Post by RealPitBull on Nov 5, 2008 11:17:34 GMT -5
From www.stopbsl.com/bsloverview/
I encourage readers to visit the site; there are pictures in the original site version of this article.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BSL is an ethical failure. BSL is a public safety failure.
Description
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) bans or restricts certain types of dogs based on their appearance because they are perceived as ¡°dangerous¡± breeds or types of dogs.
A breed ban usually requires that all dogs of a certain appearance (¡±targeted breed¡±) be removed from the area wherein the BSL has been implemented.
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¡ä 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
Breed-specific legislation applies only to dogs of a certain appearance, not to any and all dogs. It does not take into account how the owner has raised, trained, or managed the dog. It does not take into account the dog¡¯s actual behavior.
Why Is BSL Wrong?
BSL does not improve public safety or prevent dog bites.
BSL ignores the plight of victims and potential victims of non-targeted breeds.
BSL is costly.
BSL requires each and every dog to be identified as a breed¡ªsomething that has proven impossible to do accurately and objectively.
BSL makes targeted breeds more desirable to irresponsible and criminal owners.
BSL does nothing to make irresponsible dog owners accountable.
BSL punishes responsible dog owners.
BSL is costly to implement and costly to enforce.
Administrative Costs
Prince George¡¯s County: The Most Thorough Assessment of BSL To Date
In 2003, Prince George¡¯s County, Maryland, authorized a task force to examine the results of a 1996 pit bull ban in the county. The task force findings were shocking. They estimated that
The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit bull was around $68,000.
In the fiscal year 2001-2002, expenditures due to pit bull confiscations totaled $560,000. Income from pit bull registrations during that same period totaled only $35,000. Therefore, the county spent over half a million dollars enforcing their ban.
The county had lost an unmeasurable amount of both direct and indirect revenue due to the ¡°dramatic reduction¡± in number of dog shows and exhibitions held in the county.
Perhaps over half a million dollars a year is an acceptable expense to ensure public safety. But was Prince George¡¯s County¡¯s ban actually doing what it was supposed to? Was the community making a sound investment?
Apparently not. The task force found that
The ¡°public safety benefit is unmeasurable.¡±
Across the board, dog bites had decreased among all breeds at about the same rate. The ban did not appear to have had any noticeable effect on public safety.
What¡¯s more, the task force expressed concern that the ban might actually be having a negative effect on public safety; animal control facilities and workers were stretched thin because they were constantly having to respond to ¡°pit bull¡± complaints and house alleged pit bulls. The task force felt that this had a negative effect on animal control¡¯s ability to respond to other types of violations.
Actual and Estimated Expenses in Other Locations
The Prince George¡¯s County task force findings are typical of findings in many other locations.
In 2001, a Baltimore, Maryland, auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.
In 2008, Omaha proposed BSL that would cost over half a million dollars to enforce.
The U.K.¡¯s Dangerous Dog Act, which includes a ban on certain breeds of dogs, is estimated to have cost well over $14 million to enforce between the years 1991 and 1996 (no more recent numbers are available). It has come under fire lately as dog bites (committed by non-targeted dogs) rise despite the ban.
Even small cities and communities can spend tens of thousands of dollars annually to uphold their BSL.
All this money spent without any evidence, anywhere, that BSL actually increases public safety.
Lawsuits
As if administrative costs are not enough of a burden, lawsuits are par for the course when BSL is passed. Lawsuits are filed because
Owners of targeted breeds feel that BSL violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Dog owners dispute the breed designation that an animal control officer or shelter worker has placed on their dog
A municipality¡¯ s breed-specific legislation contradicts state law
Breed-specific legislation violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
Lawsuits can cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and place a heavy burden on both the court system and animal control departments. Often, these lawsuits are brought about by responsible dog owners whose family dogs were confiscated simply because of their appearance, not their behavior. Such lawsuits further underline the high cost and senselessness of BSL.
Other Direct and Indirect Losses
Many people have pointed out that bans and other types of BSL also result in losses that are difficult to anticipate or quantify.
Population loss - People who own a targeted breed may decide to move out of an area that passes BSL. It is unclear whether BSL attracts people to an area because of a perception that the area is ¡°safer.¡±
Tourism decrease - People who own a targeted breed may boycott or avoid areas with BSL. Kennel clubs and other canine organizations may similarly choose to avoid holding conventions or shows in areas with BSL. It is unlikely that individuals would intentionally travel to places with BSL because of a perception that the area is ¡°safer¡± due to BSL; for people who do not own targeted breeds, BSL is a non-issue. (In fact, they may not even know what BSL is.) That is, when people decide where to vacation, they usually do not consider BSL a necessary criteria.
Loss of talent - Ironically, there are a number of cases of banned dogs being spirited to freedom only to become star performers in public safety fields. For instance, pit bull Neville was rescued from Ontario after the Canadian province passed a pit bull ban in 2005. Neville is now a K9 for the Washington State Police; he protects the public daily by sniffing for bombs on the ferry system. By banning pit bulls, Ontario lost at least one invaluable dog that now saves countless lives on a regular basis.
Sources and Resources
Prince George¡¯s County Task Force Report (PDF) - Note: This file is very large and will take some time to download. The report can also be accessed in HTML format at www.understa nd-a-bull. com/BSL/Research /PGCMD/PGCMTOC1. htm
Financial and Social Implications of Breed Specific Legislation (PDF) from The Dog Legislation Council of Canada
The Cost of BSL (PDF)
K9 Neville¡¯s story at Law Dogs USA
Not a single canine welfare organization supports BSL.
BSL requires all dogs to be categorized by breed. But breed identification is not as easy¡ªor as objective¡ªas you think.
Do you know what a pit bull looks like? Take a quick break and see if you can find the American Pit Bull Terrier. Even better, when you play this game, see if you can identify all of the dogs¡¯ breeds before you click for the answer.
Breed identification and purebred/mixed breed dogs
Breed-specific legislation, by definition, restricts dogs based on their breed. This requires breed identification of each and every dog.
Breed identification might be easy when a dog is purebred, has a pedigree, and is registered with a kennel club. However, this makes up only a very small fraction of all dogs in the U.S. In 2006, an estimated 72 million dogs lived in households in the U.S. (U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook (2007 Edition)) How many of these dogs are purebred, pedigreed, and registered? Though I have seen one estimate put the number at 25 percent, I believe that to be extremely high. The actual number of purebred, pedigreed, registered dogs is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate.
Even using this highest estimate, that leaves 75 percent or more of the U.S. canine population without any sort of traceable lineage. Some of these dogs are undoubtably purebred, though they may lack any sort of historical paper trail to prove it. Their appearance is close enough to a breed standard that owners can confidently say that their dog is of a specific breed.
The vast majority of canines, however, are mixed breed dogs. And though we tend to think of mixed breed dogs as the offspring of two purebred dogs (Mastiff x Boxer = Mastiff-Boxer mix), the reality is far more complex. Most mixed breed dogs are a genetic mishmash resulting from several generations of mixed breed dogs interbreeding. The end result is incredibly complex.
To make things more confusing, a dog that doesn¡¯t really meet any single breed standard may be categorized as a type of dog rather than a specific breed. Dogs may be identified as terriers, pit bulls, shepherds, or retrievers; none of these are actual breed names, and the breeds that really do make up these categories come in a startling variety of shapes, sizes, and colors. There¡¯s a huge difference between an Airedale Terrier and a Jack Russell Terrier, so what does a ¡°terrier mix¡± describe?
Breed identification for BSL is based on a dog¡¯s appearance alone.
