Once upon a time -- according to an
article in the Indianapolis Star -- Councilman Mike Speedy was out jogging, when a pit bull-type dog pulled away from its owner and charged toward him. Even though the dog stopped six feet away and was recalled to its owner without doing any harm, the encounter seems to have soured Speedy on pit bulls for life. In turnabout, he has recently sponsored a proposed ordinance which, if passed, will place heavy restrictions not only on pit bulls, but also AmStaffs, StaffyBulls, American Bulldogs, Cane Corsos, Dogos Argentinos, Presa Canarios, and any dog that bears a resemblance to any of the above breeds. (Say goodbye to your Boxers, Mastiffs, Bulldogs, Bull Terriers, and short-coated Lab mixes.) Among other restrictions, the ordinance would require that all such dogs be registered as a dangerous animal (at a cost of $100 per annum), sterilized, microchipped, muzzled in public, kept behind solid-wall fences labeled with DANGEROUS ANIMAL signs, and their owners required to carry a $1 million liability insurance policy to cover their dogs.
As a professional dog trainer and hobby competitor, I have worked with literally thousands of dogs, representing well over a hundred breeds. I specialize in working with fearful and fear-aggressive animals. On top of years of personal experience, I have a solid grounding in behavior analysis. Even without witnessing Speedy's pit bull incident, I can tell that the dog who charged him was not a truly aggressive animal. I can imagine the situation: The dog was probably startled by the approach of a runner, and went into a typical defensive display -- run toward the scary person, make a lot of noise, maybe hackle or show teeth, but keep a fair distance so the scary person can't grab you. This is the standard startle/fear reaction for most dogs; I've seen my own dogs do the same thing when strangers trespassed on my property.
Was the dog in this incident undersocialized? Probably. Scared of Mike Speedy? Probably. Aggressive? Probably not. A truly aggressive dog wouldn't have stopped at six feet.
Speedy's proposal claims that pit bulls and other listed breeds are "uniquely more dangerous, even to their owners, as compared to other breeds of dogs." No pun intended, but that is BULL. According to the
American Temperament Test Society, an independent nonprofit organization which evaluates and records data on dog temperament, the national temperament test pass rate for the American Pit Bull Terrier breed is 85.3%; American Bulldog, 84.7%; American Staffordshire Terrier, 83.9%; Dogo Argentino, 90.9%; Presa Canario, 89.3%; and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, 88%.
All six of these breeds score higher than the national average of 81.6%. In comparison, nearly all of them also score higher than Golden Retrievers – one of the most popular "family-friendly" breeds – which have a pass rate of 84.6%. Miniature Poodles score 77.3%, and standard smooth Dachshunds score only 70.2% -- more than 20% lower than Dogos Argentinos! -- and yet no community in the country has banned Mini Poodles or Dachshunds. Granted, the ATTS can only collect data on dogs who take the temperament test, so these percentages do not represent an accurate cross-section of all dogs in the United States. But even so, these numbers deny the claim that pit bull types are somehow more inherently dangerous or aggressive than other breeds.
Clearly, this proposal was thrown together without any statistical research or even personal knowledge of dog breeds. One of the breeds targeted by this proposal, the
Staffordshire Bull Terrier (at right), averages 15" in height. While it is certainly possible for any dog, regardless of size, to bite, the heavy restrictions stipulated for control of dangerous breeds seem ridiculously demanding for a dog that is about the same size as a standard Dachshund or Miniature Schnauzer. The restrictions laid out for other breeds are equally arbitrary, and have been chosen without regard to any verifiable statistical data.
Additionally, many of the statements in the proposal are simply factually wrong, such as the claim that pit bulls "have been selectively bred for the purpose of bull baiting, bear baiting, and dog fighting for hundreds of years" -- when in fact the pit bull, according to the UKC's breed history, was not even developed until the 19th century, and the APBT was not standardized until 1898. Speedy is trying to saddle the breed with a centuries-old killer instinct, but pit bulls have a solid history as companion and working dogs. As a terrier breed, they were used by farmers to hunt vermin. Even those dogs used in sport fighting were bred specifically to be friendly to humans. In the early 20th century, pit bulls had a reputation as a solid family dog -- everyone remembers
Nipper, the RCA dog, and
Petey, the Our Gang dog, both of whom were pit bulls. Pit bulls have also served as
war dogs and more -- hardly the snarling, dangerous monsters they are made out to be.
