Citizens Against Breedism

Tuesday, 1 September 2015

Who can identify a PITBULL? , no-one they don't exist!!

Unfortunately, they don’t realize that there is no such thing as a purebred pit bull,” said Susan Reaver, president and founder of Pits and Rotts for Life Rescue Inc. in Randallstown.

The Maryland Court of Appeals on Aug. 21 ordered that all references to mixed and cross-bred pit bulls be removed from its controversial April opinion in Tracey v. Solesky.

The original decision declared the breed and mixes of the breed inherently dangerous and held landlords strictly liable for damages should a pit bull or pit bull-mix attack.

But experts say most dogs commonly referred to as a pit bull are either a mix of other breeds or are pure-bred of a breed often misidentified as a pit bull.

“People say you know a pit bull when you see one, but do you really?” asked Lisa Peterson, spokeswoman for the American Kennel Club, which tracks pedigrees of dogs back to 1884.

Rather than a specific breed, pit bull is more of a generic term to describe a group of dogs with similar characteristics — much as are “hound” and “terrier” — and encompasses both mixes and pure-bred dogs, Peterson said.

The term pit bull is sometimes used to identify the American pit bull terrier, a breed recognized by the United Kennel Club but not the American Kennel Club, said Erin Sullivan, education director for Pit Bull Rescue Central and a landlord in Maryland.

But it also is often applied to pure-bred dogs, including American Staffordshire terriers, dogo argentino and Staffordshire bull terrier and even boxers, Reaver said. She described times she has been called to rescue a dog believed to be a pit bull that turned out to be something else.

Identifying dogs as pit bulls is at best imprecise, Sullivan said.

“It’s almost impossible to tell by visual identification what a dog is, so you are just guessing,” she said.

DNA tests can identify markers for certain breeds in mixed-breed dogs. However, Sara Chisnell-Voigt, the UKC’s legal counsel, said she does not know of any court that would accept a DNA test to prove a dog’s breed.

Cory Smith, senior director of Pets for Life of the Humane Society of the United States, said DNA testing will never be 100 percent reliable.

Clubs such as the AKC and UKC can identify a dog by its pedigree. But to be registered, a dog’s sire and bitch also must have been registered with the club, and DNA tests cannot determine if a dog is pure-bred, Peterson said.

Further complicating the situation in Maryland is a lack of definition of a pit bull in the court’s ruling, said Lesa Hoover, attorney and vice president of government affairs for Maryland for the Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington.

“There is not a definition of pit bull, you don’t know what the dog is because there is no such thing as a pit bull,” Hoover said. “So changing that part by taking out the ‘mixes’ didn’t change the ruling all that much.”

With no such thing as a pure-bred pit bull, and no definition in the common law, Peterson said the problem falls to whomever becomes the breed police, to determine what is a pit bull and how to describe it.

Opponents say the solution is to treat dangerous dogs alike, regardless of breed.

BY.... Kate S. Alexander | The Gazette

Court partly backs off pit bull ruling

But experts say that limiting decision to purebred dogs doesn't resolve confusion

August 21, 2012|By Michael Dresser and Jill Rosen, The Baltimore Sun

Maryland's highest court on Tuesday partly backed off its April decision that pit bulls are inherently dangerous, admitting that it went too far when it applied its standard to cross-bred dogs. But the new ruling, which affects only purebred animals, does not clear the waters, according to experts.

The issue, they say, is that "pit bull" is not a specific dog breed and that it's difficult to positively identify a pit bull.

In a rare reversal, the Court of Appeals had granted a motion for reconsideration in a case — brought by the parents of a 10-year-old boy who was mauled by a pit bull — against the dog owner's landlord.

The court's 4-3 decision to impose a standard of "strict liability" in cases involving purebred and cross-bred pit bulls sparked a protest among owners of the pets and animal welfare advocates.

Many expressed concern that the strict liability standard, under which it is not necessary to show negligence by the pet owner, would lead landlords to bar pit bulls from their properties rather than risk being sued when the animals attack. Critics of the ruling expressed concern that owners would be forced to choose between their pets and their homes and that many pit bulls would be taken to shelters and euthanized as a result.

The ruling led to a failed effort to override the court in the special session of the General Assembly that ended last week.