The primary means of breed identification for non-pedigreed dogs and mixed-breed dogs is a visual glance and a guess. The dog may be compared with the breed standard for a breed; again, this is based on visual assessment. It is entirely subjective.
Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant, who pushed for a ban on pit bulls in Ontario, proposed this manner of identification:
¡°I¡¯ve said before and I will say again, if it walks like a pit bull, if it barks and bites like a pit bull, wags its tail like a pit bull, it¡¯s a pit bull.¡± (Ontario Hansard 38-1, November 4, 2004)
Dog warden Tom Skeldon, the driving force behind Ohio¡¯s BSL, testified before the court in Tellings v. Toledo (2006) that
¡°even if a dog was 50 per cent pit bull, if it did not ¡®look like a pit bull,¡¯ the owner would not be charged. On the other hand, if a dog did ¡®look like a pit bull,¡¯ it would be classified as a pit bull and the owner would be subject to the ¡®vicious dog¡¯ laws.¡±
Who identifies breeds for BSL?
To know whether BSL affects any particular dog, breed determination is usually made by an animal control officer or a veterinarian (depending on how the law is written). However, contrary to popular assumption, veterinarians and animal control officers¡ªdespite handling many dogs for a living¡ªare not trained in breed identification. For the most part, they are no better than average citizens at breed identification.
Animal Control Officers (ACOs) and Workers There are not many hiring requirements to get a job as an animal control officer or shelter worker (the major requirement is having a physical ability to do the work, which may include picking up or restraining large animals). Being able to accurately and certainly identify dog breeds is decidedly not a requirement. Because AC departments are usually understaffed and underfunded, any sort of official training is minimal (most officers learn their duties on the job), and breed identification training is a complete rarity. Additionally, ACOs do not generally learn breed identification on the job to any great degree, because they rarely, if ever, receive feedback regarding their breed designations¡ªso they have no idea if they are labeling dogs correctly or incorrectly.
Veterinarians Veterinarians do not have to be trained in breed identification to receive a veterinary license¡ªand most aren¡¯t. In fact, most veterinarians don¡¯t even receive training in dog behavior. Their focus is on treating disease, and they don¡¯t need to know a dog¡¯s breed to diagnose and treat disease.
Checklists for Breed Identification
Some places with BSL use checklists for breed identification in an attempt to standardize and objectify identification processes. Some checklists are very short, while others tick off dozens of characteristics in great detail. The person performing the identification may be asked to choose along a sliding scale whether a particular dog matches or does not match a particular characteristic on the checklist.
Unfortunately, these checklists consist almost entirely of subjective characteristics. Using descriptive¡ªbut unmeasurable and nonscientific¡ªwords like ¡°medium length,¡± ¡°broad,¡± ¡°high,¡± and ¡°strong,¡± the checklists ask their users to draw personal conclusions about whether a particular dog matches each item. Below is a pit bull checklist put out by the city of San Francisco.
San Francisco, CA Pit Bull Checklist
The City and County of San Francisco, Department of Animal Care and Control considers a dog to be predominantly a pit bull breed (American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or Staffordshire Bull Terrier) if s/he possesses 5 out of the following 8 characteristics:
Head is medium length, with a broad skull and very pronounced cheek muscles, a wide, deep muzzle, a well-defined, moderately deep stop, and strong under jaw. Viewed from the front, the head is shaped like a broad, blunt wedge.
Eyes are round to almond shaped, are low in the skull and set far apart.
[Ed. note: I wonder what type of dog does not have "round to almond shaped" eyes? Are not eyeballs, by their very nature, "round"?]
Ears are set high. Un-cropped ears are short and usually held rose or half prick, though some hold them at full prick.
Neck is heavy and muscular, attached to strong, muscular shoulders.
Body is muscular, with a deep, broad chest, a wide front, deep brisket, well-sprung ribs, and slightly tucked loins.
Tail is medium length and set low, thick at the base, tapering to a point.
Hindquarters are well muscled, with hocks set low on the legs.
Coat is a single coat, smooth, short and close to the skin
Let¡¯s apply this checklist to some dogs.
Dusty
Head is medium length, with a broad skull and very pronounced cheek muscles, a wide, deep muzzle, a well-defined, moderately deep stop, and strong under jaw. Viewed from the front, the head is shaped like a broad, blunt wedge. This one works for me except for ¡°moderately deep stop.¡± Dusty¡¯s stop doesn¡¯t seem too deep.
Eyes are round to almond shaped, are low in the skull and set far apart. I think Dusty¡¯s eyes are triangular.
Ears are set high. Un-cropped ears are short and usually held rose or half prick, though some hold them at full prick.
Neck is heavy and muscular, attached to strong, muscular shoulders.
Body is muscular, with a deep, broad chest, a wide front, deep brisket, well-sprung ribs, and slightly tucked loins.
Tail is medium length and set low, thick at the base, tapering to a point.
Hindquarters are well muscled, with hocks set low on the legs.
Coat is a single coat, smooth, short and close to the skin
Dusty gets a 6 out of 8, which makes him a pit bull, according to the checklist.
Do you agree with my evaluation?
Luke
Head is medium length, with a broad skull and very pronounced cheek muscles, a wide, deep muzzle, a well-defined, moderately deep stop, and strong under jaw. Viewed from the front, the head is shaped like a broad, blunt wedge.
Eyes are round to almond shaped, are low in the skull and set far apart.
Ears are set high. Un-cropped ears are short and usually held rose or half prick, though some hold them at full prick.
Neck is heavy and muscular, attached to strong, muscular shoulders.
Body is muscular, with a deep, broad chest, a wide front, deep brisket, well-sprung ribs, and slightly tucked loins.
Tail is medium length and set low, thick at the base, tapering to a point.
Hindquarters are well muscled, with hocks set low on the legs.
Coat is a single coat, smooth, short and close to the skin. Luke¡¯s fur is obviously too thick to be a single coat. It is smooth and short, though.
Luke gets a 7 out of 8, which makes him a pit bull, according to the checklist.
Do you agree with my evaluation?
DNA-Based Breed Identification Tests
The DNA-based breed identification tests currently on the market are not yet accurate enough for widespread use; they only recognize around 100 of the 400 to 800 dog breeds out there. Further, these tests are neither cheap nor quick.
When it comes to most mixed breed dogs (most pet dogs) the results that come back usually confirm that these mixed breed dogs are heavily mixed and contain only small traces of certain breed markers. Unfortunately, these results may serve to ¡°taint¡± a dog when it comes to BSL; a dog with only a minute amount of ¡°American Staffordshire Terrier¡± detected in its genes¡ªperhaps only one of its great-great- great-great grandparents was a purebred AmStaff¡ªis nevertheless considered a ¡°pit bull mix¡± and is therefore subject to BSL.
It smacks of the ¡°one-drop rule¡± of Jim Crow laws.
An interesting related article: Mutts Decoded in the Boston Globe, August 2, 2008
According to the article:
¡°The results of the [DNA] testing have been so startling that the Animal Rescue League is planning to stop making educated guesses about mixes and will instead label all mutts as American shelter dogs. The shelter the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals runs at Angell Memorial Hospital is considering a similar change, although the MSPCA prefers the term New England mutt.¡±
Here are some breed-id DNA test results for Dozer, a ¡°pit bull.¡± Judge for yourself how accurate they are.
