Tabetha Liljequist
English 120 1:00 MWF
Mr. Steven Hammer
Time Magazine
Breed Bans Don’t Solve the problem
Dogs have been denoted as man’s best friend, but there is an ever growing rift between
these age old friends. In the new millennium a new push has come to rid communities of certain
breeds due to their lethality. Misuse of “bully” breed dogs in fighting rings and as attack dogs
has led to a reputation that is overshadowing the true nature of the targeted. High profile cases,
like NFL player Michael Vic and his dog-fighting ring, have brought great attention to these
animals and not in a positive manner. Families all across the country who own “bully” breeds
have to relocate, keep their pets isolated from the public, and in some extreme cases have them
euthanized without a say. These consequences are part of the Breed Specific Legislation,
although the rules of these bans vary from city to city, the end result is the same, the breed is
punished even if it has done nothing wrong.
The “Pit Bull” has not always been the object of fear in the public’s eye. These breeds
were once icons revered as “America’s Breed” : RCA’s “Nipper” [....] Buster Brown’s “Tige”;
“Pete the Pup,” part of the Little Rascals [...] and the pit bull pictured on celebrated World War I
poster proclaiming: “Land of the free, Home of the Brave”(Dayan). They have since become the
villains of society. “Now the pit bull is the most demonized breed, the poster dog for dog
fighting, the herald of criminality and drug dealing, the mauler of children” (Dayan). This
depiction of the breeds has led to the proposed bans to eliminate these “problem” breeds. This is
not the first time in history that specific breeds have been persecuted for aggression. “In the 60’
and 70’s it was German Shepherds and Dobermans. In the 80’s and 90’s it was Rottweilers, and
now its pit bulls. These dogs are not inherently dangerous, but because they are sought after by
reckless individuals who want dogs to be a weapon or status symbol, they are changing the dog
and changing the perception of the breed” (Castle). The problem is not the dogs themselves but
the circumstances surrounding them.
The discussion of aggression in dogs is a timeless debate. There is a misunderstanding when
people discuss animal behavior and assuming that only the “bully” breeds are to be considered
inherently aggressive. This misunderstanding has led to fear amongst people that in turn have led
to laws being created to punish the animals without questioning the entire situation. Dr. Keith
Campbell of the Canadian Veterinary Association says that “Specific breed bans might give
people a false sense of security by indicating that permitted dogs are safe despite risky behavior
that might prompt a dog to bite” (Frabotta). Adam Goldfarb, the director of the Humane Society
of the United State’s Pets at Risk program also says, “Banning a breed does not get to the root
causes of why dogs are aggressive” (Castle).These bans do not solve the problem of aggression;
it only pacifies the public’s need for a quick solution.
Aggression in a dog is not only limited to a specific breed there are many factors that can
lead to an increased chance to a bite or attack taking place. Any breed of dog has the capability
of biting another dog or human being, from the smallest Chihuahua to largest Great Dane. There
are contributing factors that can lead to a more probable circumstance for a dog to bite. The
Humane Society of the United States says, “Again, breed alone is not an adequate indictor of a
dog’s propensity to bite. Rather, a dog’s tendency to bite is a product of several factors,
including but not limited to:
* Early socialization, or lack thereof, of the dog to people.
*Sound obedience training for recognition of where he or she "fits" with regard to dominance
and people, or mis-training for fighting or increased aggression.
*Genetic makeup, including breed and strains within a breed.
*Quality of care and supervision by the owner (is the dog part of the family or is she kept
chained outside?).
*Current levels of socialization of the dog with his or her human family.
*Behavior of the victim.
*Whether the dog has been spayed or neutered.
(HSUS). These are things that need to be looked at when deciding whether or not a dog is
deemed vicious by the public.
The first issue that is raised by those against these bans is that there is a difference
amongst the breeds denoted as “pit bulls”. The problem with the this broad grouping is that “the
“pit bull” isn’t really a breed at all but rather a generic name given to dogs with features we’ve
come to associate with a certain type of dog with certain aggressive characteristics” ( Balko).
The group of dogs in question do share some inherited traits but each of them are part of their
own breed. The banned breeds include the American Staffordshire Terrier (AmStaff), the
American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), the Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Miniature
Bull Terrier and the American Bulldog.
