Is there a middle ground between banning pit bulls in Seattle and ignoring the fact that attacks like the recent awful, terrible, scary mauling of a 71-year-old woman keep happening, by dogs reported to be pit bulls? I think so. It’s not enough to target pit bulls. We need to prevent aggression from all breeds.  I don’t think we should settle for protecting Seattle against pit bulls. Legislation should apply to all dog breeds, whenever possible, for the most possible protection.
Breed Ban advocates call for all pit bulls (or any dog that looks like a pit bull) to die, in order to keep their families and children safe. On the other extreme are groups that say any law specific to pit bulls is completely unthinkable. But there is a middle ground, between the two, where the pit bull owners can claim responsibility for their own dogs and keep them, all dog owners can make some changes, and the people on the street can feel safer. Even as a person who has met many, many lovely pit bulls, it’s understandable how people can be frightened when they turn on the news and get report after report of horrendous dog attacks.
To ignore this fear or downplay it is unsympathetic, unrealistic, and risky.
I am a firm believer that we need to punish deeds, not breeds. While some proposals do constitute punishment for a crime the dog didn’t commit (euthanasia, big fines), others are just restrictions (dogs must be on leash, muzzled, spay/neuter). Not all legislation is evil. I don’t want to have my bags looked through at the airport, but I want a safe flight. Have I been punished for someone else’s deed? A tiny bit, but more so, I’m contributing to the safety of myself and others, so I’m ok with it. All dog owners need to help make Seattle safer. If that means not walking their Golden Retrievers or their friendly pit bulls off leash down the street, so that it’s more obvious when a dog is on the loose, so be it!
I *do* think Seattle needs something to make the dogs and humans in it feel safer. Humans hurt each other a lot more than dogs do, making the probability of getting injured by a dog much lower than being injured by another person. But we have an innate fear of big animals with sharp teeth, and perceived threats are just as stress-producing as real ones, and the part of our brain that deals with survival isn’t looking at statistics.
Speaking of statistics, a disproportionate number of bite reports were about pit bulls, according to Seattle Animal Control. That said, are more people reporting in that case, because the dog looked like a pit bull? Is there an unusually high number of unregistered pit bulls? (Bites were compared to the number of registered pit bulls.) Was the dog reported even really a pit bull, or did it just look like a pit bull? I don’t know the truth, and I doubt anyone does. That said, we can’t just dismiss the fact that individuals in our community have been gravely injured by dogs that look like pit bulls. I’d *much* rather see a solution that’s not breed specific, so that the next trendy Tough Guy dog never has a chance to start trouble.
Breed Specific Legislation, or BSL, varies all over the map, from full-out banning of pit bulls and even suspected ones, to Toronto’s law that is a bit complicated, but basically requires all purebred pit bulls (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and some others) to be on leash and muzzled out in public, and prevents new people from acquiring pit bulls. The Toronto law was more vague about what a pit bull was, before, but has now narrowed the scope to purebred pit bulls.
I don’t know whether the best solution will be deed-based, breed specific, size specific, or just more enforcement of laws on the books right now, like leash laws. As a dog trainer in Seattle, I have met a LOT of aggressive dogs, from all different breeds, so I’d like to see a solution that applies across the board, to all breeds, based on the behavior of the dog. Regardless, I think that people who are willing to have restrictions put on their dogs should be able to keep them.
I think the best legislation would be applied to all dogs. Here are some ideas, just a mish-mosh, I’m not saying we need to do all of these.  And remember, this would be all breeds:
- Extra $$ penalty for off-leash dogs. Multiple off-leash violations results in owner losing the right to own a dog. Ideally, the fine would be big enough to make people want to build a fence, rather than gamble. (To report an off-leash / stray / found dog or a dog bite in Seattle, call Animal Control at (206) 386-PETS.  Now is a good time to program it into your phone.  Leash violations in Seattle can also be reported on the Seattle Animal Control website. Do something!)
- Mandatory spay/neuter for dogs of all breeds.  Exception would be dogs used as breeding dogs, which could be temperament tested. Breeders would be licensed. Show dogs that must remain intact would be considered “breeding dogs.” (this bullet point was added after original publication, see more info in 2nd comment, below this article)
- Visible Fence law – currently, dogs are just supposed to stay on a person’s property. I strongly believe that all dogs should be considered “at large” if they are off leash outside in an unfenced area or have even have access to a street at all, unless a person is walking through the door (i.e., even inside, with a door propped open, the dog could be considered “at large”. A fence would be a visual barrier that the dog cannot pass through or over. Â Would *you* feel safe if a dog rushed at you from behind an invisible fence? (bullet point added after original publication)
- Dog park ban for all dogs with a history of aggression (which would need to be clearly defined & easy to report). Perhaps the dog park could be supervised like public pools are, and a fee could be charged to pay for that. Here’s one example of a supervised city-owned dog park in Fort Lauderdale.
