|
Mellissande -> RE: Breed Specific Legislation Own any of these? (3/23/2009 11:47:18 AM)
|
http://www.forpitssake.org/legislation.html
This is taken from Stopbsl.com I have a page full of links to information freely available to anyone with a computer and a search engine. And I am sorry laTigresse if I am overly emotional about the fact that My dog is now banned because Somebody thinks he's going to be mean just because he's a quarter pit bull. My husky mix is in the process of being banned and places all over this country are passing legislation to ban all of the breeds listed in the poll and many more breeds.
BSL has not been effective in decreasing dog bites or increasing public safety. Just a few examples… The Netherlands In June 2008, the Dutch government announced the repeal of their 15-year-long ban on pit bulls due to its failure to ensure public safety. Dog bites continued to rise in spite of the ban. The government is now looking into behavior-based, rather than breed-based, legislation. (Note that the article says the ban lasted 25 years; this is obviously incorrect if the ban passed in 1993.) The United Kingdom The United Kingdom’s Dangerous Dog Act (updated 1997) bans the American Pit Bull Terrier and three other breeds of dogs and their crossbreeds. Yet recent reports from the U.K. indicate that dog bite incidents have increased by 50% percent between the years of 1997 and 2007. They have also had numerous dog bite fatalities. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says that the Dangerous Dog Act has never worked. They believe that banned types of dogs are actually increasing in number despite the ban, and to make matters worse, thugs are intentionally crossbreeding and training vicious mongrels that cannot be obviously classified as one of the banned breeds. The RSPCA notes that the Dangerous Dog Act is a failure because it does not address the ownership and management issues that lead to the creation of dangerous dogs. Aragon, Spain Spain passed the Dangerous Animals Act in 2000, placing restrictions on nine breeds of dogs and dogs possessing “characteristics” of those breeds. A scientific study analyzing dog bites reported to the Aragon health department during a five year period before the Act was passed (1995 to 1999) and the five year period after passage (2000 to 2004) found that there was no significant difference in the number of dog bites in Spain before or after the Dangerous Animals Act passed. Furthermore, the study found that the most popular breeds (none of which were targeted by the legislation) were responsible for the most bites both before and after passage of the BSL. The targeted breeds accounted for a very small portion of bites both before and after passage of the BSL. The scientists concluded that there was no rational basis for Spain’s BSL. Prince George’s County, MD In 1996, Prince George’s County, Maryland, instituted a pit bull ban. In 2003, a task force set out to determine whether the ban was having the desired effect in a number of areas, including public safety. The task force found that - The “public safety benefit is unmeasurable.”
- Across the board, dog bites had decreased among all breeds at about the same rate. The ban did not appear to have had any noticeable effect on public safety.
- What’s more, the task force expressed concern that the ban might actually be having a negative effect on public safety; animal control facilities and workers were stretched thin because they were constantly having to respond to “pit bull” complaints and house alleged pit bulls. The task force felt that this had a negative effect on animal control’s ability to respond to other types of violations.
The task force urged Prince George’s County to rescind the ban and institute non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws. Denver, CO Denver’s ban on “pit bulls” has been in place since 1989, and has long been touted as a success by a handful of Denver officials, but it turns out that the results of the ban have been unclear. Since the ban, there has been… But… No fatal attack by a pit bull Fatal attack by a chow mix Fewer bites by pit bulls Dog bites by all types of dogs have declined Fewer pit bull-related complaints Pit bull population is not believed to have decreased in Denver Thousands of “pit bull”-looking dogs have been killed by animal control for no reason other than appearance. Bites by other types of dogs now exceed the number of bites by pit bull types Aurora, CO Several cities in Colorado, including Aurora, passed breed bans (or breed restrictions) on pit bulls and a few rarer breeds (i.e. Dogo Argentinos) effective 2006. And though pit bull bites fluxuate from year to year (they decreased initially, but this can be easily linked to the expected decline in pit bull population post-ban), the annual total of bites by other breeds of dogs have stayed the same or increased. Perplexingly, after passing their ban, Aurora changed the way they tally dog bites—allowing the city to subsequently “compare apples to oranges,” so to speak, when evaluating their dog bite statistics pre- and post-ban. For 2006 and 2007, Aurora has broken down bites by severity. Tellingly, over 90% of severe bites were committed by non-restricted breeds in Aurora both years. Surely someone has had success with BSL? The effects of BSL on public safety are seriously understudied, especially by the scientific community. The few scientific studies that exist have indicated that BSL has little to no effect on public safety. In some cases, as in the U.K., dog bites appear to be a growing problem in spite of BSL. To date, there are no scientific studies anywhere that confirm BSL or breed bans have had a significant positive effect on public safety. (Check out this interview with Dr. Alan Beck and Marjorie Darby.) The reasons for this lack of data are numerous: - Some cities that pass BSL fail to collect bite data after passage of the legislation. They assume that the problem is solved, and do not look into the issue again.
- Or, as with Aurora, the city changes its method of bite data collection so that it becomes difficult if not impossible to compare pre- and post-BSL dog bites.
- Sometimes the city only tracks bites by “pit bulls” and not other breeds, so it is not possible to discern whether another breed is causing more problems after passage of BSL.
- Often, the city does not make its dog bite data freely and easily available upon request. The reasons why are unclear. One could surmise that this may be because of improper or outdated methods of record-keeping, overburdened office workers, or embarrassment over unfavorable statistics.
- Breed identification and many other issues raise questions as to the accuracy and validity of many dog bite statistics.
- There is no uniform method for collecting dog bite information, nor is there a primary organization to which all dog bites are reported.
In the few cases where sufficient data has been scientifically gathered and analyzed, BSL has not been shown to reduce dog bites or improve public safety. What does happen under breed-specific legislation? - Innocent people continue to be threatened, bitten, traumatized, disfigured, and killed—by non-targeted breeds and types of dogs.
- Innocent dogs are killed because they look a certain way.
- Millions of dollars are wasted and animal control resources stretched thin in order to kill dogs and not save people.
- Abusive and irresponsible owners carry on with “business as usual.”
- Good owners and their families are outcasts (if they keep their targeted dog) or devastated (if they give up their targeted dog).
- Reason, science, and expertise gets ignored or, even worse, scoffed at.
- Nobody learns anything about the real reasons why dogs bite and attack, safety around dogs, or responsible dog ownership.
Breed-specific legislation makes victims of us all. Sources and Resources Associated Press. “Dutch government to lift 25-year ban on pit bulls.” June 10, 2008. Aurora City Council Meeting, Presentation regarding results of ban , June 27, 2008. Collier, Stephen. “Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified?” Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2006) 1, 17-22. Johansson, Brandon. “Council wants to sink its teeth into dog bite data.” Aurora Sentinel Online, Feb. 11, 2008. Lakhani, Nina. “Dog bite victims up by 50 per cent in 10 years.” The Independent Online, Dec. 30, 2007. Prince George’s County Task Force Report, 2003. Rosado et. al. “Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites.” Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2007) 2, 166-174. Sorenson, Dan. “‘Dangerous breed’ ban in Denver yields few clear results.” Arizona Daily Star, Dec. 3, 2006. Watson, Linda. “Does Breed Specific Legislation reduce dog aggression on humans and other animals? A review paper.” From the Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia.
|
|
|
|
