Breed-Specific Legislation is myth-based and ineffective according to the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB)

AVSAB, a national association of veterinarians who are board-certified in the specialty of animal behavior, has just released a position statement expressing their opposition to breed-specific legislation. Their position paper notes that they are “concerned about the propensity of various communities’ reliance on breed-specific legislation as a tool to decrease the risk and incidence of dog bites to humans,” noting “that such legislation (BSL) – is ineffective, and can lead to a false sense of community safety as well as welfare concerns for dogs identified (often incorrectly) as belonging to specific breeds.”

“Dogs and owners must be evaluated individually,” the authors conclude, citing the wide range of findings across the literature regarding breeds and bite risk. And many such findings are called into question by the demonstrated unreliability of visual breed identification, particularly with regard to the estimated 46% of the US dog population that are of mixed breed ancestry.

In discussing why dogs bite, these behaviorists point out that while there are many motivations, most occur when the dog feels threatened in some way, and that uncovering the triggers specific to the individual dog and responding appropriately are key to prevention. Understanding the social needs of dogs is particularly important to bite prevention, ranging from appropriate socialization of puppies to including the dog in the family, providing daily, positive interactions with people. Dogs that are kept simply as resident on the property, without such social opportunities, are much more likely to feel threatened by humans and respond accordingly. And owners who teach their dogs, through harsh training methods, that people are indeed dangerous are more likely to evoke aggressive responses from their dogs.

The AVSAB stresses that breed alone is not predictive of the risk of aggressive behavior. Indeed, this recommendation is in line with a recent study of dog bite-related fatalities which reported that in 80.5% of cases, four or more potential risk factors were present.

According to this national association of veterinarians who have specialized training in animal behavior, what does work is “responsible dog ownership and public education.” These “must be a primary focus of any dog bite prevention policy.”

The AVSAB also invites you to share this resource, “to discount common fallacies of ‘easy fixes’ that are often based on myths, and instead promote awareness that will reduce the prevalence of aggression toward people and promote better care, understanding, and welfare of our canine companions.” The full position statement can be viewed here:http://avsabonline.org/uploads/position_statements/Breed-Specific_Legislation-download-1.pd

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/breed-specific-legislation-is-myth-based-and-ineffective-according-to-the-american-veterinary-society-of-animal-behavior-avsab/

Breed-specific legislation on the decline

Breed-Specific Legislation on the Decline : 5 more states no longer allow BSL & more than 7x as many U.S. Municipalities repealed or rejected proposed BSL, than enacted it between: January 2012 – May 2014.

The national trend is moving steadily away from breed-specific legislation (BSL) and toward breed neutral laws that hold all owners equally accountable for the humane care, custody and control of their dogs. The list of states that are considering and passing legislation to preempt municipalities from passing BSL continues to grow.

BSL is a discriminatory law or ordinance that prohibits or restricts the keeping of dogs of specific breeds, dogs presumed to be specific breeds, mixes of specific breeds, and/or dogs presumed to be mixes of specific breeds.[1]

The trend reflects a growing understanding that regulating dogs on the basis of breed or physical description does not reduce dog bites.[2].[3],[4]. An analysis published in 2010 offers one explanation for the failure of BSL.[5] Most importantly, studies continue to show that one kind of dog is no more likely to threaten or bite a human being than another.[6],[7].[8].

The American Bar Association has urged the repeal of all BSL.[9] The White House also opposes BSL and released a statement saying, “research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”[10] No major national organizations endorse BSL, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control, the Humane Society of the United States, the National Animal Control Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Best Friends Animal Society.

The tide has turned against BSL and communities are implementing policies that hold all dog owners responsible for the humane care, custody, and control of their dogs, regardless of breed or appearance.

Building safer and more humane communities requires multifactorial approaches focusing on improved ownership and husbandry practices, better understanding of dog behavior, education of parents and children regarding safety around dogs, and consistent enforcement of dangerous dog/reckless owner ordinances in communities.[11],[12].

Updated June 16, 2014

To view this document as a PDF, click here.

SOURCES and NOTES

[1] The most drastic form of BSL is a complete ban, but BSL also includes any laws that impose separate requirements or limitations on dogs and dog owners, including but not limited to: mandatory spay/neuter, muzzling requirements, liability insurance requirements, special licensing and additional fees, mandatory microchipping or tattoos, owner / walker age requirements, property posting requirements, confinement and leash requirements, breed-specific pet limits, sale or transfer notification requirements, restrictions on access to certain public spaces with the dog [e.g.: public parks; school grounds], required town-issued items [e.g.: fluorescent collar; vest], training requirements, requirement that photos of the dog and/or owner be kept on town file. BSL, in any form, results in the destruction of many pet dogs.

