Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Breed-specific legislation

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rachel Cox <rachel AT hesketh.com>
  • To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Breed-specific legislation
  • Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:06:27 -0400


At 12:20 PM 4/19/2002 -0400, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
[snip]
>What are your feelings about this topic?

Strong. :)

>In my opinion (just me) breeding
>dogs-that-are-meant-to-be-dangerous-by-nature, say rotwaillers, and use
>them
>as a regular pet, with the owner having no special "training" or knowledge
>on
>this kind of breed.... well, I think it is stupid and unlawful..

I think that every breed of dog has special needs and issues. To
legislate based on breed rather than behavior does a number of
things, all negative:

It removes the responsibility from the owner by implying the
breed is simply "that way" and can't be controlled

It discourages responsible people from owning the animals, thus
leaving more of them prey to irresponsible owners

It fails to adequately deal with individual animals which *are*
dangerous

It seriously penalizes good dogs, and good owners, both by putting
the animal in legal jeopardy, and by increasing others' misinformed
prejudice against the animal. A scratch delivered by an overly-
friendly pit-bull's toenail is more likely to lead to legal trouble,
and possibly even the death of the animal, than a bite delivered by
a irritable Cocker Spaniel

It fails to recognize that irresponsible owners and the criminals
who use dogs for illegal purposes simply switch to another breed
when a breed is banned

Breeds and mixes are hard to identify and often dogs are mis-
labeled and destroyed based on paranoia and prejudice

Also, let's define "dangerous". If you mean "dangerous to other
animals", then yes, dogs bred to fight are more likely than many
other breeds to have a high degree of dog-aggression. However, the
idea that fighting-breed dogs are by nature more likely to attack
people is a myth. These dogs were bred to have a *lower*-than-usual
degree of aggression towards humans. The reason for this is that
dog fighters needed to be able to reach into the pit to separate
fighting dogs without being bitten themselves. I've done less
research on Rottweilers (JoeK?), but pit bulls have, as a breed
trait, a startlingly high degree of affection for people. Indeed,
people who get pit bulls as guard dogs are often disappointed,
because the animals tend to love everyone they meet, unless their
fuckwit owner has "trained" them to be human-aggressive.

Also, while fighting breed dogs have as part of their lineage a
higher degree of dog-aggression, there are many breeders who no
longer breed for that trait (while still breeding for the higher
degree of non-aggression towards people), so there are many of
these dogs which lack a strong dog-aggressive trait. This is not
to say that you should trust a pit bull not to fight, but it *is*
to say that many pit bulls are no more dangerous to other animals
than any terrier (bearing in mind that terriers, having been bred
to hunt small animals, do, as a breed, tend to have a lower
tolerance for other animals - this includes all terriers, not
just fighting-breed terriers).

>To me is like providing a gun to a child: it is a not so bright idea; It is
>dangerous for the child; it is dangerous for the child's neighbour.

Maybe. But legislating against the breed does nothing to address
the need for responsible owners, and does nothing to keep the animals
out of the hands of irresponsible ones. On the contrary, while the
more law-abiding citizens will shun the breed (to its, and their,
detriment), irresponsible people or people who are less than law-
abiding will continue to acquire the animals, who are then at a much
higher risk of being abused, of being badly socialized, of being
"trained" to be aggressive towards people, and of being allowed to
get into situations in which they can harm another animal or a person.

The AKC opposes breed bans and/or breed-specific legislation:
http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/canleg.cfm#dangerous dog

as does the ASPCA:
http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=positions_breeds

as well as many responsible dog owners and owner associations,
and the American Veterinary Medical Association:

Responsible ownership the alternative to breed banning, other
restrictions
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov00/s111500c.asp

Report Looks at Dog Breeds Involved in Fatal Human Attacks
and Concludes that Breed-specific Legislation is Not the
Answer
http://www.avma.org/press/pidogattacks00.asp

Chicago ordinance passes: "It's the deed, not the breed"
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jan02/s010102e.asp

Any dog can be dangerous. In tests done by the American Temperament Test
Society on over 300 American Pit Bull Terriers (www.atts.org/stats1.html),
the breed passed with 82.3%. This beats the Golden Retriever (576/81.9%),
the Collie (666/78.2%), the Belgian Sheepdog (393/77.6%), the Shetland
Sheepdog (411/66.9%), and a huge number of other breeds that most would
never consider banning. Nearly 400 American Staffordshire Terriers
were tested and passed at a very respectable 81.6%. Dog attacks are not
breed-specific. According to the study referenced above ("Report Looks
at Dog Breeds...."), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher
rates than pit bulls, and dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been
responsible for fatal attacks on people, including Dachshunds, Golden
Retrievers, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a Labrador Retriever. Pit bulls are
clearly not the problem; irresponsible owners are. Breed-specific laws
let bad owners off the hook by pretending the problem is the breed.

I could go on, but for now I'll just provide some further links for
those interested:

http://www.badrap.org/
http://www.pbrc.net/
http://www.pbrc.net/breedspecific.html
http://pbrc.net/petbull/
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html
http://www.forpitssake.org/
http://www.pitbullpress.com/
http://www.dominodogs.org/
http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/
http://www.pitbullpress.com/
http://www.pitbullpress.com/advocacy.html

Cheers!
-Rachel
_____________________________________________________________________
Rachel Cox | Web Developer | 919.834.2552 x16 | hesketh.com/inc
Image is only the beginning. Knowledge is profitable.
http://www.hesketh.com/proof/white_papers/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page