Tuesday's ruling raised further questions among dog experts.

"There actually is no such thing as a pure-breed pit bull," said Cory Smith, a senior director with the Humane Society of the United States. "It's not a breed of dog."

There are three types of purebred dogs that are of the pit-bull variety: the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier and the Staffordshire bull terrier, she said. But the vast majority of dogs most people consider pit bulls — with big heads, strong jaws and muscular bodies — are of mixed lineage.

"There is no way to visually identify a dog as a pit bull and there's no way to even prove it using DNA," Smith said. "Even veterinarians ... have a hard time identifying a dog as a pit bull."

The Humane Society said the original ruling would have applied to about 70,000 pit bull-type dogs in Maryland. Smith guessed only a fraction of those are purebred pit varieties.

David Favre, the Nancy Heathcote professor of property and animal law at the Michigan State University College of Law, said that because "pit bull" is not a registered breed, it's hardly definable by law.

"I have no idea what constitutes a 'pure breed' pit bull," he wrote The Baltimore Sun in an email. "As nothing is registered, it would be impossible to make a factual finding that a particular dog is a pure breed."

Tami Santelli, Maryland director for the Humane Society of the United States, said the new ruling could bring limited relief for some dog owners but allows a bad decision to stand.

"There's really no question that families are going to be torn apart over the next four months until the General Assembly comes back in January," Santelli said. She said Armistead Homes Corp. recently told all pit-bull owners they would have to get rid of their dogs.

In a decision written by Judge Alan M. Wilner, the court stood by its finding about purebred pit bulls but canceled its reference to cross-breds.

Wilner, a retired judge who sat with the court on the original case, wrote that having reread the briefs and the dissent in the case, he believes the decision to extend the ruling to cross-bred pit bulls was "both gratuitous and erroneous."

The judge wrote that it is not clear what "cross-bred" means.

While the ruling grants relief to owners of cross-bred pit bulls, it doesn't appear to help the plaintiff who sought reconsideration of the ruling. Wilner denied landlord Dorothy M. Tracey's request that the court revisit its decision about purebred pit bulls, saying there was nothing "unconstitutional or unfair" about holding her liable for what he called the "gruesome damage" to Dominic Solesky in 2007 by a pit bull she allowed a tenant to keep on her East Towson property.

Wilner said nothing in the court record showed that Tracey had ever contended the animal was anything other than a pit bull terrier.

Dominic's parents sued the landlord after finding they could not win any meaningful damages from the dog's owner.

Kevin A. Dunne, the attorney for the Solesky family, said the reconsideration would have no effect on the case against Tracey, which has been sent back to the Baltimore County Circuit Court for trial.

"I believe the court attempted to hone its original decision by reducing the overall effect but not changing its core holdings," he said.

michael.dresser@baltsun.com

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

What is BSL?

“Breed-specific” legislation (BSL) is the blanket term for laws that either regulate or ban certain breeds completely in the hopes of reducing dog attacks. Some city/municipal governments have enacted breed-specific laws (view the comprehensive BSL map). However, the problem of dangerous dogs will not be remedied by the “quick fix” of breed-specific laws—or, as they should truly be called, breed-discriminatory laws.¹

It is worth noting that in some areas, regulated breeds include a whole range of breeds:

American Pit Bull Terriers
American Staffordshire Terriers
Staffordshire Bull Terriers
English Bull Terriers
Rottweilers
American Bulldogs
Dogo Argentino
Canary Dog (Canary Island Dog, Presa Canario, Perro De Presa Canario)
Presa Mallorquin (Perro de Presa Mallorquin, Ca De Bou)
Tosa Inu (Tosa Fighting Dog, Japanese Fighting Dog, Japanese Mastiff)
Cane Corso (Cane Di Macellaio, Sicilian Branchiero)
Fila Brasileiro
Mastiffs
Dalmatians
Chow Chows
German Shepherds
Doberman Pinschers
Any mix of these breeds—and dogs who simply resemble these breeds

You read that right: Those who simply resemble these breeds. So if your dog looks like one, you should be worried. If you look at the list of countries, breeds and various legislation recorded in Wikipedia: Breed-Specific Legislation, it’ll make your head spin.

On the bright side, many states (including New York, Texas and Illinois) favor laws that identify, track and regulate dangerous dogs individually, regardless of breed, and prohibit BSL.