For more information and to stay up-to-date with BSL, please see the NCRC BSL Map:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/bsl-map

[2] National Canine Research Council. (2013). Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective. Retrieved from:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Denver%20BSL%20Brutal,%20Costly,%20and%20Ineffective%20_%20Aug%202013.pdf

[3] Rosado, B., García-Belenguer, S., León, M., & Palacio, J. (2007). Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2(5): 166-174.

[4] Cornelissen, J.,M., & Hopster, H. (2010). Dog bites in the Netherlands: a study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation. Veterinary Journal, 186(3): 292-298.

[5] Patronek, G.J., Slater, M., & Marder, A. (2010). Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite-related injury. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 237(7):  788-792.

[6] American Veterinary Medical Association: Animal Welfare Division. (2012). Dog Bite Risk and Prevention: The Role of Breed. Retrieved from: https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

[7] Guy, N. C., Luescher, U. A., Dohoo, S. E., Spangler, E., Miller, J. B., Dohoo, I. R., & Bate, L. A. (2001). Demographic and aggressive characteristics of dogs in a general veterinary caseload. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 74(1), 15-28.

[8] Casey, R. A., Loftus, B., Bolster, C., Richards, G.J., & Blackwell, E.J. (2014). Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiarias): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 152, 52-63.

[9] American Bar Association. (2012). Resolution 100: Adopted by the House of Delegates. Retrieved from:http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/mental_physical_disability/Resolution_100.authcheckdam.pdf

[10] The White House. (2013). Breed-Specific Legislation Is a Bad Idea. Retrieved from:https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/breed-specific-legislation-bad-idea

[11] National Canine Research Council. (2013). Causes and Prevention. Retrieved from:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/causes-and-prevention/

[12]Patronek, G.J., Sacks, J.J., Delise, K.M., Cleary, D.V., & Marder, A.R. (2013). Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,243(12), 1726-1736.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/breed-specific-legislation-on-the-decline/

DOG BITE PREVENTION "THE CALGARY MODEL"

The Calgary Model

 

The animal control bylaw in Calgary, Alberta, Canada has been hailed by many as a HUGE success.  While other cities and provinces in Canada are banning breeds, Calgary is choosing education program and stronger enforcement.  

What's the end result?  By all accounts, reports and statistics, the bylaw is working!   Not only that, the bylaw works so well and the results are so highly praised, Calgary is inspiring animal control officials outside of Canada to use the bylaw as a model for their own animal control ordinances.

 

 

The following is written by Dana Grove:

 

The bylaw officers in Calgary have taken a stand against breed banning, and responded to dog bite concerns with a tougher licensing program and stronger enforcement. 

The City of Calgary also spends considerable funds on dog safety public awareness and education campaigns. Research shows that just 1 hour of dog safety training in grades 2 and 3 can reduce these attacks by 80%.

"We don't punish breeds, we punish behavior," said chief bylaw officer Bill Bruce. "The bottom line is, we believe all dogs are capable of biting."

In Calgary, 90 per cent of dogs are licensed, allowing bylaw officers to keep track of pets and owners. The city also has a strict fine structure that includes a $250 penalty for chase incidents and $350 fines for bites. 

The bylaw also allows the officers to declare specific dogs as “dangerous” and this label brings with it higher license fees, muzzling rules and age restrictions on the dog's handlers. The bylaw states that a dog can only be destroyed by owner request or court order.

The county of Newell in Alberta received dozens of letters and e-mails from around the world from people who oppose breed restrictions, said deputy Reeve Jack Harbinson.

"We decided after listening to the people, they were right," he said.

The success of their actions? Approximately 1000 reported dog bites in 1985 and 260 reported dog bites in 2003.

 

Calgary’s dangerous dog legislation was implemented in response to the bite problem. Dangerous dog, not dangerous breed. The results speak for themselves – a 70% drop in the number of OVERALL dog bites. 

