KC DOG BLOG

Death in the UK highlights the failings of BSL

A four year old boy, John Paul Massey,was attacked and killed by a dog in his grandmother's home in the UK. And the reaction of the media and local authorities has highlighted why the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 in the UK has failed -- and failed miserably.

Most of the focus of the media articles, and of the authorites, have involved what breed of dog was involved in the attack. According to one news source:

Police said genetic tests would be carried out to establish the breed of the dog involved.

Added the police spokesman: "The process of identification of whether a dog is illegal under the dangerous dog act takes time.

"It is a complex issue and further forensic examinations are ongoing to establish the type of dog involved in this attack."

The dog, for what it's worth, has been described in the media as a "mastiff", a "bull-terrier" a "bull terrier-type", a "bull dog", a mastiff/Bull terrier cross and even one report of it being a 'pit bull".

And while the authorities have been talking about the breed of dog involved, and the media has been creating sensational images around the attack, not once, in nearly 200 articles about this, has anyone seemed at all interested in the circumstances surrounding an attack that led to a four year old boy to be killed.

And that's where this whole thing has gone wrong.

Anyone with any sense at all realizes at this point that breeds are not responsible for aggressive attacks -- that it takes a series of unfortunate circumstances and a neglegent owner for them to happen. By focusing on breeds of dogs, the authorities in the UK are not only wasting their animal control resources trying to gather up 'pit bulls', but are missing a key element to ending major attacks -- which is educating owners on the causes that lead up them.

The reason this dog attacked is the same -- regardless of what breed of dog it ends up being.  But unfortunately, in the UK, they've chosen to focus on breeds, and throwing the educational piece out the window -- and the citizens in the UK are worse off for it. 

In spite of the breed ban that dates back to 1991 - -and quite likely BECAUSE of the breed ban -- major attacks are becomming almost commonplace in the UK. 

In Bradford, the areas saw 42 people treated in the hospital from dog bites in 2001/02 and 41 in '02/'03. That number has been near or above 90 in each of the past 3 years.

In Lancashire, the number of people hospitalized from dog attacks had doubled in just the past 5 years -- from 36 in 2003 to 75 in 2008.

In West Yorkshire, the number of people treated in hospitals for dog bites had gone up 43% in the past 5 yars.

In Midland, hospitalizations are up 60%.

In Scotland, the number has risen 160% in the past 8 years.

Across the nation, the law has been a failure -- and they continue to just throw more money at the issue vs actually dealing with the problem.  And the problem is that everyone in the country seems too focused on "breeds" to realize that it isn't breeds causing the problems, it's a lack of owner education and a lack of focus on irrepsonsible owners that is causing the problem -- and both problems are actually INCREASED because of their breed ban, not improved.  Because of all of this, there is becoming an increased push across the UK to overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act. And not a moment too soon.

Folks, BSL is failing -- everywhere.

Weekly Roundup, Week Ending 8/9/09

It's been quite a week. Denver is considering a possible repeal of their long-standing ban on pit bulls because of the financial drain the repeated court cases are having on their city budget. Lakewood, OH has run yet another non-pit bull owner out of their community due to an inability to identify dog breeds, Omaha's first six months with breed specific legislation has proven to be a disaster...both in terms of reducing dog bites and its impact on the city budget, and Kansas City, MO has implemented some new 'performance standards" for animal control that will reward ACOs for bringing more animals into the shelter.   For the life of me I have no idea why a city would want to impose breed specific language when the evidence of its failures is everywhere and there are so many successful models that exist without breed specific language. I feel like the tide is turning...we'll see. 

On to the rest of the week's stories -- and there are a lot of odd ones for sure:

Cities and Laws

The saga in Sioux City, IA took yet another interesting turn this week. For the past 9 months or so, Sioux City, IA has undergone a series of embarrassments coming out of their ban on 'pit bulls' -- the latest being when councilman Aaron Rochester -- who was the leader in getting the ban passed -- let his Labrador get free and it attacked a passing jogger. The dog was declared vicious by the courts and sentenced to be killed -- but this week, Rochester's dog, Jake, was freed from the kennel when someone cut the lock off a chain link fence and rescued Jake.  Rochester's comments seem very odd, including noting that he isn't upset by his dog being stolen, he's 'surprised' but thought something like this could happen and claims to have no clue as to who could be responsible, even though some people have apparently said to him that they might do it. Nearly a year later, the fols in Sioux City are STILL discussing changes to their dog ordinance, and the saga continues to get weirder. Yes Biscuit! has a great writeup on this as well this week.

