T H E S T R O N G E S T K N O W L E D G E
The main reasons you should not trust BSL to lower bite statistics
84% of Americans don't support BSL
A new national survey commissioned by Best Friends Animal Society reveals that 84 percent of those polled believe that local, state or federal governments should not infringe on a person’s right to own whatever breed of dog they choose. This survey*, conducted by Luntz Global, is consistent with a growing trend by many state and local governments that have repealed breed discriminatory provisions and enacted behavior-based, breed-neutral dangerous dog laws. Of the 850 polled, 59 percent were dog owners. Only four percent of those polled believed the federal government should dictate what breed of dog a person could own, while six percent supported state government restrictions and 11 percent local government limits. Supporting the survey is the fact that 17 states have passed laws that prohibit cities and counties from banning or restricting dogs because of breed. Even the American Bar Association passed a Resolution 100 in August, 2012 calling for all political subdivisions to repeal breed discriminatory provisions.
why is bsl in-effective?
If an individual has a strong desire to train a dog to attack, no amount of BSL will stop that person. Golden Retrievers have been trained to seek out and attack human beings - the breed is not an issue, rather it is the lack of proper training/socialization and the dangerous practice of training dogs to be guard dogs (as opposed to watch dogs who are not trained to attack but merely ?watch?, as their name implies). Why are certain breeds more prevalent in dog attack statistics? Not because there are somehow more of those particular dogs existing but that more of the dogs are being owned by abusive or simply neglectful individuals who do not neuter their dogs, allow their animals to roam free and never socialize their animals, or who purchase their animal for the wrong reasons (ego). The banning of specific breeds has been shown NOT to decrease the number of attacks or maulings. Why? Well, those same individuals who would have owned a Rottweiler or a Pit Bull are simply turning other breeds of dogs into killers. Other breeds simply replace the banned breeds as top maulers. Any dog can be trained to be aggressive towards humans and any dog that is not properly socialized can become dangerous. The list of organizations that are against BSL is staggering - they are reputable agencies and groups who realize that owners of dangerous dogs need to be held responsible but that no particular breed is more or less likely to possibly attack. Some of the agencies/organizations are: AKC (American Kennel Club), UKC (United Kennel Club), AVMA, CDC (Centers for Disease Control), ASPCA, SPCA?s, most Human Societies, most Animal Control Facilities, ADBA (American Dog Breeders Association), ADOA (American Dog Owners Association), most breeders and rescue groups as well as reconstructive surgeons for children whose groups have stated that a bite to the face of a child can be devastating REGARDLESS of the breed of dog who inflicted the wound.
Draft Policy on Dangerous Dog Strategies and Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) Animal Aid supports the creation of evidence based regulatory policy.
Animal Aid supports the creation of evidence based regulatory policy. While enforcing the enacted legislation, Animal Aid would seek to replace Breed related legislation aimed at reducing dog bite statistics on the grounds that: • BSL does not reduce the number of dog bites. • BSL does not address the number of bites that arise from other breeds and cross-breeds. • BSL ignores the fact that there may be highly sociable and well adjusted individuals in any breed. • The identification of Pitbull Terriers (the breed under scrutiny at present) and other banned breeds from visual standards cannot be determined with complete relaibility. The Facts • Studies have shown that BSL has not reduced bites in the UK (Klaassen, Buckley, & Esmail, 1996), Germany (Schalke, Ott, & von Gaertner, 2008; Ott, Schalke, von Gaertner, & Hackbarth, 2008) or the Netherlands (Cornelissen & Hopster, 2010) and BSL has been repealed in Germany and the Netherlands. Only one study supports the effectiveness of BSL and that incorporated many other strong initiatives to promote responsible ownership (Villalbi et al., 2010). • Incontestably identifying a ‘restricted breed’ dog is currently impossible. Visual determinations of breed made by a Victorian government appointed ‘breed panel’ of experts was overturned by legal challenge. • There are no definitive objective criteria, such as a DNA test, to identify a Pitbull Terrier. • The Division of Local Government in NSW reports that in 2005 only 1-2% of attacking dogs were identified as restricted breeds i.e. 98% were not. The percentage of bites attributable to restricted breed dogs has been steadily decreasing (0.06% in 2008 and 0.2% in 2009). Therefore, BSL could only ever be expected to reduce the number dog bites by a very small amount. • Any breed of dog breed can bite regardless of breed. The challenge is identifying which one is likely to do so before they actually do it. Recommendations • Identifying strategies that work elsewhere and implementing them. For example, Calgary, Canada has reduced dog bites and shelter euthanasia; increased desexing and regulatory compliance without BSL or mandating desexing. Incidentally, Calgary has a very high population of Pitbull Terriers (see http://www.petsmartcharities.org/resources/the-calgary-model-for-success.html). • Develop the ability to identify individual dogs that have a propensity to bite, regardless of species by establishing if there are genetic markers of canine aggression. • Provision of widespread, low-cost dog training targeting problematic and anti-social behaviour to proactively prevent issues developing. • Development of validated assessments for good temperament and only breeding with dogs that have passed such tests to reduce aggression. While all dogs have the ability to bite, the risk is mediated by the size and sociability of the dog, genetic factors, specific breed characteristics (which are the focus of current attention) and owner responsibility. The Calgary experience indicates that owner responsibility is the key variable. Animal Aid believes that society’s interests are best served by moving away from BSL and using a combination of strategies to reduce dog bites including rewarding responsible owners who register, socialise and train their dogs while rigorously enforcing registration requirements and owner liability for the offences that their dog’s commit.
