No More Homeless Pets Forum
February 28, 2005

Dangerous Dogs?

Why do some communities and insurance companies discriminate against certain dog breeds? How can you address concerns about aggressive dogs in your community? Karen Green of Best Friends Animal Society, Kim Bartlett from Animal People, Holly Bukes of Pit Bull Rescue Central, and Jill Buckley, Esq., from the ASPCA share their opinions and insights on the subject of dangerous dogs.

Introduction from Karen Green:

Each year, hundreds of thousands of Americans are bitten by dogs (and that's just the reported cases), and 12-18 people are killed. In addition to that, dogs injure or kill dogs, cats, livestock, and other animals. The dog-bite epidemic needs to be addressed in a much more comprehensive and focused way than it ever has been. Bad breeding, inadequate or inappropriate socialization and training, insufficient management, and other factors continue to produce dogs with aggressive behavior.

Increasingly, communities are responding to the threat of dog bites by creating breed-specific laws that restrict or even ban certain breeds of dogs. While Pit Bulls are the most frequently targeted, breed-specific legislation (BSL) can label dozens of dog breeds as "dangerous." BSL does not protect humans or other animals from being injured or killed by dogs, and it creates a slew of other problems.

This week, I look forward to answering your questions and talking more about why certain breeds are targeted by policy makers (not to mention insurance companies, the media, and the general public); how positive dangerous dog legislation and community awareness campaigns can protect against dog bites; and how we, as a humane community, can manage these breeds in ways that protect them as well as humans.

Introduction from Kim Bartlett:

I see the Pit Bull controversy from an animal rights perspective. While agreeing with Pit Bull enthusiasts that these dogs have a more negative reputation than most members of the breed deserve, and not endorsing any arbitrary killing of dogs simply because they are of a particular breed, I favor a ban on breeding of all pit-bull-type dogs.

I think it is unethical to breed any dogs or cats so long as they are being killed by the millions for population control. I would rather dogs, as well as cats and other animals, were not bred at all for purely human purposes. Since Pit Bulls clearly can be more dangerous to humans and other animals, and are more difficult to handle than most other dogs, and – most importantly – since they attract "owners" who may want to exploit and abuse them, then for the dogs' own good, preventing further breeding should be a priority for the animal rights cause.

I have an uneasy feeling that a lot of people claiming to be Pit Bull rescuers are actually Pit Bull breeders and even dogfighters in disguise. Otherwise why would they oppose breeding bans that would not affect dogs already born? People who rescue feral cats want to see an end to their breeding. People who rescue exotic animals such as parrots, lions and tigers, and potbellied pigs would like to see breed bans on those species. Why not the so-called Pit Bull rescuers?

Allowing people with commercial interests in companion animals to have a leading voice in setting policy on dog and cat issues is in my view like allowing chicken farmers to have a leading say in whether or not the animal rights movement advocates vegetarianism. Public policy on animal welfare issues should not be set by breeders and fanciers, and certainly not by dogfighters who pose as breeders and even pretend to be rescuers.

When so-called Pit Bull lovers and rescuers use language like "it is the right of Americans to buy [or breed] whatever kind of dog they want", then they are quite obviously not animal rights advocates. Let the ACLU defend their presumed rights to buy or breed dogs. It isn't something animal rights or welfare organizations should be doing.

Introduction from Holly Bukes:

Did you know that "Pit Bull" is not actually a breed of dog? It's a generic term used to describe at least three different breeds. Yet municipalities throughout the country are threatening to enact breed-specific legislation (BSL) in an attempt to deal with dangerous dog issues.

This approach does not work. Dangerous dog legislation should "Blame the deed, not the breed." Did you know that the ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, the National Animal Control Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, and United Kennel Club all oppose BSL?

Riding on the wave of BSL, many insurance companies have stopped offering insurance to homeowners based on the breeds of dog they have. Responsible owners everywhere are bearing the brunt of breed profiling. I look forward to answering your questions on this vital issue.

Introduction from Jill Buckley, Esq.:

Do breed-specific laws and insurance company breed profiling achieve the objectives intended?

When it comes to laws that regulate "dangerous dogs," there is at least one fact that is hard to dispute: Dogs that are unsupervised and run loose and dogs that bite or threaten to attack people or other animals are a serious problem in communities across the country. While many states, including New York, California, Colorado and Illinois, favor laws that identify, track and regulate dangerous dogs regardless of breed, some local governments have enacted breed-specific laws.

Is breed-specific legislation the true panacea to the problem? Actually, there is little evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer for human families or for the companion animals who are a part of so many households. And, in addition, these laws can be incredibly expensive and difficult to enforce.

Recognizing that the problem of dangerous dogs requires serious attention, the ASPCA seeks effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for their animals' actions. The ASPCA believes that this is the most reliable way to control aggressive dogs and irresponsible owners.

Questions

Managing dangerous dogs to protect humans and the dogs
Convincing shelters to adopt out dogs of all breeds
Promoting the adoption of good dogs of 'bad' breeds
Cost to benefit ratio for different enforcement approaches
What makes a dog dangerous?
How do other countries handle the dangerous dog situation?
Dogs, insurance, and liability
What steps can I take if my insurance gets pulled?
How would a ban on breeding Pit Bulls work?
How to quantify dog aggression in a community
Comments from members on dogs, insurance and liability

Managing dangerous dogs to protect humans and the dogs

Question from Lisa:

Karen Green mentioned, in her Introduction, that she'd like to share how "positive dangerous dog legislation and community awareness campaigns can protect against dog bites; and how we, as a humane community, can manage these breeds in ways that protect them as well as humans". I would be very interested in specific information and examples of positive dangerous dog legislation and how we can manage dangerous dogs in ways that protect them as well as humans.

Response from Karen:

Yours is a big question, and I could spend pages answering it, but I'll try to keep it reasonably brief. I expect we'll go into more detail in some of these areas during the week. Jill has also responded to this question with some specific references to positive "dangerous dog" legislation.

