|
A letter regarding Breed Specific
Legislation
by Robert Simon
|
Robert Simon, an American living in Holland and a Stafford
owner, wrote the following letter to the Editor of the Calgary
Herald (Canada) after the publication of a singularly biased
article written by Naomi Lakritz:
Dear Mr. Cotton,
I recently read--and was much dismayed--by an article on
the subject of "pitbulls" by Naomi Lakritz in the
Calgary Herald . As a dog owner (originally from the US and
living for some years in the Netherlands), I find very
worrisome any call anywhere for Breed Specific Legislation,
and as the owner of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which is
often placed under the "pitbull" rubric, these
worries become quite personal.
I am as well a writer and a historian, and I find it
disturbing that Ms. Lakritz apparently did little research in
producing what must be characterized as an inflammatory and
demagogic piece. I have no problem with journalism based upon
personal opinion; in fact having been publishing art and
culture criticism for nearly 15 years a good part of my own
writing is necessarily the expression of a very personal
point-of-view.
But I firmly believe that when someone writes something
that can have real effects in the world, rouse strong
sentiments, and--in this case--aims to bring about legislation
directed at much-loved family companions, they should act with
a high level of responsibility, and do their homework.
A few hours at the library or on the web would have
provided Ms. Lakritz with the material to write a far more
cogent and serious piece, even if after doing so she remained
committed to some form of Breed Specific Legislation. But if
indeed Ms. Lakritz--after a bit of research--would maintain
such a view, it would have to somehow contend with the great
preponderance of evidence and expert opinion stating that BSL
is ineffective, impractical, and counter-productive.
Moreover, it has become clear that the statistical evidence
often marshaled to support BSL is essentially without value, a
determination based upon the debilitating limitations of
current methodologies of data collection and interpretation. I
realize of course that Ms. Lakritz' piece is essentially
anecdotal, and there is nothing wrong with anecdotes, but as I
said earlier, I do believe that demands for political and
legislative action ought to be founded on a higher standard of
argument and information gathering.
I offer some material from two sources available on the
web. First, from the Humane Society of the United States, and
second, and most significantly, from the recently convened
American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine
Aggression and Human-Canine Interaction.
The following appeared as a sidebar to an article by Leslie
Sinclair, D.V.M., "Would I bite?", which can be
accessed on the website of the Humane Society of the United
States HSUS) at this address:
|
(This link no longer works as of 2007)
http://www.hsus.org/programs/companion/dogs/wouldibite.html
I quote:
|
|
When Breed Should be Ignored
Can a law that bans or restricts ownership of specific
breeds of dogs--called a "breed-specific
law"--protect the members of your community from dog attacks?
According to experts, the answer is no.
Why? Popular breeds come and go. When ownership of one
breed of dog is outlawed, those who want a dangerous
dog simply turn to another breed. The Doberman
pinscher--known as the dangerous dog breed of the 1970s-was
replaced in popularity by the pit bull in the '80s and the
Rottweiler in the '90s.
Breed-specific laws require that someone be able to prove
that a specific dog is a member, or a mix, of that
breed--not always an easy task. Boxers and bulldogs,
for instance, may be mistaken for pit bulls. Any
medium-large sized black and tan dog with a long tail
may be mistakenly labeled as a German shepherd.
Breed-specific legislation doesn't acknowledge the fact
that a dog of any breed can become dangerous. The law
should protect your community from any such dog.
Breed-specific laws are difficult, costly, and sometimes
impossible to enforce. It's one thing to require that
every Rottweiler in your community be muzzled
whenever outside of the home; it's another to fund and
support adequate animal-control staff to ensure that
this happens.
In 1987 the Cincinnati City Council banned all pit bulls
within the city after a series of severe maulings and
one human fatality involving the dogs. The ban was
passed even though the state of Ohio and the city of
Cincinnati already had statutes that allowed
authorities to seize any dog known to have injured or
killed a person or another dog. Nearly ten years later, the council's
law committee recommended that the ban be repealed, saying
that it was unnecessary. The council recommended that
pit bulls be handled like any other dogs and that
owners be prosecuted only when the dogs were unrestrained
or exhibited dangerous behavior. It made this recommendation
in part due to the cost of enforcement. Confiscated dogs spent
up to five months at the city's contracted shelter while the
cases against the dogs' owners were being litigated.