The measures Calgary has taken have shown results, and set a model and a precedent that should be implemented across Canada. THIS is the model Ontario should be looking at… 

 

http://www.bdnhumanesociety.com/calgary_solution.htm

 

 

 

Calgary dog attacks fall to lowest level in 25 years

City a leader in reducing canine problems, says top bylaw officer

 

By Sean Myers, Calgary Herald February 21, 2009

Attacks by aggressive dogs are at the lowest level they've been in 25 years despite a steady population growth and the absence of breed-specific legislation brought in to tackle canine issues in other jurisdictions.

Despite the low numbers, Calgary's top bylaw officer plans to delve deeper into the causes of dog attacks to try to bring the incidents even lower.

"This is exactly what we've been targeting," said Bill Bruce. "Our ultimate goal, of course, is to get it to zero, or as close to that as possible."

Bruce said Calgary is a leader in reducing dog attacks in Canada, noting that he often receives invitations from animal services around the world to talk about the work done here to reduce dog bites.

Calgary bylaw officers recorded 340 reported aggressive dog incidents in 2008 which included chases, bites and damage to property.

Of those, 145 complaints were bites.
In 2007, 374 aggressive dog calls were made, including 137 bites, and in 2006, of 402 aggressive dog complaints, 199 were for bites.

By comparison, back in 1985, the city received a whopping 1,938 aggressive dog complaints, including 621 bites, at a time when Calgary had a population of just over 600,000.

A new pet owner bylaw was brought in three years ago that included stiffer fines and a recognition that aggressive behaviour in dogs is normally traced back to irresponsible owners. 

Bruce said both the heavier penalties -- ranging from $350 to $1,500, to euthanizing the dog--and the philosophy of blaming bad owners rather than pets has helped reduce incidents.

This year, Bruce is launching a pilot project where he'll have six officers dedicated to following up every aggressive dog complaint to identify common factors in attacks that can be addressed in future bylaw enforcement and public education campaigns.

"We want to look at everything that led up to an aggressive dog attack," said Bruce. "We're hoping to find four to six common things that people do that causes dogs to bite. Our goal is not to have anyone bitten by a dog."

At the same time Bruce investigates softer approaches to addressing pet owner issues, he's also been given a bigger stick with which to penalize chronically non-compliant dog owners.
In the fall, bylaw enforcement gained the right to tag a dog as a nuisance pet, which means doubling the fines on the owner.

One dog has already received this designation, according to Bruce.
Brandy Campbell-Biggs, president of Pit Bulls For Life, a non-profit animal rescue operation geared specifically toward pit bulls, said targeting bad owners instead of stigmatizing entire breeds is the key to reducing aggressive incidents.

While dog bites have been going down, the number of pit bulls coming to the city has been increasing, she said.

She doesn't know how many there are in the city, but her organization has placed 160 pit bulls in foster homes or with permanent adoptive owners in Calgary over the past three and a half years.

Pit Bulls For Life brings the dogs in from jurisdictions with breed-specific legislation that sees many breeds deemed dangers, including pit bulls, targeted for euthanasia. She said 20 per cent of the dogs they help come from Ontario.

"We have a lot more pit bulls in Calgary now," said Campbell-Briggs. "Part of the reason is we don't have breed-specific legislation. 

I'm proud to be a Calgarian because our animal by-law officers deal with specific incidents and don't deal with it as a breed issue. There's no bias and that's so important."

Pit Bulls For Life doesn't take in any dogs with histories of aggression toward humans or other animals and says it works with the city bylaw department to educate owners.

Canada Post has also noticed a slight reduction in dog incidents involving its letter carriers in Calgary that bucks the trend nationally.

From January to August last year, 25 dog incidents were reported by carriers, two of which resulted in time off work. In the same time period in 2007, 28 incidents were reported, with three requiring time away from work.

An aggressive dog can lead to an entire block losing mail service until the animal is brought under control.

"We have to ensure the safety of our employees--your front step and front yard are our employees'workplace,"said Andrean Wolvers, Canada Post safety manager for Calgary. "We tell our employees when in doubt, get out."

Wolvers says partnerships with the city and other organizations that send employees into residential neighbourhoods has helped reduce dog attacks on posties.

"The city and Bill Bruce have been very proactive," said Wolvers.
The Calgary Humane Society said the working relationship it has with the city is unique in Canada.

"We have a very collaborative relation-ship. When we talk to other humane societies, they say we're the only ones they've heard of that have a positive working relationship with the city bylaw department," said Calgary Humane Society spokeswoman Lindsay Jones.