Preventing dog bites requires a comprehensive approach. There are several important ingredients to an effective dog bite prevention program, and most protect the dogs as well as potential victims both directly and indirectly. Remember, every time we prevent a dog bite, we are protecting the dog from the possible consequences, as well as the potential victim.

Legislation:
Legislation relevant to preventing dog bites is about more than just a "dangerous dog law." Laws that reduce dog bites and protect the public from dogs include:
- Leash laws
- Anti-tethering laws
- Spay/neuter laws
- Licensing requirements
- Anti-cruelty laws

A municipality need not have all of these types of laws in place (though that's certainly ideal). Each of these laws can play a role in reducing the rate of dog bites, as well as helping protect the dogs from abuse and neglect.

An effective "dangerous dog law":
- Holds the owner responsible for his/her dog's behavior.
- Allows judges to determine appropriate management of the dog. In some cases this might mean muzzling in public, in others, requisite training with an animal behaviorist.
- Considers the circumstances of a bite (for instance, so that a dog is not penalized for biting an uninvited intruder on his owner's property).

A note about enforcement: For any law to be meaningful, it has to be enforced consistently. In most cases, animal control agencies lack sufficient funds to enforce existing animal control laws. Often a community reacts to a high profile dog bite or attack with a new law when compliance with existing laws would have prevented the attack. One can't assume that new laws are the solution whenever there is a problem!

Dog Bite Prevention – Community Awareness:
We need to raise awareness about the threat of dog bites and how to avoid them. Children, in particular (because they represent almost half of dog bite victims), need to be educated about how to interact appropriately with a dog, how to interpret a dog's body language and behavior, and how to respond if attacked. However, children shouldn't be the only recipient's of prevention tips; an effective dog bite prevention program will reach the entire community. We can't assume that adults, even those who have lived with dogs for years, are familiar with the basics of dog behavior. (For resources on dog bite prevention, please use the link below.)

Dog Behavior and Care – Community Awareness:
If we are to have a substantial impact on the number of dog bites, it is essential that we work to improve the temperament of our dogs! We need to educate the public about socialization (both for puppies and adult dogs), basic training and behavior, proper housing and care, and management. Let's face it, the way a lot of people breed, raise, and manage their dogs, they're really setting the dogs up to fail. As animal welfare professionals, this is the area in which we have not only the greatest responsibility, but also the greatest opportunity to contribute.

Using objective temperament assessment programs, we can learn more about our dogs before placing them in homes, and can avoid placing dogs in situations in which they are almost certain to fail. We can work with potential adopters to understand their lifestyle and their knowledge level, so that we can match them up with a dog whose needs they'll be able to meet. We can provide free or low cost training and behavior advice. We can create opportunities for socialization, from dog parks to puppy classes. (A San Francisco survey found that the more off leash dog parks in a community, the lower the incidence of dog bites.) We can insure that dogs are sterilized prior to placement and that they will be appropriately confined. We can create a relationship with an adopter, or with a member of the public, who reaches out to us for help that will give them the resources and support they need to have a safe and rewarding relationship with their canine companion.

Additional resources:
Several years ago the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) created a task force to look into dog bites and dog bite prevention. The Canine Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions included representatives from the AVMA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the medical, legal, insurance, animal welfare and animal sheltering professions. The Task Force developed "The Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention" and a recommended list of other dog bite prevention resources, all of which can be viewed at: http://www.avma.org/pubhlth/dogbite

Please also see our dog training and care resources at: http://www.bestfriends.org/theanimals/petcare/dogs.cfm. You'll find resources related to training, socialization, and aggression toward humans and other animals.

If you work in a shelter or other animal welfare organization, please check out "Temperament Testing in the Age of No-Kill" written by Nathan Winograd, on our web site at: http://www.bestfriends.org/nomorehomelesspets/pdf/winogradtemptesting.pdf

You can find countless web pages (well... maybe not completely countless, about 14,600 according to Google) about dog bite prevention, and get some great ideas for your community. One group even has a dog bite prevention board game (http://www.doggonecrazy.ca/)!

I hope this helps and thanks for the question!

Response from Jill:

Spokane County Regional Animal Control and Protective Services (SCRAPS) in Washington State has a proactive, thorough, breed-neutral dangerous dog program entailing potentially dangerous dog and dangerous dog classifications and requirements attendant on both. Nancy Hill, the Director, has noted that integral to ensuring a workable and effective dangerous dog policy is a local government that is responsive to her organization's needs. This means that as she discovers needed changes to the law, local officials have not stood in her way but instead have sought to facilitate these reforms.

Recently, the ASPCA spearheaded a needed change to New York State law, which prohibits breed-specific ordinances but which, up until recently, still permitted judges only to euthanize or permanently confine dangerous dogs. The new law requires the microchipping and sterilization of dangerous dogs, but also gives judges more leeway to propose other solutions such as muzzling and liability insurance. Euthanasia or permanent confinement may be ordered only where certain aggravating circumstances (e.g., the victim suffered serious injury/death) are present.

Convincing shelters to adopt out dogs of all breeds

Question from Rachelle:

The animal control facility in Davis County, Utah currently does not adopt out any Rottweilers, Shar-Peis, Pit Bulls, or Chow Chows. Their main reasoning is that they see a higher incident of serious attacks and bites involving these breeds. You can read their policies further at http://www.daviscountyutah.gov/animal_control/faq.cfm#q27. Do you have any suggestions for convincing them to possibly amend their policy or is it a lost cause?

Response from Jill:

In reviewing the rationale given by the Davis County, Utah Animal Control as to why they do not adopt out certain breeds of dogs, it is interesting that they noted probably their most important reason, concern for dog bite liability, in the very last paragraph. Liability is a very legitimate concern to all animal shelters, rescuers and dog owners. The Insurance Information Institute estimates that dog bites accounted for about one quarter of all homeowners' insurance liability claims costing over $321 million in 2003.