Mount Clemens, MI passed a ban on pit bulls this week, in spite of about 35 people coming out to testify against the ordinance and only a couple that spoke in favor.  Their ordinance allows people to keep their existing "pit bulls" with restrictions, but that the restrictions could be avoided if the dog is certified through the AKC's Canine Good Citizen program. This is similar to what Omaha did with their ordinance which essentially requires responsible owners -- who were never a problem in the first place -- to jump through a series of hoops in order to keep their dogs and takes the focus away from the owners that are irresponsible in the first place. Omaha's law has not been successful, but I guess Mount Clemens thought they should try it anyway.

Pine Bluff, AR officials are meeting trying to seek additional penalties for repeat offenders of their vicious dog ordinance. In 2006, Pine Bluffs enacted a breed specific ordinance that required owners of 'pit bulls' to have signs, an insurance policy, and a special registry for their dogs, however, the city continues to have problems with a small group of repeate offenders.  Most cities have a small group of dog owners that creat the majority of the dog bite problems in a their community, and yet instead of focusing on these owners, they make a more broad-sweeping law that creates hurdles for good dog owners to have to jump through....which just doesn't make sense.

Elyria, OH is considering a new dangerous dog law with breed specific language.

Denmark is now considering nationwide BSL -- hopefully they'll look at the failures of their UK neighbors (see below) and realize why this is such a bad idea.

Rock Hill, NC is putting in strong restrictions on how dog owners can keep their dogs with the hope of ending the mistreatment of dogs in their community after 13 dogs were found in the woods strapped with logging chains and without dog houses.  These types of ordinances make complete sense if public safety and improving the lives of animals is your goal.

Yorkville, IL has decided against breed specific language in their laws.

Miami Dade County lost two lawsuits this week when dogs that were confiscated from homes under the city's breed ban were determined to not be any of the banned breeds. Breed ID via site is proving to be futile....and not only making BSL unenforcable, it is showing that most dog bite studies based on breed are actually bunk because the breed ID is not reliable.

Nackawic, CA is looking at potentially eliminating their breed specific law and making a behavior-based ordinance.

Ortonville, MI is looking at potential breed specific legislation because an owner can't seem to kep her dog from getting loose -- with the owner getting three dog at large tickets in the past month.  Note to Ortonville, this owner is the problem...not an entire breed of dogs.

Dog Bites/Attacks

A Labrador Retriever that was tied to a metal fence bit a 2 year old Seattle area girl. The girl had a small puncture on her face that required a stitch. 

A 10 year old boy was bitten in the face by a dog (breed was unmentioned) in Connecticut.

An electrical repairman in DeWitt, IA was severely attacked by three dogs that circled him and attacked him. The dogs were described as an American Bulldog, Boxer and a Huskie that were all running at-large.

A four year old girl was bitten for the second time by the family's Beagle/Dachsund mix.  Apparently the dog had bitten the child before, but the child went over and laid on the dog. The incident appears to be a complete example of why educating parents how to introduce children and dogs together is increasingly important....for both the child and the dog. Now the dog will be killed because the parents failed to teach their toddler not lay on their dog.

An 82 year old Park Ridge, IL man was bitten by his neighbor's German Shepherds that were running at large.

Note that in none of the above stories was the dog breed mentioned in the headline.

In Miami-Dade County (which has had a ban on 'pit bulls' for 20 years), there is a news story about a 'pit bull' that apparently attacked a US Postal worker. Now, the term 'pit bull' is used in the headline, but if you go to the 14th paragraph of the article, you'll note that the dog, named "Blue", was registered as an Australian Shepherd (although I wonder if they mean Australian Cattle Dog/Blue Heeler given the dog's name).  In the 15th paragraph, you'll note that the writer of the story admits that the breed of dog has not been confirmed -- even though the headline appears to say otherwise. Meanwhile, regardless of the breed, the owner does need to be held accountable and it is further evidence that Miami's 2-decade-old ban is not improving public safety in their comunity.

