Let’s just say, if you were invited to a dinner party full of dog trainers, what is a conversation piece you might choose NOT to pursue?
a. Politics b. Religion c. Why you hate pit bulls d. The weather
If you chose anything other than “c” – you, too, can be invited to my next holiday gathering!
Seriously, as trainers we are bombarded by a ridiculous amount of misinformation, much of it guided by media outlets sensationalizing dog attacks on babies and children. Naturally, we try our very hardest to help people train their dogs and we certainly feel horrible when we hear stories about such terrible things. In fact, given our occupation, we probably have more empathy than most people.
What person with a heart wouldn’t feel bad?
But the real question is, would getting rid of any specific breed of dog prevent such tragedies in the future?
Unintended Consequences
Fear… in any form… is intended to increase the likelihood you will live through the experience. Fear of heights is there to teach you respect of not falling off a building. Fear of guns teaches respect of the killing potential. But what does fear of dogs teach people? Specifically, children. Usually, and tragically, fear of dogs tells kids to run. And nothing gets you bit, attacked, even mauled quicker than running.
So all this media attention paid to pit bulls has probably increased the likelihood that kids are getting bit by dogs in general, certainly not just one breed or another.
My husband and I are involved with therapy dog work and we work with children who are in a disadvantaged situation. Many of them have a tremendous fear of dogs. Ironically, when confronted with people who are afraid of dogs – pit bulls and otherwise – these children scream, run and hide, and basically do everything to throw the odds of their getting bit higher.
Our goal with those children is to help them have a healthy respect for all dogs, and to learn how to interact in a safe, and positive way. Any media outlets who would like to help us in this initiative are welcome!
Unrealistic Phobia
So, according to one anti-pit bull site on the web, pit bulls and pit bull like dogs account for approximately anywhere from 2-9% of all dogs in the US. That’s a pretty ridiculous range, first of all. But even going with those percentages, that means that if 75 million dogs are in this country (as according to the ASPCA there are) than there are between 1.5 – 6.75 million pit bulls in this country.
So, could someone please help me understand how pit bulls (and other bully breeds) are so incredibly ruthless, evil and bloodthirsty, that literally millions of them live in peace in their homes every single year?
According to that same anti pit web site (which I refuse to give press to, and so won’t give you their information) there were 88 fatal dog attacks over a three year period (2006-2008). Further only 59% of the 88 were by pit bull or pit bull mixes. So, while I’ll agree that 52 people killed by pit bulls over a three year period sounds horrible…. keep these equally horrifying statistics in mind:
- About 40 people killed by bears over the last decade
- Over 150 people on average are killed each year by deer
And there are far less bears, and daily interactions with bears than people have with pit bulls. But would we ever say that bears should be killed, because there is the potential that they would kill a human being? Of course not! We also wouldn’t recommend killing (or the more polite term – banning) any other animal because there is potential danger to people. There would be no zoos, no wildlife left in the world, if that were the case. How sad a thought.
What makes a dog breed ‘dangerous’?
In this country, we constantly and vehemently oppose discrimination of all forms – race, gender, religion, creed, orientation. What is breed specific legislation, other than discrimination? Yes, we aren’t talking about ‘people’, but neither are we talking about toys, or robots. We are talking about individuals who make up a certain group.
Perhaps most telling on the subject of breed specific legislation, is the exhaustive research done by the ASPCA. Here is an excerpt from their website regarding their position, which strongly opposes breed specific legislation.
Perhaps the most harmful unintended consequence of breed-specific laws is their tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. As certain breeds are regulated, individuals who exploit aggression in dogs are likely to turn to other, unregulated breeds (Sacks et al., 2000). Following enactment of a 1990 pit bull ban in Winnipeg, Canada, Rottweiler bites increased dramatically (Winnipeg reported bite statistics, 1984-2003). By contrast, following Winnipeg’s enactment of a breed-neutral dangerous dog law in 2000, pit bull bites remained low and both Rottweiler and total dog bites decreased significantly (Winnipeg reported bite statistics, 1984-2003). In Council Bluffs, Iowa, Boxer and Labrador Retriever bites increased sharply and total dog bites spiked following enactment of a pit bull ban in 2005 (Barrett, 2007)
So, in other words, people who are going to be very bad, dangerous owners, will do so with any breed.
Perhaps we should enact a “dangerous owner” law and ban certain individuals, proven to cause the public harm with their animals, from owning any dog, regardless of breed.
Now, there’s a thought…..