However, does breed profiling really limits the liability of animal shelters? I believe it is highly questionable. Davis County Animal Control cites the book, Which Dog for Me, by James Johnson as a source for determining that Rottweilers, Shar-Peis, Pit Bulls and Chow Chows, are not safe breeds to adopt out. Although I have not read the book, I would assume there are quite a few other breeds that can be considered "one-person dogs" (Shar-Pei description), will "protect his own [family] with his life" (Rottweiler description), is "jealous and aloof with strangers" (Chow Chow description) and is "always aggressive toward other dogs" (Pit Bull description). Each individual dog should be assessed on its own merits.

Davis County Animal Control admits that other dogs bite. They state that, "There are many, many dogs that are never considered for adoption, because of their behavior or health". They admit they "have a responsibility to try to get the best animals available placed into the best homes available". However, it is disturbing that rather than considering improving their program to reduce their liability concerns and to find good and suitable homes for the dogs in their custody, they go on to say that, "Additional breeds may be added to the dogs we currently do not adopt." Will they also consider dropping a breed from the list over time or is it simply an ever expanding list such that eventually, only a handful of breeds will be available to the public for adoption?

I would suggest attempting to persuade the Davis County Animal Control (and any other shelter that has a similar ban) to reconsider its adoption ban for certain breeds. A good temperament testing program will go far to reduce the liability of the shelter as well as re-home dogs. Rather than not adopt out these dogs at the front end, perhaps greater emphasis should be placed not only on temperament tests but also on enactment and enforcement of better animal control laws on the back end, anti-chaining laws, licensing laws (that will fund animal control), at-large laws, and anti-dogfighting laws.

Promoting the adoption of good dogs of 'bad' breeds

Question from Rachelle:

What are some good strategies for promoting the adoption of so-called "bad" breeds? The main five that I hear discussion of are Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Chow Chows, Doberman Pinschers, and Shar Peis. I have seen many good potential families turn away from dogs of those breeds even though the particular dog they are interested in is very friendly, good with people of all ages, well-behaved, etc. What are some ways to help people understand that although there are some bad apples, the breeds as a whole are not rotten?

Response from Karen:

I think we need to start by understanding the dogs we're trying to place. We need to have a picture, as complete as possible, of each dog. Our picture might be made up of:
- General characteristics of the breed(s)
- History
- Results of a temperament assessment (see yesterday's post for resources)
- Shelter staff and volunteer observations

This needn't be particularly complicated. All dogs are unique, but we can develop a reasonable profile with just a little bit of information.

Having an adoption program that focuses on matchmaking (rather than a direct pass/fail application process) will help us create successful placements for any pet. We'll find more stable and lasting homes for our dogs when we start talking about what kind of characteristics a person is looking for, what their expectations are, and what their characteristics are as a family, and get a person out of the "I think I want a Dalmatian because my neighbor had a Dalmatian, and he was really great with my kids". We'll also be better able to place some of our dogs that might not be most appealing to adopters at first glance, including dogs that are older, have some type of special need, are a breed with a bad reputation, or are ordinary or just plain funny looking. Our goal should always be a good match, not just a dog out the door.

We need to be honest about the dogs we're working with. You may be desperate to get the sweet, but mouthy Rottweiler into a home, and might be tempted to downplay the dog's less sociable characteristics. However, when we place a dogs in homes in which they fail (a home in which the dogs, even if they stay there, they create a negative effect for their family and those with which they come into contact), we are hurting other dogs as well. We want people to have great, rewarding relationships with their dogs, and with their friend's dogs and neighbor's dogs. Our adopted dogs are educating others about shelter dogs, whether we want them to or not.

Consider the case a year or so ago in which a shelter in the Northeast took in a dog that was surrendered for having seriously bitten his owner. The shelter placed the dog in a home (concealing the dog's history), and the dog subsequently killed his adopter. This is an extreme example, both for the severity of the attack and the coverage of the event in the media, but you can see how that incident may have affected the thousands of people who heard about it. In addition to the direct and obvious effects of this incident, it taught a whole lot of people that second-hand pets are bad tempered and that animal shelters are untrustworthy.

When we place a dog, we need to consider what message that dog is sending to the world. This is particularly important with dogs whose breed is already in question. In my opinion, a Pit Bull or a Rottweiler needs to be better tempered to be a candidate for adoption than a Labrador or a Border Collie. Generally, dogs can get away with being somewhat uncivilized. Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, and the other "disreputable" breeds cannot get away with as much. Their behavior is scrutinized more closely, and their breeds simply can't afford much more trouble!

Part of matchmaking, and an important consideration for the breeds you mention in particular, is recognizing the dogs' natural strengths and inclinations. Rottweilers will tend toward being protective. Pit Bulls will tend toward dog-aggression. Greyhounds will tend toward chasing your cats. Australian Cattle Dogs will tend toward controlling others' behavior. Those are generalizations and there are most certainly exceptions, but we owe it to the dogs and to their potential adopters to use common sense in adoption counseling and placement.

One part of being honest about the dogs we're placing is accurately identifying their breed. You are not doing anyone any favors by calling your shelter's Pit Bull a "Lab mix" or "Boxer mix". It destroys trust, puts an adopter in a potentially vulnerable situation when they are discriminated against, and takes the credit away from a nice-tempered Pit Bull who is explained away as something else. If you have a good-tempered Pit Bull, call him a Pit Bull! If you have a bad-tempered Pit Bull, don't try to place him in a home. He's a safety risk, a liability risk, and altogether too likely to reinforce society's belief that "aggressive" is what his breed is.

I have heard the argument that we should not promote Pit Bulls as great pets because that will increase demand for the dogs, and therefore increase breeding and create more Pit Bulls that need homes. Personally, I just don't find that a compelling argument. Based on that rationale, we should stop promoting pet adoption at all! Obviously, promoting Pit Bulls as fighters and Rottweilers as great guard dogs would be a huge mistake, but otherwise, I think we have great dogs that need great homes and it is not only our right but also our responsibility to get the word out about them!