A 13 year old girl in Sacramento was bitten by a 'pit bull' that was owned by the family. Apparently the girl was watching the family's three dogs play in the back yard when the dog ran into the girl, knocking her down, and then bit her.  The girl's injuries are described as minor, even though the word "attack" was used in both the headline and the story lead -- along with the words 'pit bull'.

A three year old Apopka, FL boy was attacked by his uncle's German Shepherd that was chained out in front of the home. The boy underwent emergency surgery following the attack.  The boy received over 100 stitches in his face and neck.  Some reports have noted that the young boy may have been throwing rocks and sticks at the dog prior to being attacked.  Apparently this is the second time the boy has been bitten by the dog.

A nine year old Corner Brook girl was bitten when a German Shepherd broke free from its chain and attacked her.

The UK Dangerous Dogs Act

Dog bites in West Yorkshire, UK have gone up more than 43% over the past 5 years in spite of the country-wide ban on  four breeds of dogs. The UK, often cited as an example of a place that passed a ban on 'pit bulls' and other breeds continues to be a complete failure at improving public safety because they still haven't figure out how to deal with the irresponsible dog owner situation.

In Lancashire, the bite increases are even more major. In the past 5 years, the number of severe attacks in that area have more than doubled.

A UK couple that was out walking their Rottweilers were attacked by two at-large Bull Mastiff-type dogs.

Miscellanious

This is a great story from the Gloucester (MA) Times about dog bites, with some refreshing outlooks on causes of dog bites and who's fault it is when one does (yip, that person who owns the dog).  It's refreshing when a newspaper does a well-informed article, that educates the public, and puts the responsibility of dog ownership on the dog owner.

A call for help from Best Friends for rescue groups and foster homes to step up to help the 400_ dogs confiscated from a major dog fighting ring bust about a month ago.

Olathe, KS has voted to keep their animal shelter open for at least one more year. Due to budget limitations, they have been considering contracting out shelter operations to nearby Animal Haven.

An interesting article about the growing veterinary field of canine forensics.

The pit bull, nanny dog, an endangered species -- a good write up from the Examiner folks on the failings of BSL -- featuring a mention of a blind pit bull that was taken from her owner in Independence following the city's breed ban.

I don't know anything about this movie --but an interesting trailer is now online for a trailer to a new documentary highlighting the plight of 'pit bulls' in the city of Denver.

Must-read Blog postings from the week:

Yes Biscuit! has a video of a man who's 'pit bull' save his son's life.

One Bark at a Time posts two photographs that tell a very sad, telling story. Fred is usually a great writer, but sometimes let's his photography skills do the talking for him. Folks, if you have older friends or family in your life, please make plans for what will happen with the companion dog when/if the dog's caretaker dies.

F8Hasit has an interesting post from an American Bulldog owner's viewpoint following two incidences where dog owners of non-targeted breeds were forced out of town by the city's pit bull ban and the city's inability to correctly identify dog breeds.

For the Love of Dog Blog has a good article on dog tethering including a day in the life video of a dog that is left chained as its primary form of containment. It's a worthy watch, regardless of where you stand on the tethering issue. And while I do support certain types of ordinances that restrict tethering, I think they should be tailored specifically toward the types of owners featured in this video who, while tethering their dogs, their complete neglect of the dog is their primary crime. Not all tethering is inhumane...but certainly the type featured here is.

Terrierman has a great post on accuracy of reporting, the accuracy of blogs, and steps people should take to insure they are developing accurate opinions on particular subjects. This is great to keep in mind for those city council members who think BSL is a great solution -- if the only source you can find to justify your position is a website created by someone who was bitten by a dog as her primary credentials, then you may need to go find a more accurate source --like any of the expert animal behavior groups out there.

A really great post fromSave a Pit Bull, Save the World about how no one should be made to feel bad about owning a particular breed of dog.