Speedy's proposal offends and angers me on a number of levels -- it includes subjective, self-contradictory and grossly inaccurate generalizations regarding breeding and aggression -- but it also scares me. To put forth the assumption that a dog can be judged “dangerous” or “safe” based solely on its physical appearance, and to make such a statement in a legal document, is terrifying. How can we declare, legally, that an organism's phenotype is a valid indicator of its future behavior?
A couple of centuries ago, some people held the belief that humans with dark skin were inherently inferior to those with light skin. Some even suggested that blacks were better off being managed and guided by whites, who were their moral and intellectual superiors. Some dismissed that blatant generalization in favor of the "sciences" of phrenology and physiognomy. Perhaps a person's skin color wasn't a concrete indicator of their inner nature, but we could certainly tell a criminal by the shape of his nose, or the width of his forehead, or the size of his skull. Police stations were equipped with physiognomy charts so that the officers could be on the lookout for persons who were more likely to commit crimes.
Today, we are rightly horrified by this kind of thinking, at least insofar as it applies to humans. We have learned that skin color is not an indicator of mental capacity nor moral standing. We know that a person's physical appearance does not make them more likely to behave a certain way. So how can we apply the same baseless generalizations to dogs? How can we say that a dog with a boxy skull, or stocky torso, or brindle markings, is more likely to be "dangerous" than a dog with a pointed nose or long legs? The "aggressive pit bull" myth is founded on rumor, hearsay and media sensationalism. It has no basis in any study of genetics, animal behavior, veterinary medicine, or even documented dog bite incidents (statistically, pit bulls are not the top biters).
THE MEDIA BIAS
Much of the "dangerous pit bull" sentiment in Indianapolis (and across the country) can be traced to biased media coverage. My sister and I were present at the 2006 FEMA Search & Rescue certification test in Beech Grove. A WTHR camera crew had come to tape the test for their evening news coverage. The crew taped a Labrador Retriever and a German Shepherd Dog, turned off the camera while the American Staffordshire Terrier worked, and then turned the camera back on for the Golden Retriever that followed it. "Because the news couldn't possibly show a pit bull doing Search and Rescue work," my sister muttered as we watched. "Pit bulls don't save lives. They only eat people."
The Indianapolis Star is also a major offender, regularly running misleading headlines and inflammatory articles about pit bulls, and often misreporting breeds in dog bite incidents. Several years ago, the Star reported that a serious dog attack had been perpetrated by a "pack of vicious pit bulls" -- when in fact the dogs involved were a collection of other breeds, including a Lab mix and a Border Collie (sample picture of a BC at left -- does this look like a pit bull to you?!), with nary a pit bull among them. In 2006, the Star reported, with tragic embellishment, the story of a 12-year-old boy who was mauled by his uncle's pit bull when he stepped off the school bus. The newspaper called the attack unprovoked and attributed it to the dog's inherent viciousness, but what they failed to report was that this boy was in the habit of
teasing and throwing rocks at the chained dogs after he got off the bus. Any tormented animal might respond the same way, regardless of breed or natural temperament.
The Star, like many newspapers, also fails to report any dog bite that ISN'T attributed to a pit bull. On the
page of their site reporting dog bite numbers, the Star splashes a huge 712-pixel graphic of Marion County covered in red dots representing pit bull incidents, with the headline "Pit Bull Trends." Anyone who innocently ventures to the site to look up the number of Lhasa Apso bites in Marion County in 2007 is left with the impression that the only biting dogs in Indy are pit bulls. And of course this isn't true; there are hundreds of reported bites by Labs, GSDs and other breeds. This selective reporting propagates the myth that pit bull types are somehow more dangerous than any other dog.
Additionally, people who witness dog attacks tend to misreport the breeds involved, whether consciously or no. The news media, often working under a deadline, doesn't bother to verify these reports, or sometimes speculates as to the breed involved. The NCRC has some excellent
examples of misreported dog breeds involved in fatal attacks on humans.
WHY WE CARE: The True Cost Of BSL
"So," you may say, "I see what you're saying... but I don't have a pit bull, and maybe there are a few legitimately dangerous dogs out there that might be stopped by this ordinance. Why should I oppose it?"
