the doubt given to the Lab must also, in the spirit of fairness and equality, be applied to the pit bull. Looking at a new article headed “Pit Bulls Attack,”? one would immediately assume the worst of the dogs. The situation in the article was actually one that did not warrant the definition of the breeds at all, as the article points out that the attack was a result of poor socialization and training for the dogs, rather than breed (Battista). The dogs were garage guard dogs, and as Francis Battista points out in a commentary on the news article, “Facts show that 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact, such as garage guard dogs. The dogs [in the article] happened to be Pit Bulls. . .”? (Battista). The breed of dog that attacks is often an irrelevant factor in dog attack reports, just as the skin color of a human criminal has nothing to do with how likely they were to commit a crime. What matters with both humans and animals is a proper upbringing and good socialization in a loving home.

Provocation is something that is often overlooked in dog bite reports. It is a rare sight indeed to find a news article titled, “Pit Bull Mauls Boy Throwing Rocks at It.”? Provoking a dog doesn’t have to mean outright attacking it, but provocation is also defined as unlawfully entering the dog owner’s property (Weiss). In many cases, if a dog attacks the intruder in an attempt to protect its property, it will not have to be labeled a dangerous dog (Weiss). During his dog-related fatality study, Sacks found that “(67%) [of dog bite related deaths] involved unrestrained dogs on the owners’ property, [and] (11%) involved restrained dogs on the owners’ property”? (837). Although here the breed is not specified, but because the majority of kills were pit bull related, it is presumable that pit bulls also form the majority or at least a large percentage in these categories as well.

Numbers only paint a partial picture, often neglecting to incorporate motives and situations. Because of this, bite rate numbers fail to distinguish between provoked bites and non-provoked, resulting in skewed data. The numbers also do not account for the way the dogs were raised and socialized, which is a great determining factor in the dog’s overall disposition, regardless of breed. All too often irresponsible owners choose to raise pit bulls in insufficiently loving homes, keeping them for their fearsome looks and strength, enforcing its aggression to increase the owner’s intimidation factor among certain groups (”Pit Bull Information”?).

Pit bulls have undoubtedly been victimized by the media and biased data that has been spurring on recent BSL laws targeting the breed. But, whether or not the breed is being victimized, BSL is still a problematic and inefficient way to combat canine violence. Says Noreen Baxter, owner of an award-winning pit bull, in the American Kennel Club’s recent press release, “What [legislators] don’t realize is that BSL unfairly punishes responsible dog owners, is difficult to enforce and targets people who are not likely to obey the law in the first place or who will simply switch to a new breed”? (”American Kennel Club Highlights Concerns”?). What she is implying is that the owners who raise dogs that are truly dangerous and targets for BSL are most generally non-law abiding citizens who own dogs for reasons other than a cuddly family pet, such as a guard dog or vicious looking companion to add to the owner’s intimidation.

BSL is also extremely difficult to enforce, most often because of broad or insufficient definitions of the targeted breed. For instance, the American Kennel Club does not recognize the American pit bull as a separate breed and instead classifies it as a Staffordshire terrier. Many BSL laws, however, do not mention Staffordshire terriers as a targeted breed. This would mean that American BSL would have to be utilizing the British United Kennel Club’s definition of pit bulls, and it would seem rather odd to be basing American laws on British definitions, contrary to American ones. BSL trips itself up most effectively, though, when officials misidentify breeds or can’t enforce “breed bans against mix-breed dogs”? (Weiss). Also, the legislation doesn’t identify a “genuinely “˜dangerous dog’ as such because it doesn’t fall into the specified breed categories”? (Weiss). Until a dog that is truly dangerous actually attacks someone, there is very little chance that the owner will be forced to take precautions with it, such as keeping it tied or fenced.