- Visible Identification. Dogs wear a harness or collar with a very big ID # in public, making it easier to report them for violations.
- Muzzle law – all dogs over 30 pounds, say, muzzled in public.
- Hiring more animal control officers and an education campaign encouraging people to report people with dogs that violate leash laws. If we raised dog registration fees and/or got all dogs licensed, that money could be used to hire more officers. I think Seattle, the whole city, currently has only 2 animal control officers.
- Personal responsibility. Bigger fines / imprisonment for owners who’s dogs exhibit aggression directed at people.
- Mandatory for owners to pass a test on reading dog body language or other skills.
- Do a temperament test for all dogs in the city, and really make sure we get all dogs registered. If they fail the temperament test, restrictions are placed on them. If they pass, they aren’t restricted, but we may want to retest after the dog matures.
I’m not 100% against Breed Specific Legislation, if responsible owners can still keep their dogs without  suffering. I do NOT think BSL grabs the widest swath of the problem, however, and I will work to make sure that we are making Seattle safer from ALL breeds of dogs.  If Seattle does end up passing Breed Specific Legislation, perhaps people whose dog’s passed a temperament test could have a special collar their dogs get to wear, or an id card with a photo for the human, which would exempt them from any Breed Specific Legislation. The dog’s DNA could go on file somewhere as proof that it was that particular dog that passed. They might need retesting every 6 months if they are under 4 years old, say. Or the BSL restrictions could be manageable, like San Francisco’s law to fix all pit bulls.
One very sticky wicket is, how do would a law even define “pit bulls”? Does that include mixes, or only certain breeds that make up the pit bull family? That’s the way Toronto did it, mentioned above. There are those DNA tests, so that’s a possibility, though I’m not certain of the accuracy. Click here for the online quiz, “Find the Pit Bull.” Â The vagueness of any definition of pit bull sets the city up for expensive lawsuits, and wastes time and energy. Â If your great-great-grandmother was African American and all other relatives were white, would that make you white, or black? Do you still have to sit on the back of the bus?
These are, clearly, just some ideas, food for thought, some ways to start a conversation where we can come up with a workable solution. I welcome an intelligent conversation about this, with no opinions stated as fact and no name-calling or personal attacks from either side. Please leave your email address when you comment. I will NOT share it with anyone, but I need to be able to contact people to verify claims. If, for example, you say you’re a vet, I’d like to be able to verify that, but if you would like your place of business kept private on the web, I can do that. Comments will be monitored and spurious or anonymous comments may be deleted. I want a solution-focused discussion. Seattle needs one.
Written by Grisha Stewart, Ahimsa Dog Training, Seattle Tweet This Post!
 RSS feed
|
[
September 10th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I was listening to KUOW and heard a suggestion that if a dog does attack, that the human should be prosecuted as if they were the one doing the attack. I agree. If our “property” damages another person, we are liable. And I think that making people personally responsible for their dogs is an excellent suggestion. It would apply to any breed and would certainly reduce the incidence of aggression. I’m no lawyer, though, so I’m not sure if it’s constitutional. But it’s a good idea.
That’s what they have in Texas: here’s an article including a mention of their policy.
Another important bit of info from that article: “Each year, roughly 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs and about 800,000, half of them children, seek medical attention, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
“On average, a dozen people die each year from dog attacks, according to the center. In 2003, 32 people died from dog-related incidents.”
25 of the states make owners legally liable if their dogs maim or kill. Why only 25? This doesn’t need to be breed specific, clearly.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
One of the suggestions made by Colleen Lynne is mandatory sterilization for pit bulls. I looked at the San Francisco chronicle about their policy (that’s the link above) and it really does seem to be helping. At the very least, less pit bulls are needing to be euthanized at their shelter, and I can’t possibly see that as a bad thing. Pit bulls are by far the most prevalent dog in the shelter (30% of shelter dogs in Seattle are pit bulls), but the 4th most popular dog in the city. That means that more are being bred than are wanted, so why not sterilize?
I think that dogs of all breeds should be sterilized, unless the person is a registered breeder and the dog is a registered breeding dog. That could include show dogs and working dogs whose handlers want them to remain intact. The breeders could then be educated about temperament, health problems, etc. I’d also love to have registered breeders’ dogs be temperament tested, and if they failed the temperament test, the dog would be sterilized. That solution takes away the very big problem of having to decide whether a dog is really a pit bull, increases the temperament of the entire dog population, and also goes a LONG way toward keeping dogs out of the shelter. The shelter then has more $$ to go toward spay/neuter.