I won't even discuss precedent -- pit bulls today, Chihuahuas tomorrow -- but how about public safety?
If the goal of this ordinance is to prevent dog attacks within Indianapolis, it should not be singling out a certain type or breed of dog: When breed-specific restrictions have been enacted in other communities across the country,
they have resulted in more dog bite incidents, not fewer! Even though the city of Denver, Colorado began enforcing a pit bull ban in 2005 -- resulting in the seizure and deaths of over 1,600 family pets -- they experience no fewer dog attacks. Instead, the number of bites by other breeds, most notably Labrador Retrievers (which account for 13.3% of total dog-related injuries in the area), has increased. According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver experiences nearly
three times as many dog-related hospitalizations per capita as the nearby city of Boulder, which does not have any breed restrictions. Aurora, Colorado also banned pit bulls in 2005; over the next two years, the
total number of dog bites per year increased more than 30%. By making residents believe that all of the “dangerous” dogs are gone, people are lured into a false sense of security, and fail to exercise appropriate care and caution with regard to their animals.
There is also the issue of finance -- and taxpayer money often succeeds where moral and ethical appeals fail.
The cost of breed restrictions is, if not entirely prohibitive, at least obscenely high. The city of Cincinnati, Ohio spent $160,000 per year trying to enforce its ban on pit bulls, without success. Omaha, Nebraska estimates that their city's
pit bull ban will cost $500,000 per year to enforce. Instead of wasting so much money on arbitrary and ineffective breed restrictions, perhaps we should apply those funds toward more stringent enforcement of the leash laws, dangerous dog restrictions and dog fighting laws already in place.
Plus, entirely apart from its financial burden, the practical enforcement of a breed restriction is notoriously difficult. It sounds simple, in theory: All dogs who look like pit bulls must be restricted. But if you think identifying a pit bull is easy, go play the
"Find The Pit Bull" game.
The proposal demands that dogs "exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics of these breeds which substantially conform to the standards established by the AKC or UKC" be labeled dangerous. Very well; let's go to the breed standard. The UKC standard for the American Pit Bull Terrier describes the character of the breed as "eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children... The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers.
Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work." If we take the
wording of this proposal at face value, then non-aggressive dogs who are friendly to children and strangers, intelligent and eager to please, must be considered dangerous – but this is certainly not the
intent of the proposed ordinance! The proposal offers no clear guidance for identifying a “dog bred for fighting,” other than vague similarity to other breeds.
So -- as I wrote to my councilpersons -- how will animal control officers enforce an ambiguous breed restriction, when the proposal itself can't clearly identify why or how a dog should be considered “dangerous”? How, exactly, will these “pit bulls” be identified? Will the county require DNA testing for a dog whose breed is called into question? When the pit bull ban went into effect in Denver, animal control officials were flooded with false reports of violations, with misreported breeds ranging from Labradors to Boxers to Shih Tzus. In the face of this confusion, a Denver court ruled that a dog was subject to the breed ban because it resembled a pit bull, despite the dog's breeding papers that showed it to be a non-restricted breed; but is the city of Indianapolis prepared to face the same lawsuits and appeals each time a dog's phenotype isn't conclusive? These very practical problems must be solved before such an ordinance could even be considered, and so far not a single community in the U.S. has found a viable solution. Many cities have already repealed their breed restrictions, overwhelmed by the financial drain and lack of enforcement capability.
Ultimately, this proposal is not a solution, and it will create far more problems within our city than it could possibly prevent. It even has the potential to do a great amount of harm; I personally know pit bulls who work as service dogs, certified search and rescue dogs, certified therapy dogs, tracking dogs, performance dogs, and more. This kind of “dangerous breed” ordinance would not only end their careers, but would seriously affect the lives of the people who work with or rely on these dogs.
So -- if I may step down from my soapbox to hand you the important literature -- I urge everyone to contact their Councillors (you can find names and contact info on
this page) and let them know that you oppose this proposal. Tell them you don't want the government legislating what your dog is allowed to look like. Tell them you don't want your dollars being spent in a fruitless effort to villainize a particular type of animal. Tell them to enforce the laws we have, rather than spending time and money making new ordinances that won't solve our problems.
And then go out and play with your dog -- because if this sort of legislation gets passed, there may come a day when you won't have a dog to play with.