What’s Wrong with Breed-Specific Laws?

BSL targets dogs of a certain appearance and does not take into account how the owner has trained or managed the dog. It does not take into account the dog’s actual behavior.

There are two forms of BSL: bans and restrictions. From Stop BSL:

A breed ban usually requires that all dogs of a certain appearance (“targeted breed”) be removed from the municipality wherein the ban has been implemented. After the effective date of the ban, dogs in the municipality that are identified as targeted breeds are usually subject to being killed by animal control, though in some cases, such dogs may be saved if relocation is an option. Breed bans may have grandfather clauses that allow dogs of targeted breeds to stay in the ban area (provided they are registered with the municipality by a certain date, and likely subject to various breed-specific restrictions).

Breed-specific restrictions may require an owner of a targeted breed do any of the following or more, depending on how the law is written:

Muzzle the dog in public
Spay or neuter the dog
Contain the dog in a kennel with specific requirements (6′ chain link walls, lid, concrete floors, etc.)
Keep the dog on a leash of specific length or material
Purchase liability insurance of a certain amount
Place “vicious dog” signs on the outside of the residence where the dog lives
Make the dog wear a “vicious dog” tag or other identifying marker

BSL carries a host of negative and wholly unintended consequences:¹

Dogs go into hiding
Rather than give up their beloved pets, owners of highly regulated or banned breeds often attempt to avoid detection of their “outlaw” dogs by restricting outdoor exercise and socialization and forgoing licensing, microchipping and proper veterinary care, including spay/neuter surgery and essential vaccinations. Such actions have implications both for public safety and the health of these dogs.
Good owners and dogs are punished
BSL also causes hardship to responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breed. Although these dog owners have done nothing to endanger the public, they are required to comply with local breed bans and regulations unless they are able to mount successful (and often costly) legal challenges.
They impart a false sense of security
Breed-specific laws have a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. When limited animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, without regard to behavior, the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating spaying and neutering and laws that require all owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed.
They may actually encourage ownership by irresponsible people
If you outlaw a breed, then outlaws are attracted to that breed. Unfortunately some people take advantage of the “outlaw” status of their breed of choice to bolster their own self image as living outside of the rules of mainstream society. Ironically, the rise of Pit Bull ownership among gang members and others in the late 1980’s coincided with the first round of breed-specific legislation.

BSL will not only exhaust the limited resources of the already underfunded animal control programs by flooding them with potentially “unadoptable” dogs; it could cost individual communities millions of dollars while providing questionable results fulfilling its purpose of preventing dog related injuries and fatalities as. The costs of enforcing BSL include but are not limited to:²

Animal control and enforcement costs,
Expenses for kenneling and veterinary care,
Expenses related to euthanasia and carcass disposal,
Litigation costs from residents appealing or contesting the law, and;
Possible DNA testing costs.

Additional costs depending on current resources available to a specific community’s animal control program may include:

Additional shelter veterinarians,
Increased enforcement staffing, and;
Capital costs associated with increased shelter space needed.

To calculate what BSL will cost you if one is enacted in your city, state

On August 6, 2012, the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates approved Resolution 100, urging “all state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies [. . .] to repeal breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions.” A comprehensive recommendation is accompanied by an extensive report detailing the legion of problems associated with breed specific regulation, including:³

significant questions of due process;
waste of government resources;
documented failure to produce safer communities;
enforcement issues connected with identifying the dogs to be regulated or seized;
and infringement of property rights.

Bottomline: there is no evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer for people or companion animals.

Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided not to support BSL. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data⁴ and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). The CDC also noted the likelihood that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will replace them with other, unregulated breeds.

And we’ll be back at square one, with probably worse outcome.

____________________________________________________________________

¹ASPCA – Breed Specific Legislation
²Best Friends Animal Society, “The Fiscal Impact of Breed Discriminatory Legislation in the United States” (PDF) – April 2012
³American Bar Association’s Resolution 100 (PDF) – August 2012
⁴Dog bite data varies greatly; not all bites are reported, and those reported aren’t always documented into databases.
⁵Best Friends Animal Society: Breed-Discriminatory Legislation: An Ineffective Response to Negligent or Reckless Owners