Politics & BSL (Breed Specific Legislation)

---

Spokesman Koen Geelink said Monday the ministry hopes to have a new policy in place by year-end, in which dogs that have displayed aggression will be tested by an expert.

*In 1999, six years after the ban on Pit bulls in the Netherlands, the Dutch Consumer Safety Institute reported that dog bites continued with approx. 12,000 people being treated in emergency departments and with 220 hospitalizations.

Additionally, in the years after the ban, at least 3 children were killed by dogs in the Netherlands.

There is no evidence that breed-specific legislation has been effective in reducing the frequency or severity of attacks in any community, city, county or country.

However, canine aggression continues to be viewed by many as a breed specific trait and lawmakers and politicians persist on introducing dangerous dog legislation as a breed specific issue.

In addition to the fact that there is no evidence of the effectiveness of BSL, some politicians, in the process of defending their positions on the "dangerousness" of Pit Bulls, have made statements about fatal dog attacks and Pit Bulls that have no factual documentation.

Unsubstantiated claims about the number of fatal attacks and the breeds involved in these incidents are becoming more frequent. Since, no other professional national agency is presently researching fatal dog attacks, erroneous statistics and comments from lawmakers are going unchallenged, thereby making it necessary for the NCRC to address factual errors about Pit Bulls, canine behavior, and dog attacks.

The frightening reality of breed specific legislation is how little effort, critical thinking, concern for the facts or commitment to solving the "problem" many politicians demonstrate in the introduction and passage of breed bans. Equally disturbing are comments made by politicians who have NO knowledge, training or expertise on dogs, dog attacks, breeds of dogs or canine behavior; yet present their personal opinions as "facts." This is clearly demonstrated by Lakewood Councilman Brian Powers comments printed in the Lakewood Observer on May 25, 2008:

Mr. Powers stated: "Unfortunately, yes, Pit bulls are very dangerous. When a Labrador, Collie or other dog bites, you might end up with a bruise, or in some cases, a puncture wound. When a pit bull attacks, you may end up maimed for life or, in many cases, dead."

NCRC comment:  There is no truth to this statement. This is the personal opinion of a person who has little to no knowledge about the types, nature or frequency of dog attacks by other breeds of dogs and even less knowledge about attacks by "Pit bulls." There is no evidence whatsoever that would substantiate such a claim. Not only is there no evidence to support this claim, there is documented evidence which uniformly disproves it. Serious, severe and fatal attacks have been attributed to hundreds of different breeds - Mr. Powers simply has no knowledge of them.

With a population of approximately 74 million dogs in the United States, only 24 people a year, on average, are killed by dogs of all breeds combined.  To state that in "many cases" Pit bull attacks result in death is highly inaccurate and irresponsible. Fatal attacks are exceedingly rare for ANY breed of dog.

Mr. Powers stated: "Every legitimate study conducted in America, including the study by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, has demonstrated that pit bull bites are more likely to result in a fatality than bites or attacks by any other breed."

NCRC comment:   Mr. Powers has either misunderstood or misrepresented the study in question. In response to politicians, such as Mr. Powers, misquoting and misusing their study, the CDC has posted the following statement on their website:

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years. It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."

The authors of the very study Mr. Powers uses to support his argument have issued a statement directly refuting his claim.

Mr. Powers stated:  "Pit bulls account for less than 3-4% of the dogs in our country."

NCRC comment:  Mr. Powers has seemingly acquired knowledge about the population of dogs which seems to have eluded all the epidemiologists and canine professionals. The CDC (see above comment) has clearly stated there is "no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed."

The NCRC has found, after a decade of research on the subject, that there is simply no way to accurately determine the number of any given breed within the total dog population.

Mr. Powers stated: "Another study conducted in 1982 through 2006 similarly concluded that 44% of all fatalities from dog attacks involved pit bulls."

NCRC comment:  The study Mr. Powers is referring to has been soundly denounced as a scrapbook of newspaper articles collected and presented as a "study" by a newspaper editor.

For the NCRC's analysis of this "study" please see:

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites1.asp

 Mr. Powers stated: "Veterinarians and their staff are often specially trained to deal with aggressive dogs.  Vets are understandably careful about publicly bashing any breed of dog, for fear of backlash from the public."

NCRC comment:  It is troubling that Mr. Powers would make such a disparaging remark about the intentions, motivations, and "fear" of the entire veterinary profession.

Mr. Powers has apparently dismissed the entire veterinary profession as having an "agenda" and instead chosen to use a random collection of newspaper articles as his source of information on dog attacks and Pit bulls.