"Other cities learn from us and the way we do things here."
smyers@theherald.canwest.com

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Life/Calgary+attacks+fall+lowest+level+years/1313555/story.html

For the original story and more great information follow the link.......
               http://www.defendingdog.com/id38.html

AUSSIE POSTMAN SHOWS HOW TO NEGOTIATE A NEIGHBORHOOD FULL OF DOGS WITHOUT SHOOTING ONE, TANE NOTE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS!

An Australian postman, armed only with a DriftHD 1080P Camera and some dog treats, shows just how easy it is to traverse a neighborhood full of dogs; without shooting them.

The fact that ‘puppycide’ is even a word is a tragedy within itself.

According to an unofficial count done by an independent research group, Ozymandias Media, a dog is shot by law enforcement every 98 minutes.

Last year The Free Thought Project reported on a slew of tragic dog shootings, including one department in Buffalo, NY whose officers shot 92 dogs from Jan. 1, 2011 through Sept. 2014.

Buffalo is hardly an isolated incident either. In Southwest Florida, the News-Press discovered 111 instances of dog shootings among multiple agencies between 2009 and 2012, representing about 37 per year. According to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Police shot approximately 90 dogs per year between 2008 and 2013.

Last year we broke the story of a SWAT team responding a dispute between two neighbors and then shooting a small dog as it ran away from them.

Some of these officers really do seem to get a thrill out of shooting animals.

In October of last year, we broke the story of the sickening video uploaded to facebook of a Cleburne Texas Police officer calling a small dog towards him and then shooting it.

Why are these cops killing so many dogs? 

Is it because their lives in are in danger of ending every 98 minutes as they come across vicious animals in the line of duty? Some people in law enforcement actually expect us to believe that.

However, a video published to youtube by an Aussie Vlogger, who happens to be a postman, shows us that interacting with dogs, even menacing ones, can be done, without killing.

Watch below as friendly Australian postman, Cody Stavros, records some of the many dogs he encounters along his route. Some of these dogs are welcoming and nice, while others are ferocious. Either way, Stavros deals with them, without shooting them.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/postal-worker-inadvertently-instructional-video-police-deal-dogs/#wzO9B5PQPOXAKTRE.99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92owVMK6NSM

Your advice is dangerous. Jeff Borchardt

Your advice is dangerous. The study that I posted (and you continue to ignore) includes a Border Collie. True safety advocacy involves effective solutions such as the ones suggested in that study.

According to a Canadian study of deaths by dogs (Jan.1983-Feb.2015) in Canada (with bsl), the offenders guilty of killing are Husky 28%, Unknown Mix (northern dogs) 19%, German Shepherd 13%, Rottweiler 11%, Sled Dog 8%, AmStaff 3%, Bull mastiff 3%, Chow Chow 3%, Labrador 3%, Malamute 3%, Maremma Sheepdog 3%, Collie 1%, Jack Russell 1%, Wolf 1%, Border Collie 1%.

The conclusions from the details in this study are: secure enclosure for all dogs loose in their yards would have prevented 27 incidents (73%).

Supervising young children (too young to be on their own), without knowing there was going to be a dog involved, would have prevented 21 incidents (57%).
Supervising a known interaction between a child and a dog would have prevented 12 incidents (33%).

Having secure enclosure for all dogs and supervising all children would have prevented 34 incidents (92%).

Circumstance is the key. These things are what caused the deaths of the children in particular, not what type of dog was involved. 1) Children not supervised. 2) Dogs running loose or breaking loose. 3) Dogs chained in areas where wandering children could enter. 4) Dog/child interactions not supervised.

1) Children not supervised. 4) Dog/child interactions not supervised. 
In this tragic incident#1 and #4 are clearly the case.

https://disqus.com/by/BirminghamPitMom/

Pitbulls ---Dog Bites — Continued breed-specific population data (i.e., number of deaths involving a given breed divided by number of dogs of that breed). However, such denominator data are not available, and official registration or licensing data cannot be used because owners of certain breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their animals

Editorial Note: During 1979–1996, fatal dog attacks occurred in 45 states

In 1986, nonfatal dog bites resulted in an estimated 585,000 injuries that required medical attention or restricted activity; in that year, dog bites ranked 12th among the leading causes of nonfatal injury in the United States (5 ).

In 1994, an estimated 4.7 million persons (1.8% of the U.S. population) sustained a dog bite; of these, approximately 800,000 (0.3%) sought medical care for the bite (6 ).