I encourage you to check out the web site of BAD RAP (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls) at http://www.badrap.org. They have a great style and do a wonderful job of celebrating their rescued Pit Bulls and their successful placements. (Note that their adoptable dog listing does not include biting, fighting dogs... these are excellent representatives of their breed.) They also have fabulous photos on their web site. (I sometimes visit their site just to look at their dogs and read their dog descriptions and stories). BAD RAP is an excellent example of a community pit rescue.

These dogs are not easy to place in good homes. Not only do a lot of great families fear them, but also a lot of not-great families want them based on the same perceptions that cause others to fear them. We have to work harder to find the good homes and avoid the bad ones. And we won't always be successful, but we can find homes for a lot of these dogs. By placing great representatives of their breeds in the community, we will improve the welfare of the breed(s) as a whole.

Response from Holly:

The best way to promote the adoption of "at risk" breeds is through education. People who adopt from shelters and rescues are generally well intentioned and trying to do the right thing by adopting a pet. Having information on hand about a particular breed, both its good characteristics and its potential negatives, will go a long way toward showing that you are responsible in your adoptions. I am certain that excellent information is available on all these breeds. (For educational materials on Pit Bull type dogs visit http://www.pbrc.net/flyers.html.)

Karen previously mentioned the public's general lack of understanding about dog behavior. A person who does not understand dog behavior probably does not know much about breeds of dogs. So, I can understand why it would be scary to consider the adoption of a dog with a bad rap! Any outreach that your organization can do (outside of promoting an individual dog for adoption) will be helpful in making your community more knowledgeable and compassionate. If you have a table or booth at a public event, be sure to have information that will educate the public on these issues. If you know someone who has a dog that is a good ambassador for its breed, make sure they are out in public with that dog.

When placing these dogs, recommend good local trainers and educate about other responsible dog activities. Ensure that adopters know about the Canine Good Citizen program. The more dogs out there as ambassadors for their breeds, the better. There is nothing better than a successful placement to sell adopting a pet to others.

While promoting the adoption of "at risk" breeds is a good thing, it's also important to remember that any home is not always better than no home. Shelters and rescues placing these dogs must ensure they are responsible in their placements. It's important to take the extra time necessary to evaluate a potential home as well as educate adopters about issues they will likely face with an "at risk" breed. If resources do not exist to safely place these dogs, a shelter or rescue should reconsider its policies on placement.

Speaking about Pit Bull type dogs specifically, while they are wonderful dogs, they are not for everyone. They do require a more responsible and conscientious adopter, as well as a more responsible and conscientious adoption agency. It's critical that the dogs placed for adoption be stellar examples of their "breed" in terms of temperament. While animal aggression is normal, human aggression is not and it should not be tolerated. Dogs showing any possible human aggression should not be placed. When adopting a Pit Bull you are also adopting the "breed," per se, because you will be judged!

Cost to benefit ratio for different enforcement approaches

Question from Amber:

I am the guardian of a rescued Pit Bull (my guess is Staffordshire Bull Terrier) named Miss Delia. Like most Pit Bulls, she is a sweetheart around people (and loves to 'mother' children), and most dogs.

I am frustrated and infuriated by breed specific legislation (BSL) banning the presence of these wonderful creatures in cities and by insurance companies (ours has never asked about dogs, but would completely drop us if they did). We have even considered moving to Denver, only to nix that idea after learning that they have a ban in the entire city.

However, I do favor banning the practice of breeding in most all circumstances, as I have seen the masses of Pit Bulls turn up in shelters and know that this is a favorite breed group for criminals to fight. I love all the bully breeds, and understand that in a few circumstances these dogs would be nurtured in loved in safe environments. However, the reality of how many are born only for a life of fighting, or living at the end of a five foot chain is enough to garner my full support of somehow restricting the breeding of these dogs.

So my question is this, what would the restrictions of breeding 'look like?' In other words, how would that work, who would enforce it, what would be an example of punishment, etc.? Also, it seems to raise a dilemma not unlike existing BSL. That is, it is often very expensive. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to allot the same time and money towards catching and prosecuting people who fight dogs?

And that raises my second question. Anyone have any figures about the money spent to enforce existing BSL vs. the money spent searching for and prosecuting people who fight dogs in the U.S.?

Response from Holly:

As you have mentioned breed restriction as well as insurance profiling are both forms of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). In addition, a ban on the breeding of Pit Bull type dogs would also be a form of BSL, and that is an infringement of our rights. It's also a decision to take a breed, or breeds, of dog to extinction. Pet overpopulation is not limited to Pit Bull type dogs by any means, so perhaps a moratorium on breeding of ALL companion animals would be better serving?

However, as you have also pointed out, there is no way to enforce such laws. Most communities can't or don't enforce something as important as a leash law. When BSL of any form is passed, there is a high cost to tax payers. The problem of identifying a dog accurately is a problem in and of itself. Here's a test to see if you can identify a "Pit Bull": http://www.PitBullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Most important is criminal activity and abuse. A criminal, by the very definition, is not a law abiding citizen. If there were no criminals, there would be no dogfighting. Dogfighting is a crime in every state and a felony in many States. Here are laws meant to protect, yet they are utilized to prosecute dogfighters very infrequently. Banning something to stop it from happening has never worked and never will. To ban something simply makes it worth more in the eyes of those conducting illegal activity. Dogfighting is a great example of this.

As for cost analysis, here is a bit of information from Prince George County where there is still a ban in place (though a taskforce has recommended it be repealed):
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Research/PGCMD/PGCP5.htm

Response from Kim:

I think all dogs are lovable, and even though Pit Bull type dogs are more likely to kill or maim people or other animals if they do attack, unless they have been trained to fight, the vast majority of Pit Bulls and related breeds will never hurt anyone. The position I am coming from is that Pit Bull type dogs are the breeds or mixes most likely to attract abusive "owners". They are also the breeds/mixes that are now most likely to be abandoned on the streets or in animal shelters or control facilities.

