Breed bans won't stop dog attacks

[bigdoglover]

Chicago Tribune

Laws should regulate behavior of all dangerous dogs--and owners

By Adam Goldfarb, an expert on dangerous dogs with the Humane Society of the U.S

There's an adage that says, "When a dog bites a man, it's not news, but when a man bites a dog, it is news." These days, dog bites don't just lead to news, they lead to fights between neighbors, lawsuits and controversial legislation. Unfortunately, laws that ban certain breeds of dog from a community provide nothing more than the illusion of safety.

Many communities struggle with issues related to dangerous dogs. Some have responded with breed bans, yet time and again such laws have failed to solve dangerous-dog problems. Lawmakers who educate themselves and understand this issue quickly recognize that a truly effective law must address all dangerous dogs, regardless of breed.

There are many factors that contribute to a dog's temperament, but breed bans only address one of those factors. If elected officials are comfortable with regulation of such a limited scope, then the one factor to be targeted should be the most common.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 70 percent of dogs involved in biting incidents are intact (not neutered) males. No other single factor is so highly represented in dog attacks. Mandatory pet sterilization is certainly a viable option, but this can also be easily addressed without legislation, through government-subsidized spay/neuter programs and community education about proper pet care.

Being a responsible pet owner is not difficult, but there are individuals who either don't care about their pets or who intentionally create aggressive animals. Too often, these individuals are the ones who cause problems for the community. The behaviors of these individuals are easily recognized and should be the target of dangerous-dog legislation.

Dogs that live chained up are nearly three times more likely to bite, the CDC says. Dogs that routinely run loose can cause numerous problems in their neighborhoods. Dogs that are trained for fightingalready have criminal owners.

Communities rely on animal control to enforce the laws, but most animal-control offices are already understaffed and underfunded. Because of the inherent difficulties of enforcing breed bans, they would only add more strain to an already overextended department. Breed identification is tricky and unscientific.

Laws that clearly identify dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs are the best tools for animal control and law enforcement officials. This is so important because in nearly all serious dog attacks, the dog involved was either known to the neighborhood or animal control as a roaming nuisance, had previously bitten or was being kept for inappropriate reasons. Laws addressing potentially dangerous dogs consider the many factors that contribute to a dog's likelihood to bite and single out behaviors that are indicative of aggression. These laws can be reactive by punishing the owners of dogs that have menaced people or other animals, or the laws can be preventative by targeting irresponsible and dangerous owner behaviors.

If Chicago truly wants effective laws to prevent dog attacks, a breed ban is not the answer. The city will be better armed with comprehensive dangerous-dog legislation, dog-bite education and enforcement of responsible laws on keeping pets. Legislation aimed at holding dog owners responsible rather than punishing the dogs is the most effective way to reduce the number of dog bites and attacks. Non-breed-specific laws that are enforced offer an effective and fair solution to the problem of dangerous dogs in all communities.

[rmci]

Here here!