Breed-Specific Legislation Unethical & Impractical; the Need for Reform

December 9, 2010

Dear City Council Members of Denver,

            Denver’s ban on pit-bull terriers has been in place since 1989. Seemingly, little has been done to change a piece of legislation that is out-dated. The ban is immoral. But more importantly, the ban is inadequate and cannot efficiently or effectively solve issues involved with this controversy. Therefore, I am opposed to any type of breed-specific legislation which aims to target and exterminate a certain breed of dog; instead, I support alternative legislation that ensure dog owners are fit to have pit-bulls and other dogs that are so called dangerous.

            Unlike most of my friends growing up, my family never had pets—except for fish. Needless to say, I was the subject for a lot of friendly teasing especially living in such a pet friendly community like suburban Denver. Even though the majority of my buddies had dogs, I was still terrified of dogs. Big dogs, small dogs, it didn’t matter. I remember one day walking around my neighborhood with one of my older brothers, and a dog came out of nowhere; I was so scared that I actually ran faster than my older brother to evade the beast. If you would have asked me back then—although I was only a kid—if I was in favor of a ban on pit-bull terriers, I would have unequivocally answered, “Yes!” As a kid, you will believe anything you hear especially if it is coming from the media. So I always imagined pit-bulls as huge, muscular, menacing, unruly, rabid beasts because that is how they were portrayed in the media. However, I have come to realize that this negative stereotype of the breed is untrue as well as unfair. After becoming familiar with the breed through my oldest brother’s first dog and several of my friends’ dogs, including my roommate who has two pit-bulls, I quickly learned how lovable and smart the breed really is. Yet, the city of Denver argues that they are inherently aggressive and dangerous. I have encountered golden retrievers, Labradors, and even Maltese that are more aggressive than the majority of pit-bull terriers that I know. And I am not the only one! Debi Savage, a Michigan resident, tells people they should be worried about her toy poodle not her pit bulls because the toy poodle “will bite you.” I am around Rottweiler, pit-bull terriers and American bulldogs everyday and still the only dog I have ever been bitten by is my friend’s golden retriever. But because of the stigma created by the media and our municipalities, people have been convinced that some breeds are more dangerous than others when, in actuality, the problem is irresponsible or shady owners. Breed-specific legislation is nothing more than ill-informed, panic policy enacted out of misunderstanding and fear. Thus, I find it morally wrong.

            Moreover, Denver officials believe pit-bull terriers are a menace to society; however, they are misinformed, yet they have effectively made their personal biases law. Breed-specific legislation is—essentially—a discriminatory law no different than the Jim Crow laws that existed in the South to restrict African-Americans because southern, white voters with skewed ethics viewed blacks as a threat to their way of life. But how can you judge a person’s character by their appearance? You can’t! So how can you judge a dog’s character by its appearance? It may be cliché, but you cannot judge a book by its cover. And in this particular instance—not only is it unfair to do so, it is unethical because your assumptions deprive lovable, caring pets of their lives just like the Jim Crow laws deprived African-Americans of their civil liberties. Did my best friend deserve to have his two obedient American bulldogs taken from him just because a police officer driving through his neighborhood noticed the dogs playing in the backyard? Absolutely not. Did my brother deserve to have his puppy pit-bull torn away from him and put down? Absolutely not. More importantly, did a ten week old puppy with no history of aggression deserve to be killed? Absolutely not! But according to you, the puppy was a menace to society, a threat to the community. Your logic is obviously flawed and backed by mere stereotypes. Furthermore, because of misinformed people, the breed has been illegitimately typecast as having a notorious reputation resulting in pit-bulls becoming the scapegoats for attacks committed by other breeds that look similar. Due to breed-specific legislation, pit-bulls have been falsely persecuted and have become the victim of a witch hunt. Hence, my opposition to Denver’s pit-bull ban because any breed-specific ban is unethical. Moreover, similar to what Martin Luther King Jr. stated in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” the government cannot expect its citizens to follow laws that are unjust.