Test #1 (blood test)¡°Distant traces of¡±
American Staffordshire Terrier
Bull Terrier
Bulldog (trace amount at low confidence)
Dalmatian (trace amount at low confidence)
¡°There are also faint signals from other breeds which are not strong enough to identify.¡±
Test #2 (cheek swab)
Bulldog (between 20-36%)
Parson Russell Terrier (between 20-36%)
Rottweiler (between 20-36%)
Poodle (between 10-19%)
Boston Terrier (less than 10%)
Dozer looks like a ¡°pit bull¡±¡ªand that was his label when we adopted him from the pound as a puppy¡ªbut in fact he¡¯s not one, not two, not even three, but a jumble of breed types¡ making him a good ol¡¯ American mutt, really. Nevertheless, using the ever-popular, completely racist ¡°one drop¡± rule, Dozer is a ¡°pit bull mix¡±¡ªif we go by the first test¡¯s results, that is.
Misidentification in the Media
When it comes to dog attacks, the media has never had a good track record of accuracy, particularly when it comes to identification of the breed of dog involved. Many journalists, whether in their haste to meet deadlines or because they simply don¡¯t care, do not make the effort to correctly and carefully identify the breed of the dog involved in the attack.
Of course, one has to ask¡ªhow does anyone really know what breed the dog is in the first place?
Did the journalist ask the victim? We have seen here how difficult it is to identify a dog by breed. Victims are certainly not dog breed experts. And in some cases, it is that very ignorance about dogs that makes the person a victim in the first place.
Did the journalist ask the dog owner? Dog owners often have no better idea what their dog¡¯s breed is. Unless they purchased a purebred dog, complete with authentic pedigree and kennel club registration, a dog owner¡¯s statement of his/her dog¡¯s breed is probably going to be based on the identification made by the person or place where they got the dog. This may be a backyard breeder, a flea market, a neighbor, a friend, or an animal shelter. Do any of these providers really know what breed the dog is?
Did the journalist ask animal control? As mentioned above, animal control officers and animal shelter workers are not breed identification experts, nor are they required to be. ACOs are going to give their best guess, or they will go with whatever the dog owner says the dog¡¯s breed is.
Does it really matter what breed the dog is? Actually, no. Dog attacks follow a fairly predictable pattern involving a handful of factors such as reproductive status of the dog, function of the dog, containment method used, and so on. Reporting the dog¡¯s breed (or supposed breed) serves no real purpose except for description (and the connotations and stereotypes that follow). It does not educate readers how to avoid a similar event.
But misidentification has serious ramifications. Dog attacks that make headlines can stir up public animosity toward a particular breed or type of dog. This animosity can lead¡ªwhere else?¡ªto calls for BSL against certain types of dogs.
Breed Identification Is Tough¡ªAnd It Doesn¡¯t Make Us Safer
If you own a dog, you probably already know that most people can¡¯t identify dog breeds; it is a universal dog owner experience to be asked ¡°What kind of dog is that?¡± by a friendly passerby.
The popularity of breed-identificatio n DNA tests, despite their questionable accuracy, further indicates that even dog owners don¡¯t really know what their dogs¡¯ breed makeup is.
Even assuming we could definitively identify every single dog¡¯s breed or mix precisely, where do we go from there?
A dangerous dog isn¡¯t dangerous because of the shape of its eyes or the breadth of its chest; a dangerous dog is dangerous because of the way it behaves.
DNA-based breed id tests suggest physical features and possible temperament traits, but they definitely don¡¯t tell you what an individual dog¡¯s behavior is going to be like. As any animal or human behaviorist, psychologist, biologist, or anthropologist will tell you, a living creature¡¯s behavior is the result of a combination of genetics and environment.
So even if we do establish, definitively, that a dog has a ¡°pit bull¡± for a distant ancestor, how does that make us safer? Does it really make sense to spend our energy worrying about a single drop of blood?
BSL places unreasonable burdens on responsible dog owners, tears families apart, and kills innocent dogs.
¡°Dangerous¡± No Matter What
Animal control officers agree that responsible dog owners are not the problem, no matter what breed of dog they own. Responsible dog owners put great effort into properly containing and maintaining their pet dog.
But despite the fact that they and their dog may be doing all the right things, this effort is no longer acceptable when breed-specific legislation passes. Breed-specific legislation, which places restrictions or bans on dogs because of how they look, negatively affects responsible dog owners because there is absolutely no focus on the owner¡¯s behavior. All extra requirements expected of the dog owner hinge entirely on what the owner¡¯s dog looks like.
In effect, breed-specific legislation says that a dog¡¯s behavior is dictated by its appearance, and therefore an owner¡¯s treatment of the dog has no effect on the dog¡¯s behavior at all. BSL subtly suggests that dog owners do not need to train, socialize, or properly manage their dog; that as long as the dog looks ¡°safe,¡± the owner may do as he or she pleases, and if the dog looks ¡°dangerous,¡± there¡¯s nothing the owner can do to make it ¡°safe.¡± Of course, this goes against everything we know about canine behavior.
Extra Steps For the People Who Need It the Least
Responsible dog owners who own targeted breeds under BSL must follow strict containment rules, purchase expensive insurance, muzzle their dog, spay or neuter their dog, or, in the case of a ban, get rid of their pet.
All these requirements despite the fact that responsible owners usually have already spayed/neutered their pet, spent money and time on obedience training, spent money or effort to properly contain and monitor their dog at all times, and taken extra steps to ensure that their dogs are wonderful pets.
Meanwhile, irresponsible owners of both targeted and non-targeted types of dogs freely flout the law even when breed-specific restrictions are added.
Yet another injustice is that the irresponsible owner of a targeted breed may face a fine for violating the law, but the dog¡ªwho has had no say whatsoever as to the manner of his upbringing, environment, or training¡ªis typically killed as a consequence of the owner¡¯s mistake. And the irresponsible owner goes out and gets a new dog to mistreat.
Running Off Responsible Owners
These added restrictions on certain types of dogs drives responsible owners away from these types of dogs because it¡¯s too much of a hassle, it¡¯s embarrassing, or it¡¯s simply unaffordable. Consequently, the only targeted-breed owners left are irresponsible ones. Ohio has experienced this situation; despite breed-specific legislation that declares all ¡°pit bull¡±-type dogs automatically vicious, Ohio has an ever-increasing population of problematic pit bulls and their equally problematic owners. Ohio dog wardens state that they are seeing more and more pit bulls owned by drug dealers and other violent individuals, while responsible owners steer clear of the breed-type due to the BSL. (Of course, keep in mind that dog wardens typically only see irresponsible dog owners in the first place, so this might skew their perspective a little.)
Breaking Up Families
Responsible dog owners consider their dogs members of the family. They love their dogs, and they invest a lot of money into the health and happiness of their dogs.
A breed ban removes well-loved dogs from their families even if neither dog nor owner has ever caused any problems. Breed bans force families to give up family members; children can be traumatized by the removal of their ¡°best friend,¡± especially since there is no good way to explain why the government wants to destroy a friendly, loving companion.
Breed restrictions often have the same effect. In some cases, people cannot keep their dog because the legislation requirements are too expensive or problematic. In other cases, the restrictions are so humiliating and stigmatizing that, to avoid being perceived as a criminal or a thug, a person might give up his or her dog.
None of this affects irresponsible owners. Such owners see dogs as disposable objects that can be thrown out as soon as they become too troublesome to own. For people who don¡¯t mind being perceived as thugs, or who are simply going to ignore the law anyway, BSL is not the least bit punitive or troublesome.
Killing Innocent Dogs
At what price the illusion of safety? Studies have proven that breed-specific legislation does not reduce dog bites or improve public safety. Non-targeted breeds continue to bite and do severe¡ªand sometimes fatal¡ªdamage.
Yet tens of thousands of guiltless dogs of targeted breeds have been and continue to be rounded up and killed in the name of breed-specific legislation.
At what price our humanity?
BSL defenders have a powerful ally and motivator on their side: fear. It¡¯s their only ally, but it works. To fight the spread of BSL, vigilance and intelligent action are necessary.