Animal rights philosophy, as distinct from animal welfare, has always held that non-human animals do not exist for human purposes. Though humans can and do legally own animals, the same as white people, up until a relatively short time ago in this country, could legally own people with darker skins, we have no moral right to own other animals... or eat them, wear them, vivisect them, or breed them for human purposes. Therefore, it is consistent with animal rights philosophy for animal rights advocates to call for an end to purpose breeding of companion animals, especially when there are not enough loving homes for them. Since Pit Bull-type dogs are more likely than any other breeds or mixes to end up homeless or in cruel or abusive situations, including dogfighting, then it makes sense for us to make it a priority to stop the breeding of these dogs first and foremost.

Please note that I am in favor of a breeding ban, and not any sort of legislation that would "ban the presence" of, or arbitrarily require the killing of, dogs just because they are of a certain breed or type. A law acceptable to me would allow Pit Bull type dogs to stay in their homes (as long as they are properly controlled and cared for), and even provide for carefully restricted adoption from accredited animal shelters and control facilities, while banning outright the breeding or sale of Pit Bull type dogs. Breeders or sellers of such dogs would be fined heavily and their "breeding stock" along with litters and unsold pups would be confiscated and put into the custody of an accredited non-profit animal care or control facility.

It would be nice if there were permanent care-for-life facilities for all the unadoptable Pit Bull type dogs in shelters now, or those likely to end up in shelters in the near future. However, I know there are not. Thus, at this time, I cannot criticize those who humanely kill these dogs for lack of a better option. If purpose breeding of Pit Bull type dogs was drastically reduced, then sanctuary placement of unadoptable dogs ending up in shelters might become a viable option. Drafting legislative definitions is a job for specialists in producing airtight legislative language, and the specific requirements for doing this vary somewhat from place to place, depending on the constitutional structure of the political jurisdiction who will have enforcement responsibility, and whether the legislation is intended to be enforced as a summary conviction matter (like a traffic ticket), a misdemeanor, a crime, or on some other basis. Enforcing breed-specific legislation should be no more expensive than enforcing any other type of licensing law, for example, a ban on ownership or breeding of exotic cats such as lions and tigers.

Prosecuting dogfighting is hugely expensive, because it typically requires life-risking undercover investigation, much like (and often intertwined with) prosecuting drug offenders, illegal firearms vendors, illegal gambling, or the Ku Klux Klan. There has been a multi-state, federally coordinated anti-dogfighting task force at work for more than 12 years now, involving the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, as well as numerous local law enforcement agencies. Millions of dollars have been spent, and continue to be spent, on combating dogfighting as an increasingly significant branch of organized crime. Not even a remote fraction of that kind of money has ever gone into breed-specific ordinance enforcement.

Thank you, Amber, for your question and for your rational concern for these dogs.

What makes a dog dangerous?

Comment from Barb:

Just want to share these two news articles from yesterday:

"Shelters Face Overwhelming Pit Bull Problem"
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/030205_nw_pit_bulls.html
KGO, CA - March 2, 2005
[Excerpt]
Later this month, a number of shelters will tackle the issue by offering a one day free spay and neuter clinic to only the owners of Pit Bulls.

"Pit Bulls can't shake bad rap"
The Christian Science Monitor - March 2, 2005
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0302/p15s02-lihc.html

Comment from Nik:

One problem I see a lot of is dogs being labeled as dangerous when they were totally in their right to bite. It is morally wrong for people who trespass to sue for dog bite damages, but it happens often and dogs with powerful jaws and strong guard instincts are paying the highest price. Dogs are not people. They do not understand the concept of punishment for guarding behaviors. These behaviors are normal and one of the main reasons humans took part in domesticating the dog to begin with.

I think most dogs are capable of biting people. It is up to the owner of every dog to treat his/her animal with respect and awareness of this possibility. In the future, when there are no more homeless pets, I would like to see legislation that will ensure that dog owners are educated and licensed. This should allow for all breeds to exist and reduce the possibility of BSL (that which is harmful), as the incidence of dog bites will be much less.

Comment from Russ:

One important consideration is the education of children. Simply teaching children to ask "Is your dog friendly?" and "May I pet your dog?" would go a long way to preventing dog bites. It opens an awareness that some dogs can be petted and some can't. This is much better than the perception that all dogs are dangerous, or all dogs are friendly.

How do other countries handle the dangerous dog situation?

Question from Diane:

What do they do about this issue in the UK? I have heard that they have a law requiring all pits to be spayed or neutered. I would like to know if that is true and, if so, how is it enforced and is it effective?

Response from Kim:

Provisions requiring Pit Bull-type dogs to be sterilized are part of all the laws that have been passed in several countries, including the U.K. It's easy to see if a male dog has been castrated. For the females, they would have to rely on veterinary certificates, the reliability of which could be strengthened by requiring a microchip ID number to appear on the certificate. Then if there were any question about the dog's being the one actually spayed, the dog could be scanned to see if the microchip ID matched.

Response from Holly:

I don't have a lot of information on the UK, but Pit Bull Rescue Central (PBRC) does a have volunteer in the area. So, I was able to obtain some information. This website would be a good reference: http://www.staffordmall.com/bsl-unitedkingdom.htm.

Pit Bulls and the like (American Staffordshire Terriers) have been banned since the early 90's in the UK. And there has been a domino effect in that, for the most part, what one EU country does the other one does. The only country near the UK that hasn't banned "Pit Bulls" is Belgium.
These articles have some good summary information: http://www.staffordmall.com/bsl-thedangerousdogsact.htm and http://www.staffordmall.com/bsl-thelightsgooutacrosseurope.htm.

Dogs, insurance and liability

Questions from Anne-Eve and Christi:

We are investigating Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance, a specific liability insurance for the Board of Directors and Executive Officers of a corporation, in this case a non-profit organization. When an organization is sued, the Board and Officers can often also be sued putting their personal assets at risk in addition to the assets of an organization. Since many non-profits are cash poor and don't have assets like buildings, property or investments, the Directors and Officers are attractive targets for liability suits. This protects them.