European Breed Bans and admitting failure

Back in the early 90s, many European countries began enacting breeds on certain breeds of dogs based on the typical fear and hysteria -- particularly about "fighting breeds" at that time.  The breed bans have proven to be a failure in all counts because they never addresssed problems related to responsible ownership issues, and instead focused on the dogs.  The dogs were never the problem...it was always the owners.

They are finally doing something about it.

Last year, Italy repealed their breed bans -- that at one time had included nearly 100 breeds of dogs. Now it includes zero.  Italy followed The Netherlands, who originally banned 'pit bulls' in 1993, eventually added Rottweilers in 2000, and then scrapped the whole thing to focus the owners rather than the dogs in 2008.

Meanwhile, the UK's ban on four breeds of dogs has actually appeared to INCREASE their demand among the problem owners. While the point of the UK Dangerous Dogs Act (originally passed in 1991), was to eventually eliminate these breeds of dogs from the island, it has not had that effect. In fact, it appears that many of the thugs/lowlifes have gravitated toward the dogs because the idea of having an "outlawed breed" was more appealing to them.  They have also seen an increase in the number of dog fighting incidences as well.

"Things are worse now than when the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed 18 years ago and I'm seeing more status dogs coming in for treatment than ever. These latest figures only prove what the RSPCA's inspectors and animal hospitals have suspected for a long time, that more and more people are using dogs as a means of intimidation," said David Grant of the RSPCA.

See, focusing on the dogs never works. It creates demand for the targeted breeds among the people you don't want to have them (because their being outlawed creats an appeal) -- and I've written about this before.

Meanwhile, regular owners become less educated on what really causes dog bites and think they can be less responsible because their "breed" isn't "dangerous". 

All of this has led to the UK to have major attacks on a weekly basis, including a 28 year old man, and a five year old boy that were both attacked this week.

Since 1997, theUK has seen an over 50% increase in dog bites, while Scotland has seen an increase of over 150%.

With similar results seen in cities in the US that have passed similar legislation, it is amazing to me that some cities still pursue policy that has failed everywhere.

It's time we learn from what has happened in other places and insist on policies that WORK to improve public safety -- ie, targeting wreckless dog owners - -vs rehashing policy that has failed so often elsewhere.

The UK Dangerous Dogs Act - and the Law of Unintended Consequences

I've written a lot about the UK Dangerous Dogs Act.  But as new information comes out, it bears repeating.

The UK Dangerous Dogs Act was an ordinance originally passed in 1991 that banned 4 breeds of dogs from the UK: American Pit Bull Terriers, and 3 breeds of dog that barely existed at the time: Fila Brasilerios, Japanese Tosas, and the Dogo Argentino.

The ordinance was updated and strengthened in 1997.  The idea was to protect the citizens from aggressive dogs. However, the had no idead of what the unintended consequences that would ensue.

Since then, it appears that the UK has INCREASED the demand for restricted breeds -- by the exact people who you wouldn't want to own them. According to one newspaper in the UK, the number of Hospital visits caused by dog attacks is up 50% since the 1999 (even though the population of the UK has grown less than 1% during that timeframe).  Meanwhile, the total number of restricted breeds seems to be increasing also  - -with the number of dogs seized in London in 2008 up to 608 dogs seized last year - up from 40 in 2006.  This a solid 17 years after the ban began. 

It could be argued that the reason the seizures have taken place is because of an increased focus on enforcing the Dangerous Dogs Act -- but regardless, there are plenty of restricted breeds still on the islands, and plenty of people still being attacked by dogs.

At the end of the day, the Act continues to cost taxpayer dollars, and the safety of citizens in the UK.  The attacks continue to mount, including one this week -- by a Rottweiler.  Each week, I have 3 or 4 major attacks in the weekly roundup that come from the UK.

The law isn't working. It doesn't work. The focus of the law is on dogs - -and not on the owners that either a) want an aggressive dog for protection or to intimidate or b) owners who will not train or treat a dog well and end up creating a situation where the dog is underexercised and unsocialized.