Monitor legislation
Contact your lawmakers
Write letters
What (not) to say
Communication tips
Who Should I Contact?
This depends on who is proposing BSL. If your city council is proposing BSL, then you would contact your city councilmembers. If a state legislator is proposing BSL, then you would contact your state representatives (in your state¡¯s House and Senate).
Most towns, cities, and counties have websites that list the local lawmakers¡¯ contact information.
All state legislatures have websites with a search box to help you find the people who represent you in the House and Senate. You may also go to Project VoteSmart¡¯s website and enter your zip code to find your elected officials. Remember, you don¡¯t need to contact all your elected officials; only senators and representatives will have a say in the passage of state-level dangerous dog laws, so don¡¯t bother writing the Chair of the Railroad Commission.
Should I contact all of the officials in the legislature, or just my elected officials?
At the state level, most officials are so swamped with their own constituents¡¯ correspondence that they are not likely to listen to anyone outside of their district. Definitely contact your elected officials.
If the bill is being considered by a committee (this usually occurs after a bill has just been proposed), you can contact the officials who are on the committee to encourage/discourag e them from approving it. It is only after the bill is approved by a committee that it makes its way to the House or Senate floor for a vote.
How Should I Contact My Elected Officials?
How much time do you have before the officials vote on the law? How effective do you want to be?
E-Mail is the fastest means of communication, but it is also the least personal, least formal, and least likely to be read and acknowledged. If you choose to send an e-mail, be brief and use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation as if you were writing a business letter.
Faxes also transmit instantly, and they allow for a more formal letter format. Don¡¯t have a fax machine? You can ¡°fax¡± computer files via the Internet, using an online fax service. One free fax service is FaxZero.com.
Snail mail (real live letters sent via the post office) can take some time to get to officials, but they can be both formal and personal. If you have time, this is a good way to contact officials.
Face-to-face meetings have significant impact because they are so personal, even if they are brief. When you meet with an official, you are putting a real live face on the proposed law; the legislator now knows someone who will be affected by it. This is also an excellent opportunity to break down stereotypes and assumptions.
A speech during a city council open forum or public comment session, or testifying in front of a state legislature, also has a very personal impact on lawmakers. Again, you are showing how a proposed law personally affects real live people, and again you have an opportunity to break down stereotypes. Public speeches may need to be scheduled in advance of the meeting, so be sure to find out before you show up.
What Should I Say?
The key is to be brief and to the point. The first sentence in your letter or speech should tell the elected officials what you would like for them to do: ¡°Please support / do not support [insert bill number or description here].¡±
After that, the rest is up to you, but you probably should not exceed one page of text (for a speech, follow the time limit set by forum rules). Please do not use form letters and do not copy model letters. Officials absolutely hate it when they get a bunch of letters that sound the same. They may attribute form letters to radical groups and lobbyists, not to concerned individuals.
The key is quality, not quantity. Use your own words and your own arguments, even if you think you aren¡¯t a very good writer. As long as you manage to hit on a couple of important points, you¡¯ve done more good by writing a personal letter than by sending a form letter.
Always remain polite, calm, and informative. Do not threaten or insult. For written correspondence, it¡¯s a good idea to ask someone else to read your letter before you deliver it, because the tone of voice in your head as you write may not match the tone that a recipient reads into the text.
There are certain things that you should not say or do when corresponding with elected officials regarding BSL. More detailed information about BSL-specific correspondence issues can be found on the Talking About BSL page.
Dos and don¡¯ts for letter-writing can be found on the Write Letters page.
More detailed information about contacting elected officials in general can be found on the Public Communication page.
I used to offer sample letters for people to use when writing to their legislators. Not anymore. And I strongly urge you to avoid using a sample letter or form letter to contact your elected officials. Why?
A recent Gallup Poll found that over 70% of all lawmakers said they pay a great deal of attention to personally written letters, while only 19% pay great attention to form letters.
Elected officials believe that similar-sounding letters come from lobby groups engaging in pressure campaigns. If your letter sounds like it¡¯s been copied, you get lumped in with the ¡°radicals.¡±
Form letters are quick and easy¡ªand elected officials know it. They aren¡¯t going to believe that you are genuinely concerned about the issue if you don¡¯t take the time to write your own letter.
Here are some quick tips for writing an effective letter to your elected officials. The actual words are up to you, but even if you don¡¯t think you¡¯re a very good writer, don¡¯t freak out! Just do your best, be polite, and touch on what you feel are the most important points. Your personal attention and effort will count much more than any textbook form letter.
YES
Be polite and respectful.
Address your elected official properly. For senators and representatives, ¡°The Honorable¡± precedes the name on an envelope, and the letter starts with ¡°Dear Senator¡¡± or ¡°Dear Representative¡¡± If you aren¡¯t sure, do a Google search.
Your first sentence should hit the main point of your letter. ¡°I am writing to ask you to vote against HB 2304.¡± ¡°Please make the community a safer place by supporting non-breed-specific dog legislation.¡±
Explain who you are, whether you are a constituent, and how the legislation would affect you. Include your contact information.
Keep your argument brief. With a few exceptions, letters should be short (one page long) and to the point.
Choose a few most important points to make and forget about the rest. Don¡¯t worry about not covering the whole issue¡ªany points that you can¡¯t fit into your letter will probably be hit on by someone else.
Check this page for a summary of arguments against BSL to use/avoid.
Cite facts and examples to support your argument. Make sure what you¡¯re saying is factual¡ªfind reliable sources for any facts you provide.
Provide non-breed-specific alternatives to BSL.
Say ¡°thank you for your consideration¡± or ¡°thank you for your assistance¡± at the close of the letter.
NO
Don¡¯t send a form letter or a barely-altered sample letter.
Don¡¯t be rude, threatening, insulting, etc. Do not name-call. This will backfire¡ªin some cases, very badly.
You do not need to mention that you are ¡°a taxpayer and a citizen.¡± It sounds aggressive and arrogant, and besides, the elected official probably assumes as much already.
Do not issue an ultimatum (also known as the ¡°or else¡± statement). In other words, do not say ¡°Vote against this or else I won¡¯t vote for you.¡±
Don¡¯t send additional material. But do offer to send additional material upon request.
If you own a targeted breed and you are addressing an official who has proposed BSL or who has voiced negative opinions about that breed, I advise you to avoid mentioning your dog¡¯s breed. You may say you are a dog owner, or you might say you are a constituent who would be negatively affected by BSL. Pit bull owners, in particular, have to overcome a very strong negative stereotype. Certain legislators have publicly stated that they consider owners of targeted breeds to be ¡°crazy¡± to own ¡°ticking time bombs.¡± They have scoffed at input from ¡°rabid pit bull lovers.¡± It will be easier to make a persuasive argument if you do not mention your dog¡¯s breed; this prevents the legislator from making a snap judgment about your sanity or intelligence.
If the legislator sends you a response (this is rare, but does happen), you do not need to write again unless the legislator is requesting additional information.
If you don¡¯t get a response from an elected official, don¡¯t take it personally. This is normal. They get a great deal of correspondence and they don¡¯t have enough time to reply to all of it. You can make a follow-up call to the official if you feel it is necessary.
If you get an incredibly rude reply from an elected official, check out this website.
More Links
For more tips, check out these various advocacy and government sites and see what they advise their members and supporters to do. (Note: Some tips may not apply to you because they are aimed at a specific audience and deal with a different issue.)
www.lakecoun tyfn.org/ lc-lwv/contact. html#effective
www.ucsusa. org/ucsaction/ writing-letters. html
www.cra. org/govaffairs/ advocacy/ writecong. html
ALSO YOU CAN GO TO CARE2.COM AND SIGN STOP BSL PETITONS...
