Breed-specific dog restrictions reasonable (Minnesota)

[Rene Allegrini]

Our View: Breed-specific dog restrictions reasonable

South Washington County Bulletin
Wednesday, February 27, 2008



When a 7-year-old Minneapolis boy was killed by the family pit bull late last summer, it regrettably put a face on an important issue — the threat of dangerous dogs.

Serious conversations on the issue are starting, with the Feb. 19 introduction of an amendment from Rep. Dennis Ozment, a Republican from Rosemount, that would lift the state prohibition that prevents cities from creating breed-specific restrictions and a proposal from Rep. John Lesch, a DFLer from St. Paul, that would ban five breeds.

This is a debate that’s been hashed out many times in many places, and the American Kennel Club was quick to post its press release in opposition to Ozment’s bill the day after it was introduced.

We’d like to offer a few common-sense truths before this debate gets too far along.

No. 1: There will always be irresponsible pet owners.

No. 2: A few types of dogs are responsible for the majority of bite-related fatalities.

No. 3: The right to own a pit bull is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution (guns are, by the way, and we do restrict those).

No. 4: The majority of pit bulls don’t kill people, and dogs of many other breeds have killed people, too.

Let’s start with the first point.

There are people in the world who act in ignorance, carelessness or malice. Government should do what it can to protect innocent people from the harm that they cause.

With that end, Ozment’s amendment proposes there be statewide standards for dog-owner training for each breed of dog.

So in the same way the state requires you to undergo more training to drive a semitrailer than to drive a car, it could require more training to own a specific breed of dog that is more prone to violence.

If it requires extra skill on the part of an owner to ensure a pit bull or rottweiler isn’t a threat to others, then it’s reasonable to ask potential owners to prove they have that skill.

According to a study published Sept. 15, 2000, in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, pit bull-type dogs were involved in about a third of human dog bite-related fatalities reported between 1981 and 1992. Rottweilers were responsible for about half of dog attacks leading to human death reported from 1993 through 1996.

Breed-specific bans are justified, and that’s why a majority of states allow cities to implement them. Other countries such as England, Canada and Germany have breed-specific restrictions.
There are humane ways to implement a ban, such as allowing the dogs that are already people’s pets and haven’t acted violently to be grandfathered in, as long as they are spayed or neutered. And when it comes time to get a new dog, there are hundreds of other breeds and cross-breeds to choose from.

The statistics show that banning certain breeds will solve part of the problem, but not all of it. According to the 2000 study, a cocker spaniel was on record as causing a human fatality. Depending on how it’s treated, any dog can become violent, meaning cities must continue to identify dangerous dogs and impose strict restrictions on them. With its toughened dog ordinance, Cottage Grove is setting a good example of this.

South Washington County Bulletin

[molochai2580]

That particular bit of bill was shot down in the Feb 19th hearing of the Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee Hearing.

What passed through the committee was: madatory obediance training for dogs declared dangerous and an increase in required liability insurance from $50k to $200k.

The two admendments to the bill that were shot down was the one to repeal MN 347.51 sub 8 that makes it against state law to ban dogs according to breed.

and the other shot down was that the 5 breeds of dogs (rottie, pit, chow, akita, and wolf hybrid) would automatically be considered dangerous by birthright.

That was Paymar's bill. Ozments bill was sent to the same commitee who refused to hear it because it had already been decided in Paymar's bill.

of course there is still the senate to pass through, but those of use that are fighting this don't see it happening in the Senate, but we are keeping close tabs on it.