Many of the confiscated dogs were family companions
with no history of aggression.
Legislation that restricts breeds may actually create a
population of dangerous dogs within your community.
When a community imposes strict regulations on a
specific breed of dog, owners of those dogs may end up chaining
or caging the dogs for long periods of time. Dogs so chained
or caged can be so desperate for activity that they
become uncontrollable should they escape. Restricted
dogs often receive little veterinary care because it
is difficult for their owners to transport them to a
veterinary facility without violating restrictions.
Most importantly, restricted dogs who don't get to
experience normal opportunities for socialization and
training will undoubtedly act in an unpredictable
fashion when exposed to the real world.
The HSUS advocates laws that penalize the owners of dogs,
not the dogs themselves, for dangerous behavior.
Breed-specific legislation doesn't acknowledge the
fact that a dog of any breed--or mix--can become dangerous.
|
[end of quote]
|
Now some material from a second source.
To my knowledge, the work of the American Veterinary
Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force--with an
anticipated completion date of mid-1999--represents the most ambitious,
comprehensive and authoritative effort ever undertaken,
nationally in the US, or internationally, to examine
the question of canine aggression in all of its complexities, and
to propose concrete responses.
The passages I cite were published in the Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association on October 15,
1998, and are available on the Journal's website at
(This link no longer works as of
2007)
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/oct98/s101598a.htm
These are the aims and makeup of the Task Force. I quote:
|
|
|
New task force addresses canine
aggression
During its inaugural meeting, Aug 15-17 [1998], the AVMA
Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine
Interactions began developing a multifaceted,
community-oriented model program to address canine
aggression and injury caused by dog bites. The 15-member
task force includes representatives from the AVMA, the American
College of Veterinary Behaviorists, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the American College of Emergency Physicians, the PLIT [Professional
Liability Insurance Trust], the insurance industry, the American
Medical Association, national humane organizations, the National
Animal Control Association, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the legal profession.
Working from issues raised during breakout sessions of
the 1996 AVMA Animal Welfare Forum on human-canine
interactions, the task force identified needed
components of a program to prevent dog bites. These
included methods for reliable reporting, multidisciplinary/multiprofessional
involvement, well-enforced ordinances to control
dangerous dogs, education of health care professionals,
public education, a media focus, and sufficient infrastructure
to coordinate the program.
[end of quote]
And this is the view of the Task Force on the subject of
Breed Specific Legislation. I quote:
Regulatory issues and legislation
Concerns about "dangerous" dogs have caused
many local governments to consider supplementing or
replacing existing animal control laws with
breed-specific ordinances. Members of the task force agreed
that current statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by
dogs cannot be used to responsibly document the
dangerousness of particular breeds.
Task force members believe that legislators can respond
effectively to citizen pressure for action regarding
"dangerous" dogs without introducing
breed-specific ordinances. Dangerous dog laws can be enacted
that appropriately place responsibility for dog behavior on owners
and current laws, if appropriately enforced, are often
sufficient.
During the next several months, members of the
subcommittee on regulatory and professional issues
will generate a document specifying what they believe
should be included in effective legislation for the control
of dangerous dogs, as well as the potential impact of civil remedies.
|
[end of quote]
|
I know that you have received other emailings from a number
of participants in some international Staffordshire
Bull Terrier internet lists, to which I happily belong.
(Perhaps from other sources as well). It was through
these lists that I first became aware of Ms. Lakritz'
article. But it is worth saying that though the listmembers
share many common concerns, we are in no way a formal,
structured advocacy group, and have differing views on
any number of particular dog-related matters, and different
ways of conveying these concerns and views.
Speaking for myself, I do not write to you with the aim of
impugning Ms. Lakritz' integrity or journalistic
methods, though I stand by the critical remarks I made at the outset.
Rather, it is my hope that you might see fit to publish some
of these emailed responses--in whole or in part--in your
newspaper, so another part of the "pitbull" story can
be told and heard. The internet has created an unprecedented
forum for the dissemination of information and opinion,
and the events in Calgary as reported in the Calgary
Herald have become part of an international discussion. Once
again, it is my sincere hope that your newspaper will
actively engage with this discussion.
Yours truly,
Robert Simon
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
|
|