I encourage readers to visit the site; there are pictures in the original site version of this article.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BSL is an ethical failure. BSL is a public safety failure.
Description
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) bans or restricts certain types of dogs based on their appearance because they are perceived as ¡°dangerous¡± breeds or types of dogs.
A breed ban usually requires that all dogs of a certain appearance (¡±targeted breed¡±) be removed from the area wherein the BSL has been implemented.
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¡ä 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
Breed-specific legislation applies only to dogs of a certain appearance, not to any and all dogs. It does not take into account how the owner has raised, trained, or managed the dog. It does not take into account the dog¡¯s actual behavior.
Why Is BSL Wrong?
BSL does not improve public safety or prevent dog bites.
BSL ignores the plight of victims and potential victims of non-targeted breeds.
BSL is costly.
BSL requires each and every dog to be identified as a breed¡ªsomething that has proven impossible to do accurately and objectively.
BSL makes targeted breeds more desirable to irresponsible and criminal owners.
BSL does nothing to make irresponsible dog owners accountable.
BSL punishes responsible dog owners.
BSL is costly to implement and costly to enforce.
Administrative Costs
Prince George¡¯s County: The Most Thorough Assessment of BSL To Date
In 2003, Prince George¡¯s County, Maryland, authorized a task force to examine the results of a 1996 pit bull ban in the county. The task force findings were shocking. They estimated that
The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit bull was around $68,000.
In the fiscal year 2001-2002, expenditures due to pit bull confiscations totaled $560,000. Income from pit bull registrations during that same period totaled only $35,000. Therefore, the county spent over half a million dollars enforcing their ban.
The county had lost an unmeasurable amount of both direct and indirect revenue due to the ¡°dramatic reduction¡± in number of dog shows and exhibitions held in the county.
Perhaps over half a million dollars a year is an acceptable expense to ensure public safety. But was Prince George¡¯s County¡¯s ban actually doing what it was supposed to? Was the community making a sound investment?
Apparently not. The task force found that
The ¡°public safety benefit is unmeasurable.¡±
Across the board, dog bites had decreased among all breeds at about the same rate. The ban did not appear to have had any noticeable effect on public safety.
What¡¯s more, the task force expressed concern that the ban might actually be having a negative effect on public safety; animal control facilities and workers were stretched thin because they were constantly having to respond to ¡°pit bull¡± complaints and house alleged pit bulls. The task force felt that this had a negative effect on animal control¡¯s ability to respond to other types of violations.
Actual and Estimated Expenses in Other Locations
The Prince George¡¯s County task force findings are typical of findings in many other locations.
In 2001, a Baltimore, Maryland, auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.
In 2008, Omaha proposed BSL that would cost over half a million dollars to enforce.
The U.K.¡¯s Dangerous Dog Act, which includes a ban on certain breeds of dogs, is estimated to have cost well over $14 million to enforce between the years 1991 and 1996 (no more recent numbers are available). It has come under fire lately as dog bites (committed by non-targeted dogs) rise despite the ban.
Even small cities and communities can spend tens of thousands of dollars annually to uphold their BSL.
All this money spent without any evidence, anywhere, that BSL actually increases public safety.
Lawsuits
As if administrative costs are not enough of a burden, lawsuits are par for the course when BSL is passed. Lawsuits are filed because
Owners of targeted breeds feel that BSL violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Dog owners dispute the breed designation that an animal control officer or shelter worker has placed on their dog
A municipality¡¯ s breed-specific legislation contradicts state law
Breed-specific legislation violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
Lawsuits can cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and place a heavy burden on both the court system and animal control departments. Often, these lawsuits are brought about by responsible dog owners whose family dogs were confiscated simply because of their appearance, not their behavior. Such lawsuits further underline the high cost and senselessness of BSL.
Other Direct and Indirect Losses
Many people have pointed out that bans and other types of BSL also result in losses that are difficult to anticipate or quantify.
Population loss - People who own a targeted breed may decide to move out of an area that passes BSL. It is unclear whether BSL attracts people to an area because of a perception that the area is ¡°safer.¡±
Tourism decrease - People who own a targeted breed may boycott or avoid areas with BSL. Kennel clubs and other canine organizations may similarly choose to avoid holding conventions or shows in areas with BSL. It is unlikely that individuals would intentionally travel to places with BSL because of a perception that the area is ¡°safer¡± due to BSL; for people who do not own targeted breeds, BSL is a non-issue. (In fact, they may not even know what BSL is.) That is, when people decide where to vacation, they usually do not consider BSL a necessary criteria.
Loss of talent - Ironically, there are a number of cases of banned dogs being spirited to freedom only to become star performers in public safety fields. For instance, pit bull Neville was rescued from Ontario after the Canadian province passed a pit bull ban in 2005. Neville is now a K9 for the Washington State Police; he protects the public daily by sniffing for bombs on the ferry system. By banning pit bulls, Ontario lost at least one invaluable dog that now saves countless lives on a regular basis.
Sources and Resources
Prince George¡¯s County Task Force Report (PDF) - Note: This file is very large and will take some time to download. The report can also be accessed in HTML format at www.understa nd-a-bull. com/BSL/Research /PGCMD/PGCMTOC1. htm
Financial and Social Implications of Breed Specific Legislation (PDF) from The Dog Legislation Council of Canada
The Cost of BSL (PDF)
K9 Neville¡¯s story at Law Dogs USA
Not a single canine welfare organization supports BSL.
BSL requires all dogs to be categorized by breed. But breed identification is not as easy¡ªor as objective¡ªas you think.
Do you know what a pit bull looks like? Take a quick break and see if you can find the American Pit Bull Terrier. Even better, when you play this game, see if you can identify all of the dogs¡¯ breeds before you click for the answer.
Breed identification and purebred/mixed breed dogs
Breed-specific legislation, by definition, restricts dogs based on their breed. This requires breed identification of each and every dog.
Breed identification might be easy when a dog is purebred, has a pedigree, and is registered with a kennel club. However, this makes up only a very small fraction of all dogs in the U.S. In 2006, an estimated 72 million dogs lived in households in the U.S. (U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook (2007 Edition)) How many of these dogs are purebred, pedigreed, and registered? Though I have seen one estimate put the number at 25 percent, I believe that to be extremely high. The actual number of purebred, pedigreed, registered dogs is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate.
Even using this highest estimate, that leaves 75 percent or more of the U.S. canine population without any sort of traceable lineage. Some of these dogs are undoubtably purebred, though they may lack any sort of historical paper trail to prove it. Their appearance is close enough to a breed standard that owners can confidently say that their dog is of a specific breed.
The vast majority of canines, however, are mixed breed dogs. And though we tend to think of mixed breed dogs as the offspring of two purebred dogs (Mastiff x Boxer = Mastiff-Boxer mix), the reality is far more complex. Most mixed breed dogs are a genetic mishmash resulting from several generations of mixed breed dogs interbreeding. The end result is incredibly complex.
To make things more confusing, a dog that doesn¡¯t really meet any single breed standard may be categorized as a type of dog rather than a specific breed. Dogs may be identified as terriers, pit bulls, shepherds, or retrievers; none of these are actual breed names, and the breeds that really do make up these categories come in a startling variety of shapes, sizes, and colors. There¡¯s a huge difference between an Airedale Terrier and a Jack Russell Terrier, so what does a ¡°terrier mix¡± describe?
Breed identification for BSL is based on a dog¡¯s appearance alone.
The primary means of breed identification for non-pedigreed dogs and mixed-breed dogs is a visual glance and a guess. The dog may be compared with the breed standard for a breed; again, this is based on visual assessment. It is entirely subjective.
Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant, who pushed for a ban on pit bulls in Ontario, proposed this manner of identification:
¡°I¡¯ve said before and I will say again, if it walks like a pit bull, if it barks and bites like a pit bull, wags its tail like a pit bull, it¡¯s a pit bull.¡± (Ontario Hansard 38-1, November 4, 2004)
Dog warden Tom Skeldon, the driving force behind Ohio¡¯s BSL, testified before the court in Tellings v. Toledo (2006) that
¡°even if a dog was 50 per cent pit bull, if it did not ¡®look like a pit bull,¡¯ the owner would not be charged. On the other hand, if a dog did ¡®look like a pit bull,¡¯ it would be classified as a pit bull and the owner would be subject to the ¡®vicious dog¡¯ laws.¡±
Who identifies breeds for BSL?
To know whether BSL affects any particular dog, breed determination is usually made by an animal control officer or a veterinarian (depending on how the law is written). However, contrary to popular assumption, veterinarians and animal control officers¡ªdespite handling many dogs for a living¡ªare not trained in breed identification. For the most part, they are no better than average citizens at breed identification.
Animal Control Officers (ACOs) and Workers There are not many hiring requirements to get a job as an animal control officer or shelter worker (the major requirement is having a physical ability to do the work, which may include picking up or restraining large animals). Being able to accurately and certainly identify dog breeds is decidedly not a requirement. Because AC departments are usually understaffed and underfunded, any sort of official training is minimal (most officers learn their duties on the job), and breed identification training is a complete rarity. Additionally, ACOs do not generally learn breed identification on the job to any great degree, because they rarely, if ever, receive feedback regarding their breed designations¡ªso they have no idea if they are labeling dogs correctly or incorrectly.
Veterinarians Veterinarians do not have to be trained in breed identification to receive a veterinary license¡ªand most aren¡¯t. In fact, most veterinarians don¡¯t even receive training in dog behavior. Their focus is on treating disease, and they don¡¯t need to know a dog¡¯s breed to diagnose and treat disease.
Checklists for Breed Identification
Some places with BSL use checklists for breed identification in an attempt to standardize and objectify identification processes. Some checklists are very short, while others tick off dozens of characteristics in great detail. The person performing the identification may be asked to choose along a sliding scale whether a particular dog matches or does not match a particular characteristic on the checklist.
Unfortunately, these checklists consist almost entirely of subjective characteristics. Using descriptive¡ªbut unmeasurable and nonscientific¡ªwords like ¡°medium length,¡± ¡°broad,¡± ¡°high,¡± and ¡°strong,¡± the checklists ask their users to draw personal conclusions about whether a particular dog matches each item. Below is a pit bull checklist put out by the city of San Francisco.
San Francisco, CA Pit Bull Checklist
The City and County of San Francisco, Department of Animal Care and Control considers a dog to be predominantly a pit bull breed (American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or Staffordshire Bull Terrier) if s/he possesses 5 out of the following 8 characteristics:
Head is medium length, with a broad skull and very pronounced cheek muscles, a wide, deep muzzle, a well-defined, moderately deep stop, and strong under jaw. Viewed from the front, the head is shaped like a broad, blunt wedge.
Eyes are round to almond shaped, are low in the skull and set far apart.
[Ed. note: I wonder what type of dog does not have "round to almond shaped" eyes? Are not eyeballs, by their very nature, "round"?]
Ears are set high. Un-cropped ears are short and usually held rose or half prick, though some hold them at full prick.
Neck is heavy and muscular, attached to strong, muscular shoulders.
Body is muscular, with a deep, broad chest, a wide front, deep brisket, well-sprung ribs, and slightly tucked loins.
Tail is medium length and set low, thick at the base, tapering to a point.
Hindquarters are well muscled, with hocks set low on the legs.
Coat is a single coat, smooth, short and close to the skin
Let¡¯s apply this checklist to some dogs.
Dusty
Head is medium length, with a broad skull and very pronounced cheek muscles, a wide, deep muzzle, a well-defined, moderately deep stop, and strong under jaw. Viewed from the front, the head is shaped like a broad, blunt wedge. This one works for me except for ¡°moderately deep stop.¡± Dusty¡¯s stop doesn¡¯t seem too deep.
Eyes are round to almond shaped, are low in the skull and set far apart. I think Dusty¡¯s eyes are triangular.
Ears are set high. Un-cropped ears are short and usually held rose or half prick, though some hold them at full prick.
Neck is heavy and muscular, attached to strong, muscular shoulders.
Body is muscular, with a deep, broad chest, a wide front, deep brisket, well-sprung ribs, and slightly tucked loins.
Tail is medium length and set low, thick at the base, tapering to a point.
Hindquarters are well muscled, with hocks set low on the legs.
Coat is a single coat, smooth, short and close to the skin
Dusty gets a 6 out of 8, which makes him a pit bull, according to the checklist.
Do you agree with my evaluation?
Luke
Head is medium length, with a broad skull and very pronounced cheek muscles, a wide, deep muzzle, a well-defined, moderately deep stop, and strong under jaw. Viewed from the front, the head is shaped like a broad, blunt wedge.
Eyes are round to almond shaped, are low in the skull and set far apart.
Ears are set high. Un-cropped ears are short and usually held rose or half prick, though some hold them at full prick.
Neck is heavy and muscular, attached to strong, muscular shoulders.
Body is muscular, with a deep, broad chest, a wide front, deep brisket, well-sprung ribs, and slightly tucked loins.
Tail is medium length and set low, thick at the base, tapering to a point.
Hindquarters are well muscled, with hocks set low on the legs.
Coat is a single coat, smooth, short and close to the skin. Luke¡¯s fur is obviously too thick to be a single coat. It is smooth and short, though.
Luke gets a 7 out of 8, which makes him a pit bull, according to the checklist.
Do you agree with my evaluation?
DNA-Based Breed Identification Tests
The DNA-based breed identification tests currently on the market are not yet accurate enough for widespread use; they only recognize around 100 of the 400 to 800 dog breeds out there. Further, these tests are neither cheap nor quick.
When it comes to most mixed breed dogs (most pet dogs) the results that come back usually confirm that these mixed breed dogs are heavily mixed and contain only small traces of certain breed markers. Unfortunately, these results may serve to ¡°taint¡± a dog when it comes to BSL; a dog with only a minute amount of ¡°American Staffordshire Terrier¡± detected in its genes¡ªperhaps only one of its great-great- great-great grandparents was a purebred AmStaff¡ªis nevertheless considered a ¡°pit bull mix¡± and is therefore subject to BSL.
It smacks of the ¡°one-drop rule¡± of Jim Crow laws.
An interesting related article: Mutts Decoded in the Boston Globe, August 2, 2008
According to the article:
¡°The results of the [DNA] testing have been so startling that the Animal Rescue League is planning to stop making educated guesses about mixes and will instead label all mutts as American shelter dogs. The shelter the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals runs at Angell Memorial Hospital is considering a similar change, although the MSPCA prefers the term New England mutt.¡±
Here are some breed-id DNA test results for Dozer, a ¡°pit bull.¡± Judge for yourself how accurate they are.
Test #1 (blood test)¡°Distant traces of¡±
American Staffordshire Terrier
Bull Terrier
Bulldog (trace amount at low confidence)
Dalmatian (trace amount at low confidence)
¡°There are also faint signals from other breeds which are not strong enough to identify.¡±
Test #2 (cheek swab)
Bulldog (between 20-36%)
Parson Russell Terrier (between 20-36%)
Rottweiler (between 20-36%)
Poodle (between 10-19%)
Boston Terrier (less than 10%)
Dozer looks like a ¡°pit bull¡±¡ªand that was his label when we adopted him from the pound as a puppy¡ªbut in fact he¡¯s not one, not two, not even three, but a jumble of breed types¡ making him a good ol¡¯ American mutt, really. Nevertheless, using the ever-popular, completely racist ¡°one drop¡± rule, Dozer is a ¡°pit bull mix¡±¡ªif we go by the first test¡¯s results, that is.