If you want to solve the dog-bite issues -- you must focus on owner responsibility. There is no other way.  And hopefully the UK will soon join its European counterparts in the Netherlands and in Italy and repeal the breed bans, and focus their enforcement on irresponsible and negligent owners.

UK Dangerous Dogs Act = Fail

 For the better part of the last 15 years, the UK has been pointed to by people who support breed bans as a model that should be followed. They say, see, look, the UK did it -- as if that is reason enough for other places to pass an ordinance.

I've dedicated a fair amount of time here talking about the UK Dangerous Dogs Act, noting that everyone over there is unhappy with the Act, calling it "Intellectually Ridiculous", and noting that the UK has seen a 50% increase in serious dog bites since 1997, and Scotland, whic also is affected by the act, has seen a 150% increase in serious dog bites.

For those who aren't familiar, the UK Dangerous Dogs Act essentially banned four breeds of dogs from the island: The American Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braileiro. The law has been a major failure because it focused on breeds of dogs as being the problem, instead of focusing on irresponsible ownership practices.

The lack of acknowledging that it is poor ownership, poor training of dogs, poor recognition of canine behavior and poor supervision of children with dogs that leads to attacks, not breeds, has caused the UK Dangerous Dogs Act to fail.

Weekly it seems I have dog attack stories from the UK that make the Weekly Roundups -- but this week, they've earned a spot of their own. I never think that individual dog bite stories are an accurate way of determining anything, but this list of stories, combined with the overall increase in bite numbers over the past decade, are a strong indication that the ordinance is beyond a complete failure at this point.

A three month old toddler was mauled to death when it was left unattended with two dogs, a Jack Russell Terrier and a Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Six people were attacked and injured by two German Shepherds that were running loose.

An 8 year old boy required surgery when it was attacked by an Alsatian/Rottweiler mix that broke free from its leash.

A 6 year old boy required a two hour operation and 70 stitches to reattach his ear after being attaked by a Weimaraner.

The failures of the act have caused many to step forward calling for the review of the Dangerous Dogs Act and to change it, or disband it. Catch these quotes from MP Wayne David captured by Dog Magazine in the UK:

"This underlines the need to make sure dogs are supervised, irrespective of their breeds or temperament."

"It is important to remember the dictum 'Laws rarely prevent what they forbid.' And this isn't just about the law, it's about the human behavior and common sense on the part of anybody who is an owner of a dog."

"We need to have a much better education process in relation to dogs."

There is more here.

The education part is one thing that is severely missing when communities discuss Breed Descriminatory Laws because it makes it seem as if the dog is responsible for its own behavior, not the humans that are the owners and providers for the dogs.

And without education, laws are bound to ineffective.

I'd like to note here that even in the UK, major dog bites are quite rare compared to the overall population of people and dogs. Most dogs, regardless of breed, will live their lives in harmony with humans. However, the VAST majority of all attacks could be prevented if owners of dogs understood canine behavior better, and cared for their dogs better.

Dog Magazine writer Ryan O'Meara has another article on the Dangerous Dogs Act Costing Lives and Money for the taxpayers of the UK.

Is this the type of legislation we should emulate?

London Telegraph writer Peter Wedderburn also questions the breed-specific nature of the DDA:

"In fact, there is little evidence from dog bite data to implicate specific breeds as a greater or lesser risk of hurting humans....There's far more evidence to sugest that the best way to prevent this type of tragedy is by education of dog owners about possible risks."

It's all about the dog owners. The sooner we start addressing that, and NOT the dogs, the better off we'll all be.

Weekly Roundup -- Final week of 2008

  It's been quite the week. Thirty or so dogs saved from Oklahoma.  The Vick Dogs story came out in Sports Illustrated, with some PR on Anderson Cooper 360.  Pretty impressive stuff.  Those were easily the week's highlights, but here are a few stories that may bave been overlooked.

Cities and Laws

The Oshkosh Kennel Club had a letter to the editor this week expressing their concerns about a breed-specific dangerous dog ordinance in Oshkosh, WI.