The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, because death-certificate data were not available, the two sources used for case finding in 1995–1996 probably underestimated the number of DBRFs and may represent only 74% of actual cases (1,2 ).

Second, to definitively determine whether certain breeds are disproportionately represented, breed-specific fatality rates should be calculated.

The numerator for such rates requires complete ascertainment of deaths and an accurate determination of the breed involved, and the denominator requires reliable data obtained from the Humane Society of the United States registry, NEXIS database accounts, and death certificates.

For 1995–1996, data from death certificates were not available. FIGURE 1. Number of dog-bite–related fatalities, by state — United States, 1979–1996* Vol. 46 / No. 21 MMWR 465

Dog Bites — Continued breed-specific population data (i.e., number of deaths involving a given breed divided by number of dogs of that breed). 

However, such denominator data are not available, and official registration or licensing data cannot be used because owners of certain breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their animals 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4621.pdf

How many dog attacks are there?

 We need better data and reporting, and better 

education for parents, dog owners and the general 

public on how best to avoid a dog bite incident.

How many dog attacks are there?

The full extent of dog bite injury in Australia is difficult to measure as there are no reporting requirements.

There are data available on deaths. Hospital-treated dog bite injury is available through emergency department presentation data and hospital admissions data. But comprehensive data on medical practitioner treated injury and non-medically treated injury are not available.

Until the recent tragic death of Ayen Chol, no dog bite related deaths in Victoria have been attributed to a dog identified as a pit bull or pit bull cross.

My ongoing research has found that since 1979, there have been over 33 dog bite related deaths in Australia, 11 of these in Victoria. Only one other dog involved in a death in Australia has previously been described as a pit bull cross dog.

Pit Bull confusion

In Australia, the word “pit bull” has loosely been used to describe purebred American Pit Bull Terriers or crosses. In other parts of the world, it is more often used as a generalised description to describe a type of dog, such as one might use the terms gundog or spaniel.

In the United States, the term is used to describe the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, English Bull Terrier, English Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bulldogs, crosses of them and any dog that looks anything like any of those breeds.

The owners of Staffordshire Bull Terriers in Australia may be surprised to hear that their breed is banned in many parts of the world.

One of the Pit Bull breeds – an American Pit Bull Terrier

More information needed

Within Australia there are no reliable statistics available on the breed of dogs involved in attacks mainly because breed identification based on the appearance of a dog is likely to be inaccurate, even when experienced observers are involved.

It is also possible that a dog may look like a pit bull type dog when it is not. Even if breed identification was reliable, accurate breed denominator data are not available to allow estimation of breed-specific bite injury rates.

There is no scientifically sound evidence to suggest that the targeted breeds feature disproportionally in dog bite injury statistics.

Breed confusion would make a ban difficult

If you cannot reliably identify a dog’s breed background (and cross breed dogs add a further dimension), laws targeting breeds will never work, regardless of whether you think the original justification is valid.

The issue of breed identification in dog attacks is further complicated, and errors potentially increased, by reliance on media reports for breed identification.

Selective and sensationalistic reporting by the media may also misrepresent the role of breed in dog bite injury, as well as potentially encouraging irresponsible ownership. This frames the issue as a breed problem when, in fact, it isn’t a breed problem but a human problem.

It is also possible that case detection bias exists with victims of some breeds more likely to report bite incidents. This may result in spurious association between biting and those breeds. Some biting dogs are misidentified as being of a particular breed or type because “they are the ones that bite”.

Protecting children

Knee-jerk reactions by governments do not tend to create good public policy. We do not need any more laws or restrictions that are doomed to failure from the onset. We need a strategy based on the best research evidence that we have to hand.

Breed bans simply do not address other recurrent patterns associated with dog attacks such as irresponsible or uneducated dog ownership.

Measures taken need to address human ownership practices, as dogs of many breeds and crosses feature in dog attacks. No single, or even group of breeds, have been shown to account for the majority of dog attacks in Australia.

The best way to prevent children being injured is to have approach that considers all possible factors, as is the case with almost every other injury issue.

This approach should include strategies targeted towards the general public, dog owners, parents and dogs. Enforcement of existing control and leash laws and education and knowledge will help. It is important children are supervised with dogs. These essential measures will enhance responsible ownership of any breed or cross breed.

http://theconversation.com/breed-blame-game-banning-pit-bulls-wont-work-3036