Misidentification in the Media
When it comes to dog attacks, the media has never had a good track record of accuracy, particularly when it comes to identification of the breed of dog involved. Many journalists, whether in their haste to meet deadlines or because they simply don¡¯t care, do not make the effort to correctly and carefully identify the breed of the dog involved in the attack.
Of course, one has to ask¡ªhow does anyone really know what breed the dog is in the first place?
Did the journalist ask the victim? We have seen here how difficult it is to identify a dog by breed. Victims are certainly not dog breed experts. And in some cases, it is that very ignorance about dogs that makes the person a victim in the first place.
Did the journalist ask the dog owner? Dog owners often have no better idea what their dog¡¯s breed is. Unless they purchased a purebred dog, complete with authentic pedigree and kennel club registration, a dog owner¡¯s statement of his/her dog¡¯s breed is probably going to be based on the identification made by the person or place where they got the dog. This may be a backyard breeder, a flea market, a neighbor, a friend, or an animal shelter. Do any of these providers really know what breed the dog is?
Did the journalist ask animal control? As mentioned above, animal control officers and animal shelter workers are not breed identification experts, nor are they required to be. ACOs are going to give their best guess, or they will go with whatever the dog owner says the dog¡¯s breed is.
Does it really matter what breed the dog is? Actually, no. Dog attacks follow a fairly predictable pattern involving a handful of factors such as reproductive status of the dog, function of the dog, containment method used, and so on. Reporting the dog¡¯s breed (or supposed breed) serves no real purpose except for description (and the connotations and stereotypes that follow). It does not educate readers how to avoid a similar event.
But misidentification has serious ramifications. Dog attacks that make headlines can stir up public animosity toward a particular breed or type of dog. This animosity can lead¡ªwhere else?¡ªto calls for BSL against certain types of dogs.
Breed Identification Is Tough¡ªAnd It Doesn¡¯t Make Us Safer
If you own a dog, you probably already know that most people can¡¯t identify dog breeds; it is a universal dog owner experience to be asked ¡°What kind of dog is that?¡± by a friendly passerby.
The popularity of breed-identificatio n DNA tests, despite their questionable accuracy, further indicates that even dog owners don¡¯t really know what their dogs¡¯ breed makeup is.
Even assuming we could definitively identify every single dog¡¯s breed or mix precisely, where do we go from there?
A dangerous dog isn¡¯t dangerous because of the shape of its eyes or the breadth of its chest; a dangerous dog is dangerous because of the way it behaves.
DNA-based breed id tests suggest physical features and possible temperament traits, but they definitely don¡¯t tell you what an individual dog¡¯s behavior is going to be like. As any animal or human behaviorist, psychologist, biologist, or anthropologist will tell you, a living creature¡¯s behavior is the result of a combination of genetics and environment.
So even if we do establish, definitively, that a dog has a ¡°pit bull¡± for a distant ancestor, how does that make us safer? Does it really make sense to spend our energy worrying about a single drop of blood?
BSL places unreasonable burdens on responsible dog owners, tears families apart, and kills innocent dogs.
¡°Dangerous¡± No Matter What
Animal control officers agree that responsible dog owners are not the problem, no matter what breed of dog they own. Responsible dog owners put great effort into properly containing and maintaining their pet dog.
But despite the fact that they and their dog may be doing all the right things, this effort is no longer acceptable when breed-specific legislation passes. Breed-specific legislation, which places restrictions or bans on dogs because of how they look, negatively affects responsible dog owners because there is absolutely no focus on the owner¡¯s behavior. All extra requirements expected of the dog owner hinge entirely on what the owner¡¯s dog looks like.
In effect, breed-specific legislation says that a dog¡¯s behavior is dictated by its appearance, and therefore an owner¡¯s treatment of the dog has no effect on the dog¡¯s behavior at all. BSL subtly suggests that dog owners do not need to train, socialize, or properly manage their dog; that as long as the dog looks ¡°safe,¡± the owner may do as he or she pleases, and if the dog looks ¡°dangerous,¡± there¡¯s nothing the owner can do to make it ¡°safe.¡± Of course, this goes against everything we know about canine behavior.
Extra Steps For the People Who Need It the Least
Responsible dog owners who own targeted breeds under BSL must follow strict containment rules, purchase expensive insurance, muzzle their dog, spay or neuter their dog, or, in the case of a ban, get rid of their pet.
All these requirements despite the fact that responsible owners usually have already spayed/neutered their pet, spent money and time on obedience training, spent money or effort to properly contain and monitor their dog at all times, and taken extra steps to ensure that their dogs are wonderful pets.
Meanwhile, irresponsible owners of both targeted and non-targeted types of dogs freely flout the law even when breed-specific restrictions are added.
Yet another injustice is that the irresponsible owner of a targeted breed may face a fine for violating the law, but the dog¡ªwho has had no say whatsoever as to the manner of his upbringing, environment, or training¡ªis typically killed as a consequence of the owner¡¯s mistake. And the irresponsible owner goes out and gets a new dog to mistreat.
Running Off Responsible Owners
These added restrictions on certain types of dogs drives responsible owners away from these types of dogs because it¡¯s too much of a hassle, it¡¯s embarrassing, or it¡¯s simply unaffordable. Consequently, the only targeted-breed owners left are irresponsible ones. Ohio has experienced this situation; despite breed-specific legislation that declares all ¡°pit bull¡±-type dogs automatically vicious, Ohio has an ever-increasing population of problematic pit bulls and their equally problematic owners. Ohio dog wardens state that they are seeing more and more pit bulls owned by drug dealers and other violent individuals, while responsible owners steer clear of the breed-type due to the BSL. (Of course, keep in mind that dog wardens typically only see irresponsible dog owners in the first place, so this might skew their perspective a little.)
Breaking Up Families
Responsible dog owners consider their dogs members of the family. They love their dogs, and they invest a lot of money into the health and happiness of their dogs.
A breed ban removes well-loved dogs from their families even if neither dog nor owner has ever caused any problems. Breed bans force families to give up family members; children can be traumatized by the removal of their ¡°best friend,¡± especially since there is no good way to explain why the government wants to destroy a friendly, loving companion.
Breed restrictions often have the same effect. In some cases, people cannot keep their dog because the legislation requirements are too expensive or problematic. In other cases, the restrictions are so humiliating and stigmatizing that, to avoid being perceived as a criminal or a thug, a person might give up his or her dog.
None of this affects irresponsible owners. Such owners see dogs as disposable objects that can be thrown out as soon as they become too troublesome to own. For people who don¡¯t mind being perceived as thugs, or who are simply going to ignore the law anyway, BSL is not the least bit punitive or troublesome.
Killing Innocent Dogs
At what price the illusion of safety? Studies have proven that breed-specific legislation does not reduce dog bites or improve public safety. Non-targeted breeds continue to bite and do severe¡ªand sometimes fatal¡ªdamage.
Yet tens of thousands of guiltless dogs of targeted breeds have been and continue to be rounded up and killed in the name of breed-specific legislation.
At what price our humanity?
BSL defenders have a powerful ally and motivator on their side: fear. It¡¯s their only ally, but it works. To fight the spread of BSL, vigilance and intelligent action are necessary.
Monitor legislation
Contact your lawmakers
Write letters
What (not) to say
Communication tips
Who Should I Contact?
