Bad to the bone? (Tucson, AZ)

[Rene Allegrini]

Emily's article appears well researched and well written.


Why banning breeds of dogs won't work

EMILY HU
Tucson Citizen

While dog attacks are not usually headline news, more than 4.5 million dog bites occur each year, and experts say 800,000 of those bites require medical attention.

Regulations imposed on spe- cific breeds, known as breed bans, have been proposed as a solution to the increasing number of attacks, but they have also brought serious controversy.

Breed bans are currently targeted toward pit bulls and Rottweilers, which accounted for 67 percent of U.S. dog-related fatalities in 1997-98.

Although proponents of breed bans argue that, clearly, there are breed-specific problems, animal experts contend there are many more factors than just genetics.

For one, not all pit bulls can be considered dangerous.

One pit bull owner was quoted as saying, "My dog is my family member. My dog sleeps in bed with me. My dog is my therapy. . . . And when people tell me my dog is dangerous because it has a fat head and a big body, that's unfair."

Putting restrictions on entire breeds makes an unfair assumption that an entire breed is dangerous.

Experts say training, care and health also play important roles in an animal's temperament.
Some, such as dog bite lawyer Kenneth Phillips, say 90 percent of the tendency to attack is based on care, training, socialization and maintenance of health.

Even if pit bulls are "genetically inclined" to be aggressive, proper owner action can change that.

Incorrect care, on the other hand, can do exactly the opposite, even for "safe" breeds.
Any animal, if mistreated, can become a potential danger to society. The idea of a "dangerous dog" is somewhat subjective.

In the 1970s, the targeted breed was Doberman pinscher. After protests over ownership of those dogs erupted, the pit bull became the new target.

That pit bulls have not always been identified as the most dangerous dog shows the inconsistency and unreliability of reports in the media and the easily affected ideas of the population.

However, the other popular solution, pet-owner liability, has as much opposition as breed bans.

But while pet owner liability and breed bans are the most popular attempted solutions, they are not the only possible solution to the dog attack problem.

Twenty-one states have already turned away from that dead-end debate and implemented a compromise. It is commonly called the "one bite" law, by which an owner is liable only if he has been negligent or the dog has previously exhibited dangerous behavior.

Each case is examined individually.

"One bite" laws will incorporate breed, owner, history and the situation in a more complicated, but more effective, analysis of the problem.

Although supporters have argued that breed bans are simple for the owner and law enforcement, such bans sacrifice effectiveness for simplicity.

The basis of breed bans is inaccurate, and more factors than simply breed influence a dog's behavior.

In a sense, breed bans are both too general, punishing harmless dogs, and too narrow, by not considering other breeds.

Case-by-case, "one bite" laws will be more tedious than banning a breed, but we'll be thankful in the end.

We'll be protecting our loyal companions from breed bans, because dogs are, after all, a man's best friend.

Read the Tucson Citizen teen columnists' blog.

Teen columnist Emily Hu is a freshman at Catalina Foothills High School. E-mail: emily2_468@hotmail.com

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/61304.php

[hokisteph5]

If a freshman in high school gets it, all hope is not lost.