We are a breed rescue that deals with Maltese dogs, and are having a very hard time finding an carrier through which to arrange this insurance. Even though Maltese are not a breed usually found on "Dangerous Dogs" lists, we would have to institute a policy where we never take in a dog who has ever bitten in order to get insurance. What we're hearing from insurance carriers is that if we take in any dog that is a known biter (including the owner telling us that their two year old stomped on the dog and received a nip that didn't break the skin) we are ineligible for insurance. What dog hasn't bitten? And we all know that 99 times out of 100 the "biter" in question is a perfectly lovely pet who was hardly at fault. We don't want to have to go down that road, since we all know that very few dogs who have ever bitten are truly unadoptable. Are there insurance carriers who are more friendly to rescue groups? I'm sure other rescues/shelters are carrying insurance, so I'd love to know where they're getting it.

On another note, my husband and I are interested in renting out our current house, since we just bought a new one. We have not yet contacted our homeowners insurance company to let them know. We do have a prospective renter who has a cat and a Rottweiler. She said the Rottweiler is great, has wonderful vet references, etc. I am all for her renting with her pets. Do we legally need to advise our insurance company (Liberty Mutual) if someone rents who has a breed that may be on their "list?" Or is it the responsibility of the renter when he/she gets renters insurance? I want to cover ourselves from liability, but at the same time would like to rent to this woman.

Response from Jill:

These are two very good questions.

Directors and Officers' Liability:
The concern of your Board for getting sued is a legitimate concern. The ASPCA has received quite a few inquiries from shelters and rescue organizations on how to obtain affordable liability insurance (both for shelters and Directors and Officers). Many shelters have the aded problem that they house or care for certain breeds that some insurers will not cover (i.e. Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Chow Chows, etc.)

Toward that end, the ASPCA has begun discussions with the insurance industry, to see if we can assist in making shelter insurance coverage (and possibly D&O) more available and affordable and to improve risk management at shelters across the United States.

We will be sending out an Insurance Survey to shelters and rescue organizations nationwide so that we can collate data and present it to the insurance industry as a full risk-assessment report. From there, we anticipate beginning discussions that we hope will result in “group” coverage rates. In addition, we are developing a risk management program for shelters to assist in minimizing liability concerns.

Once shelters and rescues have adequate insurance coverage in place and have been trained in appropriate risk management techniques, the fear of liability from adopters of “dangerous” breeds (as well as adopters of all dogs) should be alleviated. One obvious lesson, but not always heeded, is that shelters and rescue groups need to be frank and honest with all adopters about the animal they are placing.

In the meantime, the best recommendation I can provide regarding your best bet in obtaining Directors and Officers Insurance (D&O), is that you find an experienced and reliable insurance broker who can assist you in shopping for an insurance carrier that will work with you. Perhaps you can locate one that will allow you to obtain the insurance but refuse to cover liability for claims arising from known biters. Although that would not provide you with the comprehensive coverage you desire, it would be far better than having no coverage at all.

Homeowners' Insurance:
When you rent out your house, you will need to obtain a different type of insurance policy. It is similar to a homeowners' policy, but I do not believe it has liability coverage associated with it. It would cover physical damage to the property from fire, etc. (The homeowners' policy for your new home should include liability coverage for the rental but read the policy).

Since you do not yet have tenants, I would merely advise the insurance company that you plan to rent it. They may ask if you plan to allow pets, but I doubt they will ask whether you plan to rent to people with a particular breed of dog. My best advice would be to put in the lease agreement with the renters that they must obtain a renters' insurance policy (and ask for a copy of the certificate of insurance). If they cannot obtain insurance, then don't rent to them because you could end up paying for any claims filed against them for a biting dog (or any other possible liability issue).

What steps can I take if my insurance gets pulled?

Question from Tomay:

A couple of years ago my parents' previous insurer, with whom they had had their policy with for YEARS, cancelled my parents' home insurance policy by deciding that my 3 dogs were "vicious." They came to this conclusion by peeking over/through our 6-foot privacy fence one day when no one was home. So of course, and naturally, my dogs barked and growled. They then sent notice of cancellation by mail. They made no other effort, such as meeting with me and my dogs, or contacting my vet, or any other such attempt to accurately determine how "vicious" my dogs were! I wanted to fight it but my folks chose to find another insurer instead. I think that the insurance companies need to be held accountable for this "free out" that they've been given!

My dogs are not vicious and I've never had any problem with them in any way (no animals running at large, always on leash if off property, no problems with neighbors, etc.). I could provide any type of proof that they would want to prove this! What is the best way to handle this type of situation? What kind of "proof" could I have presented? Can I protest the insurance company's decision or complain to someone? I'm sure that we aren't the only ones to whom this has happened.

Our policy history-premiums were always paid, usually on time, and the only claim that I've ever known to be filed was over 10 years ago when a fallen tree damaged the roof during a storm. There was no legitimate reason to cancel the policy.

Response from Jill:

You certainly are NOT the only person who has had this happen to them. In fact, from the numbers of complaints and inquiries the ASPCA has received over the past three years, it would appear it is a growing problem throughout the United States. It is not clear from your question whether your parents' insurance was canceled mid-policy or whether their policy was non-renewed at the end of the year. The reason it is important is because many state insurance departments prohibit mid-policy cancellations such as this. My guess is that it is more likely that your parents were non-renewed at the end of their policy year. If this type of circumstance ever arises again, I would suggest that you do the following:

1. Write a certified letter to the insurance company (return receipt requested) asking for a full explanation of the cancellation. There should be instructions in their cancellation letter of how to protest the cancellation. If there are no instructions, then simply address the letter to the president of the company.
2. If you do not hear from them within 60 days or if you believe the reason is inadequate, send a letter to the State Department of Insurance explaining what happened and enclosing copies of all of your correspondence.
3. Send a letter to your state legislators telling them of the problem.

After having done all of that, you still may not find the result satisfactory for the particular incident. However, it is important that insurance companies, Departments of Insurance and legislators be made aware of these issues.

As I stated in an earlier response, dog bites pose a serious liability threat to insurance companies. Therefore they are reticent to provide homeowners' policies to people with large dogs or certain breeds. Since they are all for-profit businesses, they are looking at their bottom lines rather than your concern for your beloved pet. Your parents were wise to seek out another insurer with which to do business.

Perhaps with time, insurance companies will realize that by refusing to provide policies to people with certain types of dogs, they are losing business from a large segment of the population. In addition, with more people complaining to legislators about their inability to obtain insurance, more and more states are introducing bills to prohibit canine profiling by insurance companies. This year at least five states have such bills pending. As the legislative sessions progress this year, check the ASPCA website for status updates on these bills. In addition, if you have been denied homeowners' or renters' insurance because of the breed of dog you own, you can send a letter to your state legislator by logging onto www.aspca.org, clicking on "Lobby" and clicking on your state. Please be sure to personalize your letter by telling of the specific facts of your case.

Comment from Ruthann:

I am an insurance agent. I also rescue and see both sides of the BSL issue for insurance companies. Cocker Spaniels have been identified by insurance companies and one of the dog breeds that causes the most number of dog bite claim cases, but a Cocker Spaniel would have a difficult time attacking and killing a toddler. A single liability claim involving the death or injury of a child could remove not only that years profit, but prevent the company from getting good financial backing in the future or place that company in receivership if their financial backing was not sufficient.

I am working with my boss to start a company that would write an insurance policy specifically for rescue groups of all sorts. As far as we are aware there is no other company that specializes in such a policy. My employer specializes in finding niche insurance markets and this is one that has never been exploited.

Comment from Josh:

How would a ban on breeding Pit Bulls work?

Question from Wendy:

I would also like to see a nationwide breeding ban on Pit Bulls! How would that stop the people that are the major contributor to the problem? (That being the people that don't abide by the law anyway.) How would it be possible to monitor all of the backyard breeders all over the country? I would assume that local animal control would be responsible for monitoring that, but how effective would it be? If say you relinquish a Pit Bull to your local animal shelter that had obviously had a recent litter of puppies would that person receive a citation and then would the problem become worse in that people would rather shoot their dog rather release the animal and be cited?

Response from Kim:

Whenever a new law is proposed, how it will be enforced is always one of the first questions. For example, how can we really enforce a ban on drunk driving? Some people drive drunk anyway, but if they get caught, the police will prosecute them. Fear of prosecution keeps most people from getting intoxicated and then driving their cars, and that's what keeps the roads generally free of drunk drivers. There is also the social disapproval of drinking and driving, which is a relatively new phenomenon. When I was growing up in Texas, it was a very common occurrence for people to be drinking while driving.

You are right that some people would ignore a breed ban, at least at first; and yes, it would fall on local animal control officers to police the ban. However, if the dogs couldn't legally be sold, the market for backyard and commercial breeders would dry up. Dogfighters would be unlikely to adhere to a breed ban, but their breeding operations would go underground, and they wouldn't have commercial breeding as a cover for their cruel and illegal activities. Dogfighters would become much more obvious.

The sort of person who would rather shoot their dog than relinquish her to a shelter because she had just had a litter of pups isn't really likely to take the dog to a shelter anyway. The dog would be most likely to be dumped along the road somewhere.

Dogfighters often kill dogs who won't fight or lose fights, and the lucky ones get shot. Some are tortured or set on fire, as punishment. Many are simply dumped, often with serious wounds. The cruelty of dogfighting cannot be overstated.

People who love Pit Bull-type dogs need to understand that these breeds are at extremely high risk of ending up in the hands of abusive and/or sadistic people. That's my main concern - not whether Pit Bull-type dogs are more or less likely to bite than other breeds, or whether they are more likely to send people to the hospital when they do bite, or whether people can get homeowners insurance, or whether shelters should adopt them out or not. It's the possible fate of these dogs that makes me want to keep them from being born, a fate that makes euthanasia by injection look like a blessing.

Response from Karen:

Several concerns about breeding bans for Pit Bulls have been discussed this week, as well as some of the potential benefits. I wanted to weigh in with one concern that has not been addressed; what a breeding ban would do to the breed (or rather, breeds, since the term "Pit Bull" is generally used to refer to a group of breeds, rather than one specific breed). I do not believe that enforcement of a breeding ban would be sufficient to actually end breeding of pits. It would just stop people who care about breaking the law. Because a breeding ban would prevent law-abiding citizens from breeding pits, it would virtually eliminate breeding of high quality, good-tempered pits. Criminals, having little or no regard for the law (particularly not one that wouldn't result in more than a minor fine, even if one was successfully prosecuted), would continue to breed poor quality dogs selected for their bad temperaments. This would virtually destroy a proud, loyal, and exceptional breed of dog. If destroying the breed would put an end to abuse of Pit Bulls and/or to harm caused to humans and other animals, perhaps it would be worth it. But there's not any compelling evidence that it would do either. We would just be taking a bad situation (where pits are increasingly abused and bred for aggression, which is not a natural characteristic of the breed group) and making it worse, by removing the "good" dogs from the community.

How to quantify dog aggression in a community

Question from Michelle:

How many aggressive animals are generally in a community? Often, shelters in our area state that animals in their facility's care are euthanized mainly because they are aggressive. Yet, when 2/3 of the animals that enter a shelter that takes in thousands of animals cites aggression as a main reason for euthanasia, it is difficult to believe that all of those animals are aggressive. Are there any statistics that identify the average number of aggressive animals per community based on the number of animals in a community? I know organizations that receive Maddie's Fund grants must track and report the number of animals euthanized for aggression in their community. Has this data revealed any significant trend in the percentage of aggressive animals per community? Is there a percentage that is the norm for each community?

Response from Holly:

It's very difficult to answer a question like this since the definition of "aggressive" can be very subjective. Here's a great website that defines and describes some basic types of dog aggression: http://www.unclematty.com/training/aggressiontypes.html. There are both genetic and environmental factors in aggression, as well as all facets of an animals' behavior. But, the bottom line is that all dogs have the potential for aggression. Dogs do incredibly well considering some of the situations they end up in. They suffer abuses, tolerate their human's ignorance and, as we know, try with undying devotion to live up to our sometimes unrealistic expectations. Success in dealing with aggressive dog problems lies with humans, just as humans are often the cause of those very problems.

