Mapleton City recently considered legislation specifically targeting and banning pit bulls as pets. Springville has ordinances that single out pit bull type breeds. Provo and Orem are currently debating instituting similar laws. Across the nation, isolated incidents of vicious dog attacks are sparking a wildfire of fear-induced laws banning entire breeds of dogs, especially those that comprise the group known as Pit Bulls. Is this fair? Is it right? We all want our children and pets to be safe from unprovoked maliciousness, but how is this best accomplished? Here is how I responded to our city council, trying to share my professional experience in dealing with agressive dog behaviors.
Mapleton City Council Members,
As your local veterinarian, I am concerned about the recent proposal to ban specific breeds of dogs from our communities, specifically pit bulls. I am also glad that the city has elected not to pursue that course of reasoning. Such legislation often arises out of fear and is promoted under the guise of public safety, but in reality is an indication of misinformation and uneducated decision-making. It is also questionable in constitutionality and enforceability. Please allow me, as an animal health and welfare professional working daily with a wide variety of breeds, to share my expertise should you choose to formulate a comprehensive plan that will be both fair to those pet owners that demonstrate reponsible ownership and their well-behaved dogs, as well as providing proper identification and recourse in situations where irresponsiblity and vicious behaviors truly exist.
I am freqently asked by clients as they ponder the type of new dog to get for their family "What is your favorite kind of dog ?" My answer has developed over the past couple decades of dealing with dogs of various demeanors as such: "I like the nice ones." I have found that it is not the breed, per se, that determines a dog’s demeanor toward other people, although genetics certainly play an important role. Behavior is primarily determined by proper and timely socialization and training, as well as attitudes of the dog owners themselves.
Statistics show that there are over 68 millions dogs owned as pets in the United States. There are approximately 350,000 people treated (although actual number of unreported bites could be much higher) for dog bite-related injuries annually, with only 12-15 resulting in fatalities. According to a Denver study, biting dogs are 6-8 times more likely to be male than female, 2.6 times more likely to be intact than neutered, 2.8 times as likely to be chained as unchained, with 20% of fatalities involving dogs that were chained at the time of the incident. According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) records, approximately half of the people bitten are children <14>
The reasons that Pit bull-type breeds are being targeted in breed-specific legislative bans is because they currently account for >60% of bite-related injuries and insurance company claims related to dog bites have quadrupled in recent years. However, the frequency of pit bulls being involved is simply due to their increased popularity. In the 1970’s, Doberman Pinscers were the dog to fear. In the 1980’s, it became the Rottweilers. It wasn’t until the mid-1990’s that pit bull-type breeds gained popularity as increased prejudice and fear built against the other breeds. It reflects the breed of choice among people who want to own an aggressive dog. Unfortunately, it has become "cool" to own a "bad" dog.
Data in a report published in the Sept 15, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) indicate that breed-specific legislation is not the solution to dog bite prevention. The report revealed that, during the previous 20 years, at least 25 breeds of dog have been involved in 238 human fatalities. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were identified as being involved in 66 and 39 fatalities, respectively, over that 20-year period; however, other purebreds and crossbreds caused the remainder of fatalities. Over time, the breeds involved in human fatalites have varied, and include Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, and even a Yorkshire Terrier and a Pomeranian, with a different mix represented every year. Not long ago, Dalmations were listed as the number one breed for human bite wounds.
Thus, as CDC epidemiologist Dr. Jeffrey Sacks indicates, "a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. Fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of dog bite injuries and shouldn't be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dangerous dogs." In my own professional experience, and confirmed in discussions with colleagues across the nation, veterinarians and their staff are more likely to be bitten by Chihuahuas, Pomeranians, Amerikan Eskimos, Akitas, Chow Chows, Cocker Spaniels and German Shepherds because of aggressive tendencies. In general, the majority of the pit bull breeds tend to be very docile and loving toward people. It is recognized, however, that the wounds inflicted by breeds bred with dog-fighting in mind do tend to be more extensive that those by the miniature breeds.
A very informative article appeared in The New Yorker, that can be found online at http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060206fa_fact, identifies the problems with generalizations against a specific breed (or group of people for that matter). One of these problems is that pit bulls are not a single breed, but include an number of related breeds, including the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the American Bulldog, and the American Pit Bull Terrier, all of which share physical characteristics of a square and muscular body, a short snout and a sleek, short-haired coat. Banning "pit bulls" then becomes a challenge in identifying what actually constitutes a pit bull. Then introduce the reaction of people to circumvent the law by breeding pit bull breeds to other breeds. Is a cross between an American Pit Bull Terrier with a Golden Retriever a pit bull or a Golden Retreiver-type dog? This line of reasoning often results in making generalizations about generalizations and eventually ends up with something totally undefineable and unenforceable. Furthermore, ostracizing a given breed will simply result in another shift toward other aggressive breeds for those who want the "bad dog" image.
The New Yorker article cites that the American Temperament Test Society has put 25,000+ dogs through a 10-part stardardized set of drills designed to assess a dog’s emotional stability, shyness, aggressiveness and friendliness in the company of people. They are judged on reactions to such stimuli as gunshots, someone opening an umbrella unexpectedly near them, and the approach of a weirdly-dressed stranger that acts threatening. In these tests, 84% of pit bull-type dogs have passed, ranking higher than Beagles, Airedale Terriers, Bearded Collies and all but one variety of Dachshunds.
