Carl Junction, MO, Lockridge, IA, Walkerton, IN, Smithfield, UT. If you were to ask several people on the street what these cities have in common, you would probably receive nothing more than blank stares. But if you told them that a Search and Rescue (SAR) dog that searched for survivors in the debris of the World Trade Center would not be able to live in them, most would probably not believe you. But it’s true.
Meet Gunner, a 90-pound Rottweiler who searched the World Trade Center site in New York City for 7 days after the 9/11 terror attacks. Gunner’s real name is Fine’s Gunther v. Forstwald. He is a SAR dog, certified in cadaver, urban and wilderness searches. With his owner, John Randall, he also helped search for survivors of a F5 tornado that ripped through Oklahoma City in 1999 [6].
Gunner received the American Kennel Club (AKC) Hero Dog Award in 2001 for his work at the World Trade Center site. He has also received many other awards from other organizations. He has several obedience and agility titles. He is even a pet therapy dog that visits schools and hospitals. But simply because Gunner is a Rottweiler, it would be illegal for John to own him in several cities and towns in this country.
Gunner is not the only Rottweiler who serves his country. There are many active SAR, pet therapy and law enforcement dogs that are Rottweilers or pit bulls. However, stories of dogs doing extraordinary tasks, or even just being good canine citizens, are not always as news worthy as stories of dogs attacking people. This leads to the general public believing that all Rottweilers, or all pit bulls, are as dangerous as the ones they see on television or read about in newspapers.
During the past two decades, the Rottweiler and pit bull breeds have developed a reputation as dangerous dog breeds. According to a Center for Disease Control study, Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities -- United States [4], over an 18-year period, from 1979-1996, they were involved in more than 51% of the dog-bite-related fatalities in the United States. Many feel that dog bites have reached epidemic levels. This has certainly caused politicians to take notice. In the past two decades governments have taken on a greater role in controlling dog bites, and dangerous dogs.
The idea of legislating dangerous dogs is not a new idea. Many cities have dangerous dog laws. Dogs are often declared dangerous after one unprovoked attack. “Unprovoked” in this instance would mean that the dog was not in defense of his owner or property. Some cities have even taken that a step further. Many have passed legislation banning, or strictly regulating, breeds of dog they feel are a danger to the public. This is called Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). BSL is an ordinance or set of ordinances that only affect people who own certain breeds of dogs.
It would be very difficult to determine just how many communities have BSL, or some form of it. It is known that there are several countries outside of the United States that have BSL, including very controversial legislation in Germany. Many areas in Germany have strict laws pertaining to breeds that they have designated as dangerous. In the 1990s the German government cracked down on Rottweilers, pit bull breeds and several other breeds, which caused an outcry by dog owners throughout the world.
A number of other countries also have some type of BSL. For example, there are certain breeds that cannot be bred or imported into France. Denmark, Norway and Holland have banned pit bulls. Even Puerto Rico, which is a United States Commonwealth, has banned the possession and importation of pit bulls [8].
The United States government has typically left dog legislation to the local and state level. There are no national laws pertaining to dog ownership, and despite what many people believe, owning a dog is not a right that is granted in the United States Constitution. Even the United States Supreme Court has refused to hear cases related to BSL. But there are constitutional issues with BSL. It has faced numerous constitutional challenges in lower courts. The decisions have gone both ways, but the majority of court decisions have sided with the government’s ability to control and regulate dogs.
In some cases, courts have ruled that certain BSL statutes are too vague. This was a result of the fact that there is no scientific method of determining what breed a dog really is. In one particular case in Massachusetts, American Dog Owners Association, Inc., et al. v. City of Lynn [1], the judge concluded that:
There is no scientific means, by blood type, DNA, enzyme, or otherwise, to determine if a dog is a particular breed or any mixture thereof, that dog officers of the city of Lynn used conflicting, subjective standards for ascertaining what animals are to be identified as pit bulls under all of the ordinances in question; and that the ordinance failed to provide law enforcement officials with ascertainable standards by which to enforce the ordinance.
In other cases, however, where animal control officers used recognized breed standards to determine the breed of dog, the statutes have generally been upheld. A breed standard is considered to be a description of the perfect specimen for that particular breed. But even referencing a breed standard relies on the officer’s ability to read and comprehend a breed standard. Without expertise in the breed, it can be very difficult to critique a dog, especially if the dog is a mixed breed. The dog may have certain traits of one breed, and other traits resembling a completely different breed.
The highest court to hear a case related to BSL was the Alabama Supreme Court. In April of 2000, more than 50 pit bulls were confiscated from a dog-fighting ring in Huntsville. Half of the dogs had to be euthanized because of disease and injuries. Of the 25 that survived, the Madison County Circuit Court allowed 21 of them to be euthanized because they were used for fighting. The remaining dogs, four puppies, were adopted from the city pound. City of Huntsville officials went to court to obtain an order to euthanize the remaining puppies, and lost. Madison County Circuit Judge Joe Battle ruled that since the puppies were not taught to fight, they were not dangerous and could be adopted. The City of Huntsville then appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. City officials used affidavits from veterinarians who examined the puppies and claimed that pit bulls were genetically dangerous, and should not be adopted because they posed a threat to the community. By this time the Washington Animal Foundation (now the American Canine Foundation) had become involved. They were granted permission by the court to file amicus curiae (disinterested adviser). In the amicus curiae they submitted evidence that pit bulls were not dangerous and that the briefs filed by the city did not adequately address the far-reaching issues of breed bias [7].