Mr. Powers stated: "Pit bull fans always point out that Helen Keller owned one, but they fail to mention that, more recently, Michael Vick owned 49 Pit bulls. And the Little Rascals was a fictionalized account of childhood in the Great Depression, not a documentary."

NCRC Comment: It is difficult to make an intelligent response to these rather bizarre comments. Yes, Michael Vick did own 49 pit bulls and some of those dogs suffered extreme abuse - yet, the dogs rescued from Vick's property proved to be docile despite the horrors that they endured. Many of them have gone on to be loving, gentle, grateful pets and even therapy dogs. How can this in any way be viewed or presented as "evidence" of the breed's temperament, other than how forgiving and tolerant these dogs are of human cruelty, abuse and violence? To imply that this is anything other than an issue of human cruelty is disturbing.

As far as the Little Rascals being a fictionalized account, this is true. But, the very obvious point Mr. Powers seems unable to grasp is that the dog playing in this fictionalized story, Petey, was real.  Meaning it was not a Collie or Labrador dressed up as a pit bull - it was one of millions of real pit bulls that have played with children over the decades, this one just also happened to play in the movies.

Minnesota

Rep. John Lesch has expressed his intentions of introducing breed specific legislation in 2008 to ban five (5) breeds/types of dogs throughout the entire state of Minnesota. http://wcco.com/local/dog.attack.breeds.2.368167.html

The breeds/types of dogs personally chosen by Rep. Lesch to be banned from Minnesota are:  Rottweiler, Chow chow, Akita, Wolf-dog and "Pit bull" and ANY dog that appears to have the "traits" of these breeds/types of dog.

Such a draconian ban and the devastating impact it would have on dogs and their owners is presented by Lesch as necessary to protect Minnesotans from the "very real threat" his constituents face from these breeds/types of dogs.

So what evidence does Rep. Lesch have of the "real threat" posed to Minnesotans from these five breeds/types of dogs and all their look-a-like brethren?

Over the past 43 years there has been only ONE human fatality in the state of Minnesota by any of these 5 breeds/types of dogs. 

Of all the Rottweilers, Chow chows, Akitas, Wolf hybrids and "Pit bulls" that live, or have lived, in Minnesota over the past 43 years, only one of these dogs was involved in a fatal attack on a human. (And in this case the father was charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to safeguard his son from a dog he mismanaged and maintained in a stressful environment).

Despite the unprecedented popularity of Pit bulls and Rottweilers in the past decade, reported dog bites in St. Paul are at historic lows:

• In 1971 St. Paul had 1,346 reported dog bites
• In 2004 St. Paul had   219 reported dog bites
• In 2005 St. Paul had   212 reported dog bites

Minneapolis has also shown a stunning decrease in the number of reported dogs bites from the 1970s:

• From 1971 - 1973  Minneapolis had  5,078 reported dog bites
• From 2004 - 2006  Minneapolis had    794  reported dog bites

Additionally, Rep. Lesch's lack of knowledge about the frequency and causes of dog attacks, and his inability to analyze dog bite data can be demonstrated by a radio interview conducted in the fall of 2007. During the interview, Rep. Lesch adamantly insisted that the woman who received the first face transplant was attacked by a "Pit bull."    It is widely known, and well-documented, that the traumatic injuries to this woman were inflicted by her Labrador Retriever.

Denver, Colorado

Kory Nelson, Assistant City Attorney for the Denver City Attorney's Office is quoted with making the following remark in his defense of Denver's ban on Pit bulls:  ("City Plans to Fight for Pit Bull Ban")

"The fact we haven't had fatal attacks in years indicates it (the  ban) may be working"

A person with any knowledge or understanding of the epidemiology of fatal dog attacks would know this to be a baseless conclusion.

The last fatal Pit Bull attack in Denver occurred in 1986. Denver instituted a ban on Pit Bulls in 1989. Mr. Nelson, unversed in the patterns, frequency andd circumstances of fatal dog attacks, draws a conclusion about the effects of the ban and the incidence of fatal dog (Pit bull) attacks with no evidence to support this claim.

Portland, Oregon, a city with approx. the same population as Denver, also reported a fatal Pit Bull attack in 1986. Portland, Oregon did not institute a ban on Pit Bulls after this incident, yet they have not had another incidence of a fatal Pit bull attack since 1986.

Fact:  A city without breed specific legislation (Portland) has had NO fatal dog attacks after 1986.

Fact:  A city with breed specific legislation (Denver) has had a fatal dog attack (non-Pit bull) after 1986.

 nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com