Q: What breeds of dogs have been targeted by BSL? A: Various breeds have been or currently are targeted by BSL. Until the law was repealed in 2009, Italy regulated the keeping of 17 breeds. In the United States, jurisdictions have either banned or put discriminatory restrictions on one or all of the following: Akita, “Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldogs”, Alaskan Malamute, “American Bandogge”, American Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Belgian Malinois, Bullmastiff, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Chihuahua, Chow Chow, Dalmatian, Doberman Pinscher, Dogo Argentino, “Fila Brasileiro”, German Shepherd Dog, Miniature Bull Terrier, Neapolitan Mastiff, "Pit bull" (please note that "pit bull" is not a breed of dog), Perro de Presa Canario, Rottweiler, Shar Pei, Siberian Husky, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, “Tosa Inu”, and wolf-hybrids. These ordinances also target dogs suspected of being mixes of one or more of the named breeds. - See more at: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/#sthash.VC2tNE0z.dpuf
Q: What is the trend in BSL? A: There is a growing awareness that BSL does not improve community safety and penalizes responsible dog owners and their family companions. From January 2012-May 2014, more than seven times as many American communities have either considered and rejected a breed-specific ordinance, or repealed an existing one, as have enacted BSL.[9] Massachusetts, Nevada, Connecticut, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Utah have recently enacted state laws that prohibit their towns and counties from regulating dogs on the basis of breed. Eighteen states now prohibit BSL. The White House Administration has announced its opposition to BSL, stating that “research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”[10] - See more at: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/#sthash.VC2tNE0z.dpuf
“Breed-specific” legislation (BSL) is, essentially, canine bigotry. More specifically, the term refers to regional laws that ban or regulate certain breeds of dog in the hopes of reducing attacks on humans. Not only is BSL unjust, it just doesn’t work. Anywhere. And the stats prove it. Because of this, many cities (and states and countries) have repealed their antiquated BSL laws over the years, but far too many cities and municipalities (including Denver and Miami) have them intact. Legalized discrimination, much? These laws are based on nothing more than misconceptions, misinformation and fear. So, here are ten facts about BSL, and what you can do to take action: 1. BSL Kills. Because of these BSL (and widespread misinformation), pit bulls have almost no chance of survival in public shelters. In many regions, they’re killed immediately upon shelter admission, with no opportunity to find a new home. Their euthanasia rate, overall, hovers around a staggering 93 percent. 2. Dog Bite Fatalities are Extremely Rare. Between 1999 and 2006, an average of 27 Americans died each year as a result of a dog attack, according to a Journal of the American Medical Association report. Meanwhile, estimates suggest an average of 40 to 50 Americans die each year from lightning strikes. 3. There’s No Evidence That Banning Breeds has Any Impact on Dog Bites. Period.
SURELY SOMEONE HAS HAD SUCCESS WITH BSL?
The effects of BSL on public safety are seriously understudied, especially by the scientific community. The few scientific studies that exist have indicated that BSL has little to no effect on public safety. In some cases, as in the U.K., dog bites appear to be a growing problem in spite of BSL. To date, there are no scientific studies anywhere that confirm BSL or breed bans have had a significant positive effect on public safety. The reasons for this lack of data are numerous: Some cities that pass BSL fail to collect bite data after passage of the legislation. They assume that the problem is solved, and do not look into the issue again. Or, as with Aurora, the city changes its method of bite data collection so that it becomes difficult if not impossible to compare pre- and post-BSL dog bites. Sometimes the city only tracks bites by “pit bulls” and not other breeds, so it is not possible to discern whether another breed is causing more problems after passage of BSL. Often, the city does not make its dog bite data freely and easily available upon request. The reasons why are unclear. One could surmise that this may be because of improper or outdated methods of record-keeping, overburdened office workers, or embarrassment over unfavorable statistics. Breed identification and many other issues raise questions as to the accuracy and validity of many dog bite statistics. There is no uniform method for collecting dog bite information, nor is there a primary organization to which all dog bites are reported. In the few cases where sufficient data has been scientifically gathered and analyzed, BSL has not been shown to reduce dog bites or improve public safety