The mayor of Pocatello, ID wants to create a vicious dog registry that tracks animals when they owners move from one juristiction to another. The move is prompted after a dog with a long attack history attacked an animal control officer earlier this month but officials were unaware of the dog's history. The state of Virginia did this recently.  I'm not sure how the ordinance is working, but I do think it is a fair rule as long as the dog was declared vicious in the former juristiction based on a behavior.

Allen Park, MI passed a ban on pit bulls this week. Current owners of pit bulls will be allowed to keep their dogs. Owners of the affected dogs can avoid certain containment restrictions, like muzzling, if their dog's pass the Canine Good Citizen Test.  The law comes with a 5 year sunset clause -- as well as a promise to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the law in two years.

Whatcom County, WA is looking at an ordinance that would require owners of more than 4 dogs or cats to obtain licenses.  If someone owns more animals than that in the county, they would have to apply for either an animal enthusiast license (5-10 animals) or a kennel license that would range from $65-$200 depending on the number of animals they owned. 

Dog Bites

A postal worker in the UK was suffered a major attack by a Rottweiler this week.  The postal worker spent 6 days in the hospital in intensive care and for a while, and authorities felt for awhile that he may lose his arm. The postal worker's union is starting a campaign to overturn the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 that banned four breeds of dogs, including American Pit Bull Terriers.

"The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act has done nothing to reduce attacks. It provides little protection for Postal and communication workers," said Dave Joyce, head of the postal worker's union.“We want to see more realistic penalties handed down by the courts when prosecutions take place with owners of aggressive dogs being held to account. My Union is not anti-dog or anti any specific bread of dog, the overwhelming majority of which cause no problem at all. However, there are a significant number of aggressive dogs and irresponsible owners which need to be dealt with.”

Speaking of the UK, Dangerous Dogs Act failure, a 13 year old UK girl is having plastic surgery following an attack in which a Bull Mastiff tore off her lower lip and chin.  The Dangerous Dogs Act was, and continues to be a failure because it focused on the breeds of dogs instead of on owners of aggressive dogs.  The breed is irrelevant.

An 11 year old boy was attacked by two American Bulldogs.  The dogs had been friendly with the boy before, but one of the dogs became aggressive and they both began attacking the boy.

There was a newstory in Oneonta, NY this week with a headling "pit bull attack injures woman." As it turns out, the woman was housesitting some friend's dogs while they were out for the holidays, and showed up at the house intoxicated -- apparently something happened and the dogs began fighting and the woman was injured trying to break up a fight between the two dogs. No one is quite sure as the woman is described as "dazed" and "confused" about the events that led to her injury. If you're going to be dog-sitting for someone, don't show up drunk...

Four people were injured in a dog attack in Boca Raton, Fl. The incident began when a "mastiff-pit bull mix" attacked a woman walking her poodle. The owner was then attacked upon trying to restrain her own dog. Two other people were injured when they tried to restrain the dog. Of course, at least a couple of the media outlets have reported this aspurely a 'pit bull' attack., and I've found a couple of others that originally reported it as a pit bull attack, but then changed it online. No one appears seriously hurt, although the poodle owner did require surgery on her wrist. 

This one crosses into a few categories, but I'm going to just put it here. On Christmas Day, a 21 year old Molalla (OR) man was attacked by two 'pit bulls' (one, from the picture, doesn't appear to be one), The attack, of course, has prompted talk of new dog laws in the city. Adam Goldfarb from HSUS has some good quotes in this one that are worthy of note:

Goldfarb said that while many pit bull owners are responsible, a notorious reputation perpetuates bad treatment of many of the dogs -- which results in more aggressive behavior.

"Unfortunately there's this cycle that develops," Goldfarb said.

Why people complain about bad media reporting

During a traffic stop in Lothian, MD, officials found 82 grams of crack cocaine, $5,800 cash and a .357 caliber handgun - -and a dog in the back of the car's trunk. What is the headline? "Pit bull found hidden in trunk of car during traffic stop in Lothian."  The headline features the only item it was illegal for them to have in their possession.

