• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Is Breed to Blame in Fatal Dog Attack?
Hoping to End Maulings, Some Cities Ban Pit Bulls and Other Dogs
By DEAN SCHABNER
June 7, 2005 --
 After a sixth-grader was fatally mauled by at least one of his family's pit bulls, San Francisco MayorGavin Newsom said it is time for the city to re-evaluate its laws concerning dog ownership, but animalprotection groups say any legislation should be focused on correcting owners' behavior, not trying toprevent future attacks by banning specific types of dogs.Nicholas Faibish, 12, was killed in the attack Friday in his San Francisco home, and investigators havebeen working to determine whether just one or both of the family's dogs were responsible.After the attack, Newsom said the city has to do something."We have to be realistic," Newsom said. "You've got dogs that literally can kill. We've seen itdemonstrated. If we can't change people's behavior and make them think what's in their best interest,then that's when government comes along and becomes a bit paternalistic."Newsom said he did not have any specific legislative proposals in mind, and a spokesman for the mayorsaid he was not talking about a ban on pit bull-type dogs, such as has been enacted in other places acrossthe country, but the dogs were clearly on his mind."Having a pit bull & and three kids is not acceptable because we're not going to deal with theconsequences of losing a life," Newsom said.He appointed a task force led by Carl Friedman, the city's director of Animal Care and Control, andmembers of the mayor's office, the police department, fire department, health department and cityattorney's office, and gave the group 10 days to produce a report.Friedman said the task force will likely consider breed-specific permits and mandatory spaying andneutering of aggressive dogs.Denver banned pit bulls in 1989, after a minister was bitten 70 times and had both his legs broken in apit bull attack. Earlier this spring a state court upheld the law even though a state law -- passed after theban was imposed -- prohibits breed-specific legislation.The city sued the state in May 2004 after Gov. Bill Owens signed a state law making owners liable forinjuries the first time a dog bites. The bill, which also prohibited cities and counties from outlawingspecific breeds, followed the fatal mauling of an Elbert County woman by three pit bulls last year.A judge in Denver's District Court upheld the law in May, ruling the state Attorney General's Office hadPage 1 of 3
 
not provided any new scientific evidence in the field of animal behavior or other new information thatwould make the ordinance unconstitutional.The same judge had also ruled in December that "home rule" gives Denver the right to ban specificbreeds of dogs, despite the state law."The urban environment of Denver is a heck of a lot different than the outback of Australia," AssistantCity Attorney Kory Nelson said after the court ruled in the city's favor last month. "These dogs posesuch a risk should they attack. We think as a community we shouldn't have them."
A Dangerous Breed?
Other places in the country that have breed-specific legislation --either outright bans of certain breeds orspecific requirements for owners of certain breeds -- include Iowa and Ohio; the cities of Boston;Providence, R.I.; and Muskegon, Mich.; as well as Miami-Dade County, Fla.; Prince Georges County,Md.; and more than a dozen cities in Washington state.Washington, D.C., also has been considering a ban on pit bulls."This is a dangerous breed," city Councilman Jim Graham, who has introduced a ban three times since1999, told The Washington Post. "On this issue, I get thousands of e-mails from people across theUnited States who tell me this is not a dangerous breed. There is not a week that goes by without areport of violence regarding pit bulls. What we're waiting for is some young child or someone else to beviolently attacked, and then there will be outcry."In Canada, the province of Ontario has also enacted a ban on pit bulls, due to take effect in August."Breed bans boil down to the public and the government needing someone to blame and they don't knowhow to handle it, so they put the blame on pit bulls," said Jason Mann, the creator of PitBullLovers.com,a Lexington, Ky.-based Web site for pit bull owners.Pit bulls, which are a popular dog with dog fighters and have developed a reputation for being vicious,were once known as "the nanny dog," because they were used to watch out for children. The dogs areconsidered extremely intelligent and trainable, but need a great deal of exercise to keep them happy,Mann said.While the dogs, often those raised to fight or to act as guard dogs by drug dealers or gang members,have been guilty of many attacks, other pit bulls have been cited as heroes, such as the two in Nebraskaearlier this year who saved a woman who was under attack by a chow.
Who Is Responsible?
"Legislation should be more focused on the owner and the owner's responsibility for the dog's behavior,"Mann said. "In the end, it's the owner's fault."That is a view that is shared by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and theAmerican Kennel Club, as well as several dog owners' groups.There is little evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer, either for people or for dogs,and the bans are expensive and difficult to enforce, these groups say.Page 2 of 3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...