A description of pit bull breeds often refer to them as having a "strong desire to please, good-natured, amusing, affectionate, extremely loyal, good family pets, and intelligent." Pit bulls were bred for the dog fighting and bull baiting sports. Thus, their "natural" aggressions are toward other animals, and not towards people. So then, which are the ones that have gotten into trouble and ellicited so much emotion over any other breed in history? The ones that have aggressive tendencies "bred into them by the breeder, trained in by the trainer, or reinforced in by the owner." However, the strongest connection of all in determining a dog’s viciousness, is certain kinds of owners. The New Yorker cites that "in about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog." This includes the owner of the junk yard, the drug dealer, the abusive husband, the socially outcast teenager and anyone else with issues about their self image. The article goes on to state that cities can easily prevent recurrences of dog attacks not by making generalizations about specific breeds of dogs, but on the "known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners."
Insurance companies use generalizations when they charge young men more for car insurance than the rest of us, even though many young men are perfectly good drivers (teen drivers represent 8% of all licensed drivers in Utah, but they account for 28% of all crashes). Doctors use generalizations when they tell overweight middle-aged men to get their cholesterol checked, even though many overweight middle-aged men won’t experience heart problems. The problem becomes making the right generalization. Defining a handful of certain breeds as "dogs that bite" results in the assumption or generalization that all the rest are "dogs that don’t bite." Of course, we all know that anything with teeth can bite, but people who don’t deal with dogs very often may end up assuming that anything that isn’t a pit or rottie is safe to pet because they aren’t part of the banned list of breeds. It’s a little like assuming that any drug offered over-the-counter is risk-free, then becoming shocked when a dozen Tylenol tablets land someone in the hospital. You invite lawsuits when the government bans specific breeds "because they can kill you" and suddenly, a Standard Poodle attacks a child when it was thought to be a "safe" breed because it wasn’t included on the government’s list of banned breeds.
In the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC states that bite prevention is best avoided primarily through programs designed to educate children in proper behaviors and interactions around dogs. Additionally, prevention efforts should include "training, socializing, and neutering family pets. Additional strategies that encourage responsible pet ownership and reduce dog bites include "regulatory measures (e.g., licensing, neutering and registration programs, and programs to control unrestrained animals) and legislation." "Dangerous dog" laws should focus on dogs of any breed that have exhibited harmful / aggressive behavior and place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on its owner. The report also indicates that because other factors beside genetics (e.g., medical & behavioral health, early experience and socializaiton, training and even victim behaviors), "such laws might be more effective than breed-specific legislation."
Utah has formed the Driver License Point System Administration for drivers under the age of 21 years that assesses points for violations of safe driving rules. The points are weighted based on severity of the infraction with minor, intermediate and extreme levels, as well as the precedence of prior infractions. Consideration is taken for completion of defensive driving courses. Finally, there is a set of consequences based on the accumulation of points that reflect the driver’s risk of injury to self and others.
I propose that a similar system be implemented for ALL cases of dog aggression that takes into account ANY vicious behaviors regardless of the breed involved. Such a system would assign points according to the ability of the dog to inflict serious harm (e.g., a pit bull-type dog would score worse than a Shih tzu), whether the aggression was directed toward a human or another animal, toward a family member versus a stranger, on the owner’s premesis or off, according to the animal being properly restrained / confined as opposed to running loose. A properly implemented system would also have points assigned according to the attitude of the owner, history of prior illegal activities (especially those involving aggression), taking into account any history of prior pet-related complaints, and compliance with existing local dog ordinances. Penalties could range from a written warning to enforced use of secure enclosures and restraint devices, to bonds or penalties / fines (including damage restitution for victims’ health and veterinary fees) to removal of an animal from city limits and even mandated euthanasia. A properly formulated system could foreseeably result in a "one-strike-and-you’re-out" ruling for particularly vicious, unprovoked attacks involving unsocialized "powerful" breeds with beligerent owners, while being lenient toward random incidents involving docile pets taunted by neighborhood bullies.
The number of fatal maulings is extremely low, but still unfortunate, especially if you or your loved ones are among them, but it pales in comparison to other really dangerous things in life. Fifty-some odd kids die every year by drowning in buckets, not to mention how many die in swimming pools. An estimated 40,000 die in motor vehicle accidents. Hundreds of kids are killed by their own parents. Too many kids die being shot by other children when playing with their parents’s gun unsupervised. We’ve all heard that "guns don’t kill people, people kill people." Well, dogs aren’t inherently bad or vicious just because of their breed, but irresponsible ownership and lack of proper training and socializing create vicous dogs, of all sizes. If pet owners aren’t willing to provide the proper care, training and socialization that tend to develop well-mannered pets, they should not be permitted to own pets, or at least the large, dominant-attitute breeds that have been historically developed for aggressive behaviors.
Unfortunately, promoting and encouraging responsible ownership and compliance with local laws and judgements involves tracking compliance and follow-up by animal control officers and applying laws more exactingly rather than rash generalizations. We cannot fall into the false security mindset of "it’s always easier just to ban the breed."
