Pit
Bulls in the City
Trained to fight, or hardwired for aggression?
(Part
two in a series)
By
Steve Dale
The entire
provinceof
Ontario
in
Canada
recently approved a ban on Pit Bull Terriers. Ontario Attorney General Michael
Bryant repeatedly called Pit Bulls a “ticking time bomb” and “inherently dangerous”
in public statements.
The
overwhelming majority of animal experts, however, have always concurred that
there’s no scientific evidence to demonstrate Pit Bull-type dogs are any more
dangerous than any other powerful dog breed. That was until Alan Beck, director
of the Center for the Human Animal Bond at the
School
of
Veterinary Medicine,
Purdue
University
in
West Lafayette,
Ind., said that he believes Pit Bulls are
indeed different, agreeing with politicians who call them “inherently
dangerous.”
“While
I’m not necessarily endorsing breed-specific legislation, common sense
restrictions seem to make sense,” Beck says.
That might be because evidence is mounting
that breed-specific legislation doesn’t work. Various scientists representing
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Veterinary Medical
Association, and the Humane Society of the
United States together made that
conclusion, and published their findings in 2000. In the real world,
legislating against breeds fares no better than it does on paper.
For example,
Denver banned Pit Bull-type dogs a few years
back. Yet, the legislation made no impact on the number of Pit Bulltype dogs
landing in the local shelters. It seems bans do hinder responsible pet
guardians from rescuing good Pit Bulls. But the bans do nothing to discourage
gang-bangers who use Pit Bulls in dog fights. The bans are mostly ignored by
recklessly irresponsible people who have Pit Bulls as guard dogs or as some
sort of misguided macho symbol. All these reasons combined explain why
Denver rescinded its Pit
Bull ban this year.
Following a flurry of attacks by Pit Bulls
in
Boston last
summer, City Counselor Rob Consalvo felt he needed to do something to respond
to a public outcry. “I actually fought against the outright ban many of my colleagues
wanted,” he says.
Instead,
Boston placed various restrictions on any dog
that in any way even resembles a Pit Bull (which includes purebred American
Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers because they look so
much like Pit Bulls). Any dog that even resembles a Pit Bull must be muzzled in
public, spayed or neutered, and their guardians must have a sign on the
property warning of the presence of a Pit Bull.
But what does the public really have to be
warned of? Ian Dunbar is a veterinarian and an animal behaviorist from
Berkeley,
Calif.,
and he says the entire issue is overblown. “I don’t mean to discount attacks by
Pit Bulls, but we’re talking about maybe 10 fatal attacks on people annually,”
Dr. Dunbar says. “Is this really something we should be putting our public policy
efforts toward?”
Dunbar says according to the
CDC about 2,000 parents murdered their own children in
1999.
In 2000, 25,000 people were killed by drunk drivers.
Dunbar
maintains that more people are killed annually by tripping over their own
slippers than all fatal dog attacks combined, regardless of breed.
Even Julie Gilchrist, MD, of the
CDC
Injury
Center in
Atlanta,
agrees. “The truth is that
SUVs
are far more dangerous than Pit Bulls, and they’re still on the road,” Dr.
Gilchrist points out. “As a public health researcher, I want to prevent all
mortality and morbidity. But the truth is that with just over 60 million dogs
in America, and who knows how many millions of Pit Bulls, it’s not a statistically
significant issue,” she says.
“Tell that to the little kids who are
attacked by Pit Bulls,” says Rick Richards, city editor at the
Michigan
City (
Ind.)
News-Dispatch,
who frequently writes that he wishes all Pit Bulls were banished. “The scientists
don’t have to interview family members after these out-of-control dogs have
left their mark, psychological and physical. Aside from scars, these kids are
now terrified of all dogs. Pit Bulls are a nasty dog, and they need to go,” Richards
says.
Dunbar
concedes some individual Pit Bulls are nasty, but no more so than the number of
individual dogs of any other breed who aren’t socialized. “Those who say Pit Bulls
are inherently dangerous are dead wrong,”
Dunbar
says. “Any kind of dog not socialized is indeed a potential danger. Why don’t
the politicians consider going after the [guardians] of these dogs who attack
people? Almost always, that’s where the source of the problem is,” he says.
Animal behaviorist Randy Lockwood, vice
president of research and education at the HSUS in
Washington,
D.C.,
agrees. “This is a social issue, it’s a law enforcement issue, but it’s not a
dog issue.” If Pit Bull-types were so inherently bad, how could millions of
people share their families, their homes, and their beds with them without issue?
Since Furry Friends Foundation in
Chicago
began 10 years ago, they’ve carefully adopted out more than 400 Pit Bull-type
dogs without incident.
“Mandatory dog training, socialization, and
altering the dogs makes all the difference in the world,” says Catherine
Hedges, the shelter’s founder. “People [who adopt them] are encouraged to keep
the dogs indoors as members of the family. And they’re discouraged from keeping
them outside all the time, and especially discouraged from tethering them when
they’re outdoors,” Hedges says.
Even Beck of Purdue University, who is
cynical about Pit Bulls, says, ”Of course, responsible [guardianship] does
matter, and a little common sense goes a long way.” “The public may have one
perception of Pit Bulls, but that perception isn’t accurate,”
Dunbar
says. “It’s distracting to blame a dog breed rather than the real source of
these dog attacks.”
Chicago Bites are Breed-Blind
In
Chicago, an
ordinance that passed in 2001 recognizes that any breed of dog has the
potential to bite, not just the usual suspects including Pit Bull-type dogs and
Rottweilers. The topic was initially raised by Alderman Shirley A. Coleman of
the 16th Ward whose neighborhood had been fraught by dog attacks, sometimes
fatal. Through some education by our own Steve Dale, as well as a gathering of
local experts, Alderman Coleman learned that the best approach was a ruling
that pointed the finger at the guardians, not the dogs. Now, people whose dogs
are allowed to run unsecured may be fined up to $300. If the dog attacks
someone, that amount jumps to $10,000, plus the possibility of jail time. If
the dog is deemed dangerous by Chicago Animal Care and Control, the person has
up to 10 days to purchase at least $100,000 in liability insurance, and the dog
is neutered and chipped. This sort of breed-blind legislation is supported by
organizations such as the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Chicago
Veterinary Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and the Humane Society of the
United
States.