KHOU reported a story about a 'pit bull' that attacked a Harris County (Houston, TX) Sheriff's deputy.  Apparently a couple of deputies opended a gate at the scene and two dogs came from "out of nowhere" (or from inside the fence) and charged the officers. One of the officers was bitten by one of the dogs. The Houston Chronicle later reported that the officer had orginally thought that he was bitten by the pit bull, but later, after assessing the situation, determined that it was a Rottweiler that bit him "athough a pit bull also was involved."  This may not have been the media's fault -- but KHOU never did go back and change their report.

Miscellanious

Here's another article about how the economy is affecting animal shelters. As the economy worsens, people are often forced to downsize from homes to apartments where they can't take their pets and unlikely to be able to afford vet bills when they come up.

More good news stories

The Fox affiliate in Monterey, CA has a followup on three of the Mike Vick dogs that made their way down to Monterey at the SPCA facility there and the success that they are having.

A story about a Latrobe, PA woman who adopted an abused, pit bull with a shattered broken leg, nursed her back to health, and trained her to become a therapy dog.

A story about a Rottweiler in Pittsburgh, PA that is a palliative therapy dog that visits patients once a week.

Rachael Ray, and her 'pit bull' Isaboo were on the cover of Modern Dog magazine, providing more positive exposure for the breed among dog owners.

A high school student in Washington, Kendra Goetz, decdided to spend her holiday giving pit bulls something to chew on. She set up collection bins at three local businesses to gather chew toys for pit bulls in foster homes as part of her senior project.  Well done.

 

Places with BSL looking for new options

The city of Banff, Alberta, has passed the first and second readings of an ordinance that would remove "pit bulls" from vicious animal classifications. The new law will allow animal control officers to classify individual dogs as vicious based on their behavior.  Caveat has the details here.

Meanwhile, in the UK, a bid has begun to overhaul their disasterous Dangerous Dogs Act that bans four breeds of dogs, including American Pitbull Terriers. The new UK law, if passed, would focus on three main changes:

1) Dogs would be declared dangerous based on the dog's behavior and owner's treatment -- regardless of breed.

2) Attacks on private property would become criminal offenses, whereas currently only ones in publica areas are.

3) Deals differently with people who use dogs for fighting.

The UK law, often considered the model for a lot of the breed bans in the US, has been a disaster since its inception.  The failures have been well documented, and since the ordinance has taken effect, the country has seenn a 50% increase in the number of dog bites requiring hospitalization.

It's taken awhile, but many of these places that passed BSL in the late 80s and early 90s are now walking away from those laws and moving toward breed neutral ordinances, such as the Netherlands did earlier this year.  Locally, several cities including Wellington, KS as did Osceola, MO and Edwardsville, KS.

In spite of these failures around the world, some people still feel as if BSL is the answer -- but usually not because of any real data to support it.

The tide is turning...

Breed Specific Legislation "Intellectually ridiculous" in UK, Dutch Repeal Ban

The number of people hospitalized for dog attacks in the UK over the past decade has increast almost 50% according to a new report.  In 1997, the UK "upgraded" the Dangerous Dogs Act which banned four breeds of dogs: American Pit Bull Terriers, Dogo Argentinos, Japanese Tosas and Fila Brasilerios.  In spit of banning breeds of dogs (which was supposed to decrease the number of dog bites) the country has seen a huge increase in bites instead. 

These numbers have been consistently reported as rising and I've written about it here, here here, and Scottland's 150% increase in dog bites following the law here.

The Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK continues to provide an example of how ill-fated laws are that deal with types of dogs vs types of irresponsible owners. For every aggressive dog, there is an irresponsible owners.  Dealing with those people, regardless of the type of dog they own, is the way to deal with the issues. Not by restricting particular breeds. Unless you get to the root of the problem, you will not find a solution.

As the country continues to deal with the "devil dog" issue, Richard Brusnstrom of the RSPCA notes:

"We have not been seeking out problem dogs and doing something about them....In my opinion, the breed type legislation is stupid, it is intellectually ridiculous and bankrupt, but we are stuck with it."

In related news, just this week, a 5 year old boy was attacked by a dog in the street suffering facial injuries that required surgery. The dog was described as a Japanese Akita-Alsatian Cross-breed.

