Dangerous dogs: A viewpoint on breed bans

Media Relations and Marketing
9 Anderson Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506-0117
Phone: 785-532-6415
Fax: 785-532-6418

Information provided by K-State Media Relations, K-State's news service, may be reproduced without permission. The marks and names of Kansas State University are protected trademarks and may not be used in any commercial or private endeavor without the approval of the university.

Viewpoint prepared by: Ralph C. Richardson, DVM
This letter was initially prepared for publication in The Manhattan Mercury in response to letters and articles about breed bans.

Monday, September 25, 2006

DANGEROUS DOGS: A VIEWPOINT ON BREED BANS

Your two recent articles by Kevin Elliott (ref. “Dogs at large” on September 22, 2006 and “naughty or nice?” on September 24) were well done and accurate. Mr. Don Redeker’s Letter to the Editor published on September 24th seeking a breed ban on Pit Bulls is an understandable and common response to reports of dog attacks or media coverage such as yours. In order to avoid having Manhattan go down a “breed ban” pathway, I would like to offer a veterinary professional view on the topic of dangerous dogs and, specifically on the fallacy of believing that breed bans are effective.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has written a position paper on dangerous dogs (Dr. Gail Golub, Assistant Director of Communications, November, 2005). In that paper Dr. Golub notes that banning specific breeds to control dog bite injuries ignores the scope and nature of the problem and is unlikely to protect a community’s citizens. Breed bans assume all dogs of a specific breed are likely to bite, instead of acknowledging that most dogs are not a problem. In the 1970’s the German Shepherd breed was the one to avoid, in the ‘80’s it was the Doberman, in the ‘90’s it was the Rottweiler, and in the first decade of the 21st Century, it is the Pit Bull. Kansas City has had a breed ban on Pit Bulls for over 15 years, yet they have not controlled their dangerous dog problems through confiscation and euthanasia. Breed ban laws rarely assign appropriate responsibilities where the blame lies: to owners.

The AVMA notes that a dog’s tendency to bite depends on at least six interacting factors: heredity, early experience, socialization and training, physical and behavioral health, victim behavior, and environment. Breed-ban approaches ignore five of the six and are not likely to result in effective injury control. Banning specific breeds may give owners of other breeds a false sense of security and decrease their desire to seek appropriate socialization and training of their pets.

The AVMA recommends the following strategies to prevent dog bite injuries: 1) enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws, with an emphasis on chronically irresponsible owners; 2) enforcement of animal control ordinances such as leash laws; 3) prohibition of dog fighting; 4) encouraging neutering; and 5) school-based and adult education programs that teach pet selection strategies, pet care and responsibility, and bite prevention.

Perhaps Manhattan’s most effective steps of action are not to impose more laws, but to focus on responsible pet care and to implement bite prevention training in all of our grade schools. Manhattan is fortunate to have a reasonable set of dangerous dog laws and ordinances. We do not tolerate dog fighting. Our veterinary community is well-educated and provides a great source of information regarding physical and behavioral health of pets. When problems occur, increased responsibility on the part of pet owners is needed. Bite prevention information and training is readily available through a variety of sources (e.g., brochures, videotapes, journal articles). Appropriate education through parental and early-year school teaching programs will do more to protect our children and citizens than any number of new laws.