Here are some snippets from the article about San Francisco: “Animal Care and Control Director Carl Friedman said the city has impounded 21 percent fewer pit bulls since the law passed than during the previous year and a half. The number of pit bulls euthanized has dropped 24 percent.”
“San Francisco’s law allows animal control officers to issue a fix-it ticket to noncompliant dog owners, requiring that the pit bull be sterilized within two weeks. Animal Control officers also hand out information on low-cost and free surgeries.
“Officers follow up with visits to the homes of owners who have not complied. A first violation can bring a citation and $500 fine; more than one citation can land an owner in jail and result in the city seizing the dog.”
“Usually, however, Animal Care and Control officers don’t let it get to that point. If they return and have to write a citation, officers will take the dog from the owner – sometimes forcefully – spay or neuter the animal and return it, unless the pit bull is aggressive or officials believe it is being used in dog fights.”
“I’ve seen pit bulls make wonderful companion animals – they are good for families and children,” Friedman said. “I understand where (opponents) were coming from, but I didn’t want to see us going the same routes as other communities that are banning certain breeds altogether. In my mind, this is a very good compromise and it’s been a success.”
There’s at good graphic at http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/28/mn_pit_bull.jpg
September 10th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
The Centers for Disease Control bite rate statistics are often quoted. I wanted to put in the conclusion for their report, Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.
They wrote,
“Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”
Keep in mind that the average number of deaths was very small, something like a dozen people. Not that I’m saying that those weren’t tragedies, or that bites that don’t kill are no big deal, but that the risk that a child will be killed by a dog is quite small.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
2 points,1)whatever laws are promulgated they will only affect the law-abiding,the criminal element will adopt the attitude that most politicians take IGNOR IGNOR IGNOR.The officials will only go after the law abiding,easier and much safer for them.In essence whatever new ridiculous law is promulgated will in fact be farcical.One can only pray for the poor animals in their fight against the most EVIL specie on the planet, the HUMAN
Would be interested to know where the figure of 4,700,000 dogbites per annum is derived from.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Hi Selwyn,
While I do think that laws will change the law-abiding more, it doesn’t mean that there will be no change. I know a ton of fairly respectable people that still don’t follow leash laws, for example, because the enforcement is so terrible, even when their dogs will run up to another dog when off leash. So it’s really important to make sure that whatever law gets passed applies to all breeds *and* gets funding for enforcement.
The 4.7 million number was from the article I linked to in the SF Chronicle. Their number came from the Centers for Disease Control. The biggest section of dog, by far, that did the biting was, “Unknown Breed.” Clearly, if only 20% of the bites in Seattle come from pit bulls, we need to make sure that we make a change that influences the other 80% of bites, as well.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The Association of Pet Dog Trainers has a proposed set of dog safety laws on their website at apdt.com.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I deleted a post I just got because the person who posted did not give me a way to contact them. I refuse to have a conversation with a completely anonymous source… If you posted and it’s not here, either try again with contact info, or email me (see the bottom of this page for email). I will not, of course, share your email with the world, but I need to be able to verify information in the posts.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:48 am
I have been reading everyone’s comments and found them to be pretty interesting. I am trying to find a list of laws protecting dogs in various areas and a list of dogs banded in specific areas.
I do know that if a dog attacks a person there are laws protecting that person. But if a dog attacks another dog because the owner decides to let go of the leash what laws are there to protect the other dog? The leash laws say that the dogs have to be restrained. But if a dog is let out of a fence due to unruly kids then he is not protected. My dog has no protections by the laws due to his breed. He is a gray Rottweiler. He has a very docile temperament and was the one attacked. Not only did the lady turn the dogs lose on my dog, she turned the dogs lose on another dog much younger and able to escape unlike mine. Joe has never been aggressive regardless of his breed. None of my dogs are aggressive. He was let out of the fence by some unruly kids. There is now 3 bolts on the inside of the gate. They guy told me that my dog attacked his wife and dogs. Three neighbors were out there while this all happened. One of which was trying to pull the two boxers off my Joe who was scream for mercy. He stated that she just let go of the leash and stood there with her hands folded smirking. He asked her to get her dogs and she said “he shouldn’t have been lose.” He never fought back; Joe is not a fighter. Because he was lose and because of his breed he has no protection. Why is this? Why did she have the right to sick her two boxers on my dog and get away with it? I do not believe that temperament is due to the breed. I believe that their temperament is determined by how they are raised. Even my abuse cases are very loving. They have accepted every animal that has come and gone through my door regardless. I even threw a goat in the mix and they loved and licked her and accepted her as one of their own. But yet there are no laws to protect certain breeds. Some days I just don’t like people; especially for what they do to the animals.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:28 am
“» Muzzle law – all dogs over 30 pounds, say, muzzled in public.”