Meanwhile, Donna over at Bad Rap was first to report that the Netherlands repealed its 15 year old breed ban on "pit bulls".  They repealed the law because they didn't see a decrease in dog bites following the law. The law was passed in 1993 (don't let the bad math by the AP headline writer throw you).   

More UK Dog Bite Numbers

More numbers were released last week on the "effectiveness" of the Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK -- an act that banned 4 breeds of dogs in the UK including American Pit Bull Terriers.

In the area of Midland, 407 people were Hospitalized last year due to dog attacks -- a 60% increase over 2003 when 261 people were hospitalized.   People are blaming "hoodie" owners who continue to harbor these types of dogs due ot the status symbol associated with owning an "illegal" breed -- although no specific breed information is available in this story about the breeds of dogs involved in the 407 hospitalizations last year.

The numbers in the area of Midland are similar to those throughout the UK, where they have seen overall a 50% rise in dog bites requiring hospitalization since 2003.  Scotland has had even more problems, posting a 150% increase in attacks since 1997.

The Dangerous Dogs Act has proven to be a failure across the board because it never focused on the true reason dogs attack -- which is the actions of their irresponsible owners.  The banning of four different breeds of dogs didn't improve the situation -- in fact, it has become much, much worse. 

Contrast this to efforts made in other areas such as Calgary -- which focused on irresponsible ownership issues and has seen a major decrease in bite numbers in spite of a large increase in the number of dogs in the city.

Breed specific laws continue to prove themselve to be ineffective legislation...there are better models out there that provide better public safety.  It is time we start pushing for those vs ineffictive laws.

Weekly Roundup - -UK Edition

Last week, there were a whole host of stories from the UK that were about the pretty dramatic increase in dog bites over the past few years throughout the majority of the UK.  I continue to think that the UK is an area for us to follow and learn from when creating legislation, because their Dangerous Dogs Act -- first enacting in 1991 and updated in 1997 and bans four different breeds of dogs - -continues to prove to have done nothing to improve public safety from dog attacks throughout the country.  So in a special UK edition of the Weekly Roundup, here are the top stories:

Hospitals see rise in dog bites

This BBC report shows dog attacks having gone up 40% over the past 4 years throughout England -- from 2,700 dog attacks to 3,800.   In London, the country's largest city, the number of attacks to children under the age of 18 rose 120% during the same 4 year period.   It's also interesting here in their comments section that the two people who reported significant bites were one by a Chow Chow and another by a Cocker Spaniel on the face of their young child.

The city of Northhampton has seen a rise to 82 dog bite-related hospital visits over the past year.

Sunderland has also seen an "alarming" rise in dog bite incidences.  Last year, figures showed that 290 adults received medical treatment for dog bites compared to 145 in 2002/2003 -- that's a 44% increase in only four years.  For kids, the number rose 23% from 106 to 130.  "With 128 dog bit patients in under a year, the number is alarming" said a Sunderland Royal Hospital spokesperson. 

Health Secretary Norman Lamb said: "Dogs often only become violent as a result of mistreatment by owners or becaus e of a failure to train them properly.  Irresponsible owners are more likely to makea dog dangerous than it being born of a particular breed."  Lamb noted that there needs tobe a greater emphasis put on responsible dog ownership and warnign people of the risks ratehr than taking a purely enforcement-based approach.

The London Mirror places the blame on "hoodies" and that after the crackdown on guns and knives, villains were now turning to Rottweilers and Staffordshire Terriers and often do not care for them properly.

With this, I of course, have a couple of notes:

1) In spite of the claims by government officals in 1991 and again in 1997 that the Dangerous Dogs Act would protect the public from dog attacks, there is no evidence to support the success of this ordinance as bites continue to grow at an alarming rate.

2) The Health Secretary notes that problem owners appear to be the cause of the increased attacks and that it is not a breed-specific issue.

3) Others noted in the Mirror article, point to irresponsible owners turning to alternative breeds to the ones banned as their breeds of choice, showing an inclination to "switch" to different breeds after the original four were banned.

It certainly looks as if this is one major case study that would lead us to believe the BSL is not an answer to improving public safety and that dealing with the problem owners would likely be a more successful alternative.