Another problem that is raised with the Breed Specific Legislation is whether or not it
infringes on a person’s rights. Arguments have been made that these bans interfere with an
owner’s fourteenth amendment rights. The problem with the laws is that it that it denies owners
of due process of seizure of their personal property. In an article written in the Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association the group of doctors who contributed to it discuss the
concerns regarding an owner’s rights. They conclude that any type of dog may bite so by only
targeting one breed of dog does not incorporate all breeds of dogs that have attacked people. This
in turn “violate(s) owners’ equal protection rights”. The doctors also include that identifying the
exact breed of dog included in the bans is subjective. This creates the problem that the bans are
“unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore violate due process” (Sacks). Even though these points
have been made in defending an owner’s right to keep their “bully” breed, the laws still get
enforced by courts.
The AVMA also has done extensive research in looking at the statistics of dog bites and
attacks. They conclude that “Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an
accurate picture of dogs that bite. Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large
breeds are a problem” (AVMA). These numbers are skewed due to several factors that make
obtaining accurate data next to impossible. The article includes that the first problem is that
breeds of dogs are not being properly identified. There are a high number of mixed breeds
getting mistaken for purebreds and the numbers are inaccurate because of this. The next is that
knowing the true number of bites that occur is difficult to obtain. These numbers are not accurate
because many bites do not need medical attention so the attack goes unrecorded. The third
problem is knowing the exact number of dogs of a particular breed located in one area. Many
dogs are not registered so to create a fair and accurate statistic the exact number needs to be
known (AVMA). This information weighs against the use of breed specific bans because the data
is not accurate.
Another problem found in the AVMA’s research surrounding the issue of dangerous dogs
argues that these bans are not as objective as they seem. One fault found in these laws is that
mixed breed dogs are not recognized by most kennel clubs, so owners do not have a clear answer
to whether their dogs are included in the ban, since in actuality their dogs are not one specific
breed. Another point raised is that the law enforcement is not equipped with the necessary skills
to determine a dog’s breed accurately. This leaves room for reasonable doubt in a court room.
The article also concludes that law enforcement do not have a one hundred percent way of
determining if an owner have violated these bans or not. The final thing that the laws fail to take
in to consideration is what “normal” behavior for dogs is (AVMA). These laws fail to address
that all dogs who have bitten someone should be included when determining a ban.
Breed bans are not an adequate solution to the problem. Education of the public is the
best way to prevent dog attacks in a community. Many members of the community need to be
involved if a reduction in dog bites is to be achieved. This process starts out with the city
officials. The members in these positions need to be informed about all the issues surrounding
the public and their concerns about dogs. The city leaders can create laws that protect the
community and the dogs from accidents. The next groups of people to be involved in providing
aid in creating a sustainable plan are the professionals in the community. These members are
capable of providing a realistic view to how the issues can be handled in the community. The
next group that is vital in contributing to educating the public is Veterinarians. The members of
this group are highly trained professionals that work closely with animals and understand their
behaviors (AVMA). All other members of the community are also pivotal in solving the dog bite
issue.
The Breed Specific Legislation is not a definitive solution to the bigger problem, which is
dog aggression. This behavior cannot be completely blamed on one specific breed. All dogs have
the ability to bite or attack a person or another dog. The problem lies within the education of the
community. That fact that these laws have come about due to public fear and perceived
perception of these breeds and not by accurate data shows a flaw in their necessity.
Works Cited
Balko, Radley.”Pit bull ban punishes dogs for bad owners”. Foxnews.com.Fox News Network.
25 September 2006.Web. 27 October 2010.
Castle, Kevin. “Humane Society official says pit bull bans unsuccessful”. Kingsport Publishing
Corporation.Timesnews.net.5 September 2009. Web. 27 October 2010.
Dayan, Colin. Breed bans, euthanasia, and preemptive justice.Bostonreview.net. Boston Review.
March/April 2010. Web. 27 October 2010.
Frabotta, David. “Pit bulls bear brunt of breed bans”. Advanstar Communications. Dvm360.com.
1 January 2005. Web. 27 October 2010.