This depends on who is proposing BSL. If your city council is proposing BSL, then you would contact your city councilmembers. If a state legislator is proposing BSL, then you would contact your state representatives (in your state¡¯s House and Senate).
Most towns, cities, and counties have websites that list the local lawmakers¡¯ contact information.
All state legislatures have websites with a search box to help you find the people who represent you in the House and Senate. You may also go to Project VoteSmart¡¯s website and enter your zip code to find your elected officials. Remember, you don¡¯t need to contact all your elected officials; only senators and representatives will have a say in the passage of state-level dangerous dog laws, so don¡¯t bother writing the Chair of the Railroad Commission.
Should I contact all of the officials in the legislature, or just my elected officials?
At the state level, most officials are so swamped with their own constituents¡¯ correspondence that they are not likely to listen to anyone outside of their district. Definitely contact your elected officials.
If the bill is being considered by a committee (this usually occurs after a bill has just been proposed), you can contact the officials who are on the committee to encourage/discourag e them from approving it. It is only after the bill is approved by a committee that it makes its way to the House or Senate floor for a vote.
How Should I Contact My Elected Officials?
How much time do you have before the officials vote on the law? How effective do you want to be?
E-Mail is the fastest means of communication, but it is also the least personal, least formal, and least likely to be read and acknowledged. If you choose to send an e-mail, be brief and use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation as if you were writing a business letter.
Faxes also transmit instantly, and they allow for a more formal letter format. Don¡¯t have a fax machine? You can ¡°fax¡± computer files via the Internet, using an online fax service. One free fax service is FaxZero.com.
Snail mail (real live letters sent via the post office) can take some time to get to officials, but they can be both formal and personal. If you have time, this is a good way to contact officials.
Face-to-face meetings have significant impact because they are so personal, even if they are brief. When you meet with an official, you are putting a real live face on the proposed law; the legislator now knows someone who will be affected by it. This is also an excellent opportunity to break down stereotypes and assumptions.
A speech during a city council open forum or public comment session, or testifying in front of a state legislature, also has a very personal impact on lawmakers. Again, you are showing how a proposed law personally affects real live people, and again you have an opportunity to break down stereotypes. Public speeches may need to be scheduled in advance of the meeting, so be sure to find out before you show up.
What Should I Say?
The key is to be brief and to the point. The first sentence in your letter or speech should tell the elected officials what you would like for them to do: ¡°Please support / do not support [insert bill number or description here].¡±
After that, the rest is up to you, but you probably should not exceed one page of text (for a speech, follow the time limit set by forum rules). Please do not use form letters and do not copy model letters. Officials absolutely hate it when they get a bunch of letters that sound the same. They may attribute form letters to radical groups and lobbyists, not to concerned individuals.
The key is quality, not quantity. Use your own words and your own arguments, even if you think you aren¡¯t a very good writer. As long as you manage to hit on a couple of important points, you¡¯ve done more good by writing a personal letter than by sending a form letter.
Always remain polite, calm, and informative. Do not threaten or insult. For written correspondence, it¡¯s a good idea to ask someone else to read your letter before you deliver it, because the tone of voice in your head as you write may not match the tone that a recipient reads into the text.
There are certain things that you should not say or do when corresponding with elected officials regarding BSL. More detailed information about BSL-specific correspondence issues can be found on the Talking About BSL page.
Dos and don¡¯ts for letter-writing can be found on the Write Letters page.
More detailed information about contacting elected officials in general can be found on the Public Communication page.
I used to offer sample letters for people to use when writing to their legislators. Not anymore. And I strongly urge you to avoid using a sample letter or form letter to contact your elected officials. Why?
A recent Gallup Poll found that over 70% of all lawmakers said they pay a great deal of attention to personally written letters, while only 19% pay great attention to form letters.
Elected officials believe that similar-sounding letters come from lobby groups engaging in pressure campaigns. If your letter sounds like it¡¯s been copied, you get lumped in with the ¡°radicals.¡±
Form letters are quick and easy¡ªand elected officials know it. They aren¡¯t going to believe that you are genuinely concerned about the issue if you don¡¯t take the time to write your own letter.
Here are some quick tips for writing an effective letter to your elected officials. The actual words are up to you, but even if you don¡¯t think you¡¯re a very good writer, don¡¯t freak out! Just do your best, be polite, and touch on what you feel are the most important points. Your personal attention and effort will count much more than any textbook form letter.
YES
Be polite and respectful.
Address your elected official properly. For senators and representatives, ¡°The Honorable¡± precedes the name on an envelope, and the letter starts with ¡°Dear Senator¡¡± or ¡°Dear Representative¡¡± If you aren¡¯t sure, do a Google search.
Your first sentence should hit the main point of your letter. ¡°I am writing to ask you to vote against HB 2304.¡± ¡°Please make the community a safer place by supporting non-breed-specific dog legislation.¡±
Explain who you are, whether you are a constituent, and how the legislation would affect you. Include your contact information.
Keep your argument brief. With a few exceptions, letters should be short (one page long) and to the point.
Choose a few most important points to make and forget about the rest. Don¡¯t worry about not covering the whole issue¡ªany points that you can¡¯t fit into your letter will probably be hit on by someone else.
Check this page for a summary of arguments against BSL to use/avoid.
Cite facts and examples to support your argument. Make sure what you¡¯re saying is factual¡ªfind reliable sources for any facts you provide.
Provide non-breed-specific alternatives to BSL.
Say ¡°thank you for your consideration¡± or ¡°thank you for your assistance¡± at the close of the letter.
NO
Don¡¯t send a form letter or a barely-altered sample letter.
Don¡¯t be rude, threatening, insulting, etc. Do not name-call. This will backfire¡ªin some cases, very badly.
You do not need to mention that you are ¡°a taxpayer and a citizen.¡± It sounds aggressive and arrogant, and besides, the elected official probably assumes as much already.
Do not issue an ultimatum (also known as the ¡°or else¡± statement). In other words, do not say ¡°Vote against this or else I won¡¯t vote for you.¡±
Don¡¯t send additional material. But do offer to send additional material upon request.
If you own a targeted breed and you are addressing an official who has proposed BSL or who has voiced negative opinions about that breed, I advise you to avoid mentioning your dog¡¯s breed. You may say you are a dog owner, or you might say you are a constituent who would be negatively affected by BSL. Pit bull owners, in particular, have to overcome a very strong negative stereotype. Certain legislators have publicly stated that they consider owners of targeted breeds to be ¡°crazy¡± to own ¡°ticking time bombs.¡± They have scoffed at input from ¡°rabid pit bull lovers.¡± It will be easier to make a persuasive argument if you do not mention your dog¡¯s breed; this prevents the legislator from making a snap judgment about your sanity or intelligence.
If the legislator sends you a response (this is rare, but does happen), you do not need to write again unless the legislator is requesting additional information.
If you don¡¯t get a response from an elected official, don¡¯t take it personally. This is normal. They get a great deal of correspondence and they don¡¯t have enough time to reply to all of it. You can make a follow-up call to the official if you feel it is necessary.
If you get an incredibly rude reply from an elected official, check out this website.
More Links
For more tips, check out these various advocacy and government sites and see what they advise their members and supporters to do. (Note: Some tips may not apply to you because they are aimed at a specific audience and deal with a different issue.)
www.lakecoun tyfn.org/ lc-lwv/contact. html#effective
www.ucsusa. org/ucsaction/ writing-letters. html
www.cra. org/govaffairs/ advocacy/ writecong. html
ALSO YOU CAN GO TO CARE2.COM AND SIGN STOP BSL PETITONS...
I look forward to learning much here