In the case, City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack [2], seven of the nine justices on the Alabama Supreme Court agreed with Judge Battle and the Washington Animal Foundation, that there was no evidence that pit bulls were genetically vicious. The two dissenting judges did not argue that pit bulls were dangerous, only that the adopters had no “direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest” in the proceeding. Dog owners across the country have hailed this case as a major victory against BSL. It will no doubt be referenced in future court cases.
Most communities have other laws pertaining to the ownership of dogs. Some cities have laws requiring dogs to be kept on a leash, except in certain designated areas. Some also have laws requiring that citizens register their dogs with the city or town they live in. These laws are difficult to enforce because of budget constraints and lack of resources in animal control agencies. But it is important they be enforced. If trained workers are provided with the tools necessary to enforce existing dog laws, its possible that quite a few bite incidents could be avoided.
Allocating the necessary resources to animal control agencies is an important part of making sure the public understands, and abides by, the laws regarding dog ownership. Having laws that few people know about, and even fewer follow does little good. Animal control agents must be properly trained in educating the public about dog ownership as well. They are essentially the government experts on dog behavior, and the public is going to look to them for guidance.
There is valid concern when local governments create additional laws, when the existing laws already are not being enforced. The first priority should be to allocate the necessary resources to enforce existing laws, before coming up with new ones. After reviewing the effectiveness of those laws, the decision can be made to introduce new rules and regulations if necessary.
If new laws are necessary to deal with dog bites, there are plenty of examples of non-breed specific legislation for governments to use. These laws can achieve the same goal without punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of a few.
Proposed legislation recently introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives [3], would hold owners strictly accountable for their dogs’ actions, while prohibiting local governments from passing BSL. House bill 04-1279 provides an opportunity for the dog-bite victim to sue the dog owner in civil court. The bill, and existing legislation, clearly define “bodily injury” and “serious bodily injury” and describe what kind of action can be taken in each instance. If the dog attack is serious enough, the proposed bill allows for a court to enter a euthanasia order. This offers an incentive for people to socialize their dogs with other people. It is also a deterrent to irresponsible owners keeping dogs that bite people. If a dog causes serious bodily injury, the owner could face criminal and civil charges and the dog could be euthanized. Most legislation that deals with dangerous dogs does not specify that a dog is dangerous until after the first bite or attack. Only then does it place restrictions on the dog owner and dog. If passed, Colorado’s laws would essentially be a zero-tolerance policy on serious dog attacks, without placing different restrictions on any breed.
This type of strict liability places responsibility solely on the dog owner. It can be an effective way of dealing with the problem of dogs biting people, without denying law-abiding citizens the ability to own whichever breed of dog they choose.
Unfortunately, what is often missing from these laws, and others like them, is education. There are significant resources devoted to creating laws, and punishing people for breaking them, but seldom do governments take the initiative to educate the public.
In the past couple of years, several training programs have been created using inmates to train dogs. In some programs the dogs are trained for disabled or blind people. In others, the inmates work with shelter dogs, training and grooming them, to make the dogs more adoptable. The benefits of these programs are not hard to realize. Inmates are taught how to responsibly deal with animals, they are able to bond with the animals, and there is a sense of accomplishment when the dogs are fully trained service dogs. The public is provided with a fully trained service dog, and the released inmate becomes a member of society who understands the value of responsible dog ownership and training.
These prison programs could serve as models for schools as well. Statistics show that children are the most frequent victims of dog bites [5]. By teaching children how to properly train, handle and act in the presence of dogs, there is less of a chance of them being involved in a serious dog attack. Many parents do not take the time, or simply do not have the knowledge themselves, to educate their children on how to behave around dogs. Thus, when the child is in the presence of a dog, they may unknowingly put themselves in a situation where they are likely to be bit by a dog. Children may not understand that taunting or teasing a dog can lead to serious behavioral problems for the dog. They may not understand that running and screaming can trigger a dog’s prey drive, or a dog’s natural tendency to chase what is moving.
An understanding of dog behavior is not something humans are born with. However, a little education can go a long way in ensuring that someone knows how to act when in the presence of dogs. In certain situations, it can be the difference between life and death.
There are other ways to deal with the problem of dogs biting people. Instead of BSL, communities could use a combination of education and laws that hold owners responsible for their dog’s actions. The investment made in education and law enforcement would easily be made up in the benefits of having a public that is educated about dog behavior and training.
By having an educated public and smart legislation regarding dangerous dogs, it would no longer necessary to ban specific breeds. The rights of law-abiding citizens would not have to be compromised. Governments need to work together with the public to ensure they know the laws regarding dog ownership, and abide by them. And the public needs to better educate younger children on how to behave around dogs. Hopefully by doing these things, the situation regarding dog bites will improve.
1. American Dog Owners Association, Inc., et al. v. City of Lynn. (1989, August). 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d. 642.
2. City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack. (2003, August). Ala.
3. Colorado House of Representatives. (2004, April 6). Concerning liability regarding the behavior of dogs. House Bill 04-1279. Retrieved December 2, 2004 from http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS2004A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/2E0F1990B50BF91387256DF8005CB456?Open&file=1279_ren.pdf
4. Dog-bite-related fatalities – United States. (1997, May). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 46. (463-467).
5. Gershman, K.A., Sacks, J.J., & Wright, J.C. (1994, June). Which dogs bite? A case-control study of risk factors. Pediatrics, 93. (913–917).
6. Randall, John. (n.d.). Home of John Randall and Gunner. Gunnerdog.com. Retrieved December 3, 2004, from http://www.gunnerdog.com/index.html
7. http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/September2002/News060902/bsl.htm
8. http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/rottweilers/laws/breedspecific.html