These problems are difficult if not impossible to deal with when insisting on breed-specific laws, since as the name implies, the law only targets certain breeds already deemed dangerous. With BSL, a single dog is not defined as dangerous by its actions, but by its bloodline, so an owner raising a truly dangerous dog will go without reprimand until the dog attacks either another dog or person. And as the rearing and socialization of the dog in question plays an immense role in its disposition, “legislation aimed at punishing the owner of the dog rather than punishing the dog is far more effective in reducing the number of dog bites and attacks”? (”HSUS Statement on Dangerous Dogs”?). A person is far less likely to raise a poorly socialized, dangerous dog, if the consequences fall on them, instead of their animal. Otherwise unfit owners will simply switch to a new breed that hasn’t been banned to raise as a vicious companion.

Aiming BSL in the direction of any one breed is not the answer to poor handling resulting in bites and attacks, but directing it toward pit bulls is especially discriminatory. The breed is dogged by a past and present shrouded in myth and jumbled facts, and to punish the breed without an exhaustive analysis of the provided data and facts on the subject is irresponsible. BSL, because it is such an ineffective and unreliable method to combat canine violence, must be regarded as a quick-fix, short-term solution, with no positive outcome in the long run.

Overall, it must be noted again that breed information at this point is not required when reporting a dog bite or dog related fatality, so not only are current statistical analyses unreliable, the facts and conclusions are skewed not by poor calculations, but by faulty reporting methods. This said, any breed-specific legislation based on such analyses would be, and are, ill-founded and irresponsibly set up. Experts and highly regarded institutions agree that pit bulls are not inherently vicious or dangerous dogs, and breed-specific legislation is impossible to defend with facts and figures. Even the American Kennel Club, which does not recognize the pit bull breed, must argue that “enforceable, non-discriminatory measures . . . will do far more to protect animals and communities than BSL”? (”American Kennel Club Highlights Concerns”?).

Works Cited

American Kennel Club. “American Kennel Club Highlights Concerns Over Breed-Specific Legislation in Wake of Westminster Win.”? Press Release. 21 February 2006. 21 November 2007. <http://www.akc.org/pdfs/press_center/press_releases/2006/Rufus_BSL.pdf>.

 

American Pit Bull Registry. American Pit Bull Registry. 28 Oct. 2007.<http://www.pitbullregistry.com>.

 

American Temperament Test Society, Inc. “ATTS Breed Statistics.”? Dec. 2006. 28 Oct. 2007. <http://www.atts.org/statistics.html>.

 

The Animal Council. “Breed-Specific Laws: A Basic Primer.”? 2007. 18 November 2007. < http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/BreedSpecificLaw.html>.

 

Battista, Francis. “‘Pit Bulls Attack’ Headline Should Read “˜Guard Dogs Attack.’”? Best Friends Animal Society. <http://network.bestfriends.org/stopbsl/news/12488.html>.

 

Canada. Ontario. Ministry of the Attorney General. Dog Owners’ Liability Act and Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act. 2007. 29 Oct. 2007. <http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/dola-pubsfty/dola-pubsfty.asp>.

 

Gilcrest, J., et al. “Nonfatal Dog Bite””Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments””United States, 2001.”? Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 52.6 (4 July 2003): 605-10. 18 November 2007. <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm>.

 

The Humane Society of the United States. “HSUS Statement on Dangerous Dogs and Breed-Specific Legislation.”? 2007. 18 November 2007. <http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html>.

 

Positive Pitbull Awareness Society. “Pit bull Information.”? Pets.ca. 2006. 28 Oct. 2007. <http://www.pets.ca/articles/article-pitbulls.htm>.

 

Sacks, Jeffery J., et al. “Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998.”? Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 217.6 (2000): 836-840.

 

United Kennel Club. “American Pit Bull Terrier.”? 2007. 19 November 2007. <http://www.ukcdogs.com/RegistrationBreeds.htm>. Path: Terrier; American Pit Bull Terrier.

 

Weiss, Linda S. “Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States.”? Animal Legal and Historical Web Center. Michigan State University College of Law. 2001. 19 November 2007. <http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm>.