Is just ignorant!! There are so many dogs over 30 pounds that are just sweet gentle giants!!! It should be “all aggresive dogs – that have been tested and proved to be aggressive- must wear muzzles in public”.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Of COURSE there are many, many dogs over 30 pounds that don’t show any aggression. Same goes for the bully breeds. It’s just a lot easier to be clear and consistent about weight, versus being breedist. Size definitely does correlate to how much damage dogs *could* do if they did bite. Temperament testing is all well and good, but it’s just not feasible to get so many dogs tested.
November 24th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
But why can’t it be like 55 pounds and over? I had a collie and she was about 50 pounds. I wouldn’t hav been able to make her wear a muzzle! If the muzzle law goes to dogs over 30 pounds instead of just Bully breeds there are more dogs having to suffer. In Calgary their laws are way better and Bully Breed lovers are trying to do the same in Ontario and all over Canada. Their law is that only aggressive dogs where a muzzle. Not all dogs in a specific breed where a muzzle.
April 14th, 2012 at 3:04 am
These are amazing ideas, and I am so glad someone is putting it out there. I was against BSL, but torn, because I do think SOMETHING should be done about the attacks happening. Some thoughts:
-I love the idea on fixing most non-breeder dogs, and seriously agree with breeders having to get a license, but I think maybe fixing could be encouraged rather than mandatory? We thought about breeding our dog, and ultimately decided not to, but if we had wanted to have the option open I would have liked to be able to. Most breeders charge more for a puppy that has breeding privileges. They don’t give out the AKC registration until the new owner spays/neuters if they don’t pay for breeding privileges. Maybe a decent sized charge to keep your dog intact? The money could go to enforcing all these laws, or more animal control or something maybe.
-Maybe invisible fences could be allowed, but you have to have a sign or a certain colored line to let people know there is an invisible fence. That way the kids can run around if they want.
-Muzzle law- I don’t even know what I would do if that went into effect in my city. I have a 100+ lbs. Lab, and she is the kindest thing I have ever met. Biting would never even occur to her, plus she has never not liked anyone. It’s so cute, no matter how excited she is, she won’t grab a treat from you, she’ll very very slowly and gingerly remove it from your hand, so she doesn’t get you at all. ESPECIALLY with children. Anyway, we had something called a gentle leader for her for a few days, but she would run and hide everytime we asked her if she wanted a walk, because she hated the thing so much. All it was a collar with a loop for the nose too (for dogs that pull on the leash a lot). If she had to wear a muzzle on every walk, I’m afraid my poor skittish baby would start having panic attacks. I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one with a problem. Maybe an exception for temper tested dogs (who passed anyway)? Or temper tested dogs with a legit reason, like her (fear)?
-Personal responsibility- I agree, but I think it should be based on how much reason the owner had to believe the dog was violent. My Uncle’s super sweet boxer bit me when I tried to pet her eye (I was young, okay?) when I was a kid (not that hard at all, but still.)
April 14th, 2012 at 3:16 am
Sorry, hit enter on accident. Anyway,
…. My aunt and uncle were shocked, even though the bite barely broke the skin. They took her to the vet and found out she had cancer, and was in a lot of pain, which was probably why she bit me for poking her eye. I’m surprised she didn’t bite harder; I would have, poor thing! Point being, I think sometimes circumstances align to make a dog doing something completely out of character, which wouldn’t be the owner’s fault.
- I had the same idea about testing owner’s of certain breeds too! You have to pass a test to drive anything big enough to hurt someone when wielded incorrectly, why not the breeds of dog that are more prone to causing damage if trained/treated incorrectly? I think it should cover more than body language though. Like how to train your dog to prevent biting, and stuff too. Only certain breeds though; otherwise I think less people would get dogs.
Anyway, I hope I didn’t sound at all critical, I was just throwing in the only improvements I would make, because I agreed wholehearted with the rest! Thank you for making this site, and starting the discussion on some new laws that work for humans AND dogs!!!!
April 14th, 2012 at 3:28 am
Micaeli, you say that requiring muzzles for 30lb+ dogs is “just ignorant” because there are many non-aggressive dogs over that weight. Don’t you think it’s really quite hypocritical of you to then suggest a requirement for dogs 55lbs+, simply because then YOUR dog wouldn’t have to wear a muzzle? You literally picked a weight JUST enough to exempt your personal dog. So, no the law can’t change just for you, it is about the common good, not the individual.
Also, if it was ignorant at 30lbs+, but not at 55+lbs, does that mean you don’t think their are any “gentle giants” above this weight?
I’m sorry I just don’t understand how you can insult the author of the site’s views, and then say they would be fine if only they were changed- for the sole purpose of making you happy.