            So not only is breed-specific legislation unethical, it is not practical because people will not adhere to the law. According to the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, “Historically, people who want aggressive dogs will get them, whether they are Pit Bulls, Rottweiler or mixtures of different breeds. . . So the decision of what dogs are subject to the ban is fairly arbitrary.” This is exactly what I have witnessed; my friends in Aurora and Denver still own dogs and are getting new dogs that are outlawed by the ban, or they will circumnavigate the law by cross-breeding so their dogs are not specifically prohibited under the current legislation. And this blatant disregard for the law is not uncommon. It is—actually—quite ubiquitous, occurring nationally and abroad in places with breed-specific bans such as Britain and Denmark. Thus, the evidence proves that breed-specific legislation is impractical and ineffective because it is too difficult to enact and enforce. Even Molly Markert, an Aurora city council member in favor of the ban, substantiates this claim when she said, “It’s too hard to tell which dogs will attack.” There are good reasons why the CVMA and other veterinary associations believe breed-specific legislation is “an exercise in frustration and likely will not solve any problems.” Yet, there are also good reasons why you support the pit-bull ban. However, the legislation is not solving these reasons why you support the ban. You believe—and animal experts would concur—that pit bull attacks tend to be more violent because the breed does not let go once they bite onto something. I would have to agree. Unfortunately, the statistics do not agree. Although there are less and less pit-bulls on the streets as a result of the ban, the average insurance claim for dog bites in 2009 still increased for the fifth straight year. Therefore, the injuries caused by bites are not getting any less severe even though they should theoretically since there are less of these “aggressive” dogs on the prowl. Furthermore, a key component of your argument is that the ban results in fewer attacks. This was true following the establishment of the ban in 1989, but that same period also coincides with a national campaign advocating the importance of spaying and neutering. So the decline in attacks should probably be attributed to spaying and neutering rather than the pit-bull ban, especially, considering that in 2009 the number of insurance claims for dog bites increased by 4.8 percent—according to the Insurance Information Institute. Besides, regardless of the statistics and numbers, any dog can be trained to be violent and to attack. Henceforth, I support alternative restrictions that fix the root problem, opposed to the breed-specific ban which is impractical and ineffective.

            It is time the city of Denver addresses the origin of the issue instead of massacring innocent pets. After lobbying efforts by the Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association, Louisville abolished their breed-specific ban in 2007 because vicious dogs are an ownership problem, not a behavior issue inherent to the breed. The Louisville city council decided to—instead—toughen its spay/neuter policy and leash mandate. Their new legislation also requires veterinarians to provide vaccination records to government officials so animal services can make sure owners are complying with the laws. Similar alternatives to breed-specific bans are popping up all over the country in efforts to solve the root problem which is irresponsible and shady owners. In Iowa, children are not allowed to walk these dogs, owners must show proof of spay or neuter and proof of at least $100,000 of liability insurance, and owners must comply with leash laws and notify animal services of litters and lost, stolen or deceased dogs. The Iowa Veterinary Medical Association also supports the establishment of a dog-bite registry that would insert identifying microchips in dogs with a history of biting. In 2009, Decatur, Georgia “makes owners of dogs who have bitten someone post a ‘dangerous dog’ sign at their homes, pay $150 to register the dog, buy a $75,000 insurance policy and muzzle the dog during walks.” Wicomico County in Maryland no longer gives dogs one free bite as of 2007. Dogfighting became a felony in Idaho and Wyoming, and Utah and Virginia permitted dogfighting to be charged as racketeering resulting in more stringent penalties. These are the kinds of alternative solutions Denver needs to implement if the city ever hopes to actually solve the problem of vicious dogs. Breed-specific legislation only puts a Band-Aid over a wound that needs stitches; the root cause is—and always will be—the owners, not the dogs.

            So I urge you to take heed of my personal experiences as well as the happenings both nationally and internationally and revise the current ban against pit-bull terriers. Breed-specific legislation is a discriminatory law, thus, is wrong on the basis of ethics. Moreover, it has proven to be an impractical and ineffective means of resolving such an impassioned controversy.

                                                                                    Sincerely,

                                                                                                Kyl Randolph