Response from Karen:

What a great question! Unfortunately, dependable data does not exist to answer your question definitively, in part because there is no single definition of "aggressive", and in part because there is no standard reporting process for collecting the information.

You mentioned Maddie's Fund tracking requirements. Maddie's Fund does require grant recipients to track whether animals handled by shelters in their community are "adoptable", "treatable" or "non-rehabilitatible". (See the following forum archives for further discussion of these definitions with Maddie's Fund president, Richard Avanzino: http://www.bestfriends.org/archives/forums/stats.html.)

However, this data would not accurately represent the number of aggressive dogs in a community for two primary reasons. First, while providing some guidelines for categorizing animals, these terms are still reasonably subjective and there are no requirements for how an animal was determined to fit into one category vs. another. Second, while the "non-rehabilitatible" category includes aggressive dogs, it is not limited to aggressive dogs. It would also include terminally ill animals, for instance.

According to an AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) report from 1991 (http://www.avma.org/pubhlth/dogbite/dogbite.pdf) there are approximately 53 million dogs in the U.S. and "an estimated 4.5 million people are bitten each year, although the actual number injured is unknown. Approximately 334,000 people are admitted to US emergency departments annually with dog bite-associated injuries, and another 466,000 are seen in other medical settings. An unknown number of other people who have been bitten do not sustain injuries deemed serious enough to require medical attention." I'm not mathematically inclined enough to be able to turn those numbers into a percentage, but even if I could, that wouldn't really give you a useful number. There are too many rough estimates thrown in there, studies suggest that most dog bites are not reported, and the number of dog bites does not necessarily equate to the number of aggressive dogs (many aggressive dogs do not ever bite someone because their living situation does not afford them the opportunity).

Personally, I would be suspicious if a community was defining more than 1-3 animals per thousand people as aggressive, but there may be cases in which that would be accurate. It is more difficult to make judgments about percentages in specific shelters, as those numbers could be thrown off widely depending on various factors in the community (such as the number of other shelters which may be accepting only good-tempered animals, in which case the municipal shelter may be receiving a higher proportion of aggressive animals).

All in all, I guess I'll just have to say that, regardless the exact number, there are way too many aggressive dogs in any community! Our efforts are needed to improve the temperament of our dogs across the board, and we each have a role to play. I hope the discussion this week has given you ideas and tools to help you make progress in your own community, whether it is simply by handling your own dog differently or by making decisions about shelter or public policy. Thank you for your interest in this issue!

Comments from members on dogs, insurance and liability

Comment from Ruthann:

Comment from Josh:

This is a very timely topic for us in particular because we at FIREPAW (The Foundation for Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting Animal Welfare) have just released this week the findings of our long-term research project on dog breed discrimination by insurance companies. The report can be found as the first set of items on our research page at http://www.firepaw.org/research.html.

Basically, our research found that even if certain breeds are at higher risk of biting, it still does not make financial sense for insurance companies to dramatically increase rates or deny insurance based on dog breed because the cost of this risk is relatively quite small (despite what insurance companies might say).

Comment from Linda:

I'm not an attorney or insurance expert, but I do know that because a prospective renter provides a certificate of insurance, it does not mean that their insurance company will necessarily cover dog bites, unless it specifically says so, or they provide some other insurance documentation that says so. Some insurance companies will cover homeowners'/renters' first dog bite episode, but not subsequent ones. I specifically asked, and found out, that this is the case with my homeowner's liability insurance. It is not reflected on my insurance policy declarations page, however.

Note from Forum moderator:

Thank you to the many members who sent in questions for this week's forum! Transcripts from this and all other forum weeks are archived for easy reference and are made available to all at http://www.bestfriends.com/nomorehomelesspets/weeklyforum/forumarchives.cfm.

For more information and advice related to this past week's topic, please visit the No More Homeless Pets Forum Archives (see link above). The following may be of particular interest:

- How can you make the animals in your shelter more adoptable? http://www.bestfriends.com/archives/forums/dogmanners.html
- Dog behavior: http://www.bestfriends.com/archives/forums/dogbehavior.html
- Animals and the law: http://www.bestfriends.com/archives/forums/protect.html
- The Link: Animal Abuse and Violence: http://www.bestfriends.com/archives/forums020705abuse.html

As always, thank you for being part of the Forum, and for all you do for the animals!

Dangerous Dogs?

Introduction from Karen Green:

Introduction from Kim Bartlett:

Introduction from Holly Bukes:

Introduction from Jill Buckley, Esq.:

Questions

Managing dangerous dogs to protect humans and the dogs

Question from Lisa:

Response from Karen:

Response from Jill:

Convincing shelters to adopt out dogs of all breeds

Question from Rachelle:

Response from Jill:

Promoting the adoption of good dogs of 'bad' breeds

Question from Rachelle:

Response from Karen:

Response from Holly:

Cost to benefit ratio for different enforcement approaches

Question from Amber:

Response from Holly:

Response from Kim:

What makes a dog dangerous?

Questions from Charlene and Sarah:

Response from Karen:

Comment from Frances:

Comment from Ruthann:

Comment from Barb:

Comment from Nik:

Comment from Russ:

How do other countries handle the dangerous dog situation?

Question from Diane:

Response from Kim:

Response from Holly:

Dogs, insurance and liability

Questions from Anne-Eve and Christi:

Response from Jill:

What steps can I take if my insurance gets pulled?

Question from Tomay:

Response from Jill:

Comment from Ruthann:

Comment from Josh:

How would a ban on breeding Pit Bulls work?

Question from Wendy:

Response from Kim:

Response from Karen:

How to quantify dog aggression in a community

Question from Michelle:

Response from Holly:

Response from Karen:

Comments from members on dogs, insurance and liability

Comment from Ruthann:

Comment from Josh:

Comment from Linda:

Note from Forum moderator: