A friend of mine and I were talking the other day about city councils, BSL and canine laws. It was an interesting discussion. The most interesting part of the discussion though was arond how it seems the city administrators seem to pay so little attention to the experts on canine legislation. When it comes to canine legislation, it appears that everyone thinks they're an expert.
It's not like this in other areas of government. Certainly if there was a bridge in need of repair in a particular city, the city would bring in the experts in to create a solution. They'd listen to a structural engineer to see if the bridge was sound structurally, an architect maybe to design a new bridge, a traffic engineer to figure out the best way to re-route traffic during the building/remodeling proecess, etc. Certainly the victims of the blocks of falling concrete from the bridge would be listened to about the need to "do something" but probably not on the best specific solution to the problem of the decayiing bridge. We'd listen to the experts on that.
Why is it different then for dogs? When it comes to canine legislation and animal behavior, it seems like everyone's an expert. It seems like legislators, newspaper columnists, dog bite victims....everyone...is an expert on what exactly the solutions should be. Meanwhile, the true experts in canine behavior and effective canine legislation are often ignored.
Virtually every major national organization that has an expertise in canine behavior and human interactions agrees that breed specific ordinances are a bad idea. Here's a short list of some of the national organizations that oppose BSL with links to their position statements:
Association for Pet Dog Trainers
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
Humane Society of the United States
National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors
National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)
National Animal Control Association
As well as virtually all local AVMA and local humane society and aspca groups including my local KCAVMA, Kansas AVMA and Missouri AVMA. This list doesn't even include some of the people behind some of the best case studies for preventing dangerous attacks in their communities like Bill Bruce in Calgary and people who are successfully ending shelter euthanasia in their communities.
Oh sure, if I look hard enough I can find an "expert" who thinks differently about this. I'm sure that I could find an "expert" that would tell me the world is flat or that there is no such thing as micro evolution too. But I think it's really telling when the national organizations represent the majority of the people in the US that know the most about animal welfare, animal training, animal behavior, animal care, running animal shelters, animal breeds and running animal control law enforcement all, unanimously agree that breed specific laws are not effective in creating safer communities for people to live in because breed is not a determining factor in whether or not a dog bites.
So can we please start listening to the experts when dealing with local issues? I would certainly hope we would when building buildings and bridges. Why not with dogs?
Excellent, Brent. We saw that first hand in Whitehall, OH - thankfully the ban failed. And it's happening just like that in Lakewood, OH as well. Many local politicians have no idea how to deal with the REAL problems in their communities and see pit bulls and other dogs as an easy target to make it appear like they are doing something for their community. As we all know, because of their reputation, a lot of pit bull owners don't have a lot of money and are not often well-connected in their community making them even easier targets. Lastly, in my opinion, there is a HUGE racial element to these debates about BSL in some communities - it's certainly that way in Toledo and Cincinnati.
Posted by: Brian Cluxton | July 17, 2008 at 07:01 PM
As always - excellent piece my friend. And I love Bill Bruce...I want to marry that man. Oh wait!! I'm already married to a great guy!! Well then Bill Bruce for President!! Oh wait...another country.
*sighs*
Well - I will just have to be happy doing my part as a member of the Pit Bull Lobby (btw - where is my paycheck??) encouraging smarter folks to look to Bruce and Calgary as the epitome of good legislation.
Posted by: Anna C. | July 17, 2008 at 07:31 PM
When one considers how low the Ontario Fiberals had to stoop to find 'experts' to support their ban in the court case, it becomes very obvious that expert opinion in this important area is ignored.
Hell, they had to use Tom Skeldon and Alan Beck, (I guess Clifton wasn't available). That's hurtin'!
Posted by: Caveat | July 18, 2008 at 09:00 AM
I'd be willing to amend the Constitution to allow Bill to be our president. Hell, maybe he can just run - we're not using any of the rest of our Constitution anyway so maybe they'd overlook that "foreigner can't be president" thing.
Hey, maybe he could run in Ontario!?
Posted by: MichelleD | July 18, 2008 at 09:54 AM
My thoughts exactly Brent, why don't cities use experts from the field on crafting animal welfare laws.
I think I am going to show up at my community's next meeting on bridge building and repairs and demand to speak about a subject I know nothing about and demand the city leaders implement my design elements; to hell with the citizens' public safety.
Oh wait!! I forgot I live in that Commie town that would require a written, signed letter be submitted to the city clerk for prior approval by some secret committee and then slated for a speaking slot in front of the city council or whatever group the secret committee deems is appropriate.
Posted by: KC KS Kills Dogs | July 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Let's not forget that some groups who have set themselves up as 'experts' in the eyes of unschooled officials are playing for the other team.
Militant AR groups lobby for bans, pet limits, MSN, breeder curtailment and more.
Posted by: Caveat | July 18, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Yep--Caveat is right again--and remember we have several people/groups out there which instantly email/send out these horror pages to the officials which instantly "consider" BSL. BSL is an emotional pull, and of course the ARs are finely tuned for that.
Posted by: s kennedy | July 19, 2008 at 01:51 AM
I say let's strip AR of their right to use 'Rights'. Because they really do not respect or protect animals' rights. They only sit in judgment of who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Using the word 'rights' only deceives the uninformed GP and this is wrong!
Posted by: Becky | July 19, 2008 at 08:27 AM
The most telling of all those links is the one from the Association for Pet Dog Trainers:
"Even more chilling, breed specific legislation encourages the faulty public perception of other breeds as being inherently safe. This can lead misguided individuals to engage in unsafe conduct with other breeds that can result in injury or death by individual representatives of those breeds mistakenly perceived as safe. Also, designating certain breeds as inherently dangerous implies to the public that behavior is not effectively influenced, positively or negatively, by training. This misconception will likely produce a growing number of dangerous dogs as misinformed, complacent dog owners fail to practice responsible aggression-prevention measures."
Attacks went up in Denver? Retrievers and mixes are one of the leading (if not leading) bitters? It all makes sense now.
Posted by: PsyQuark | July 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM