Post by RealPitBull on Jan 10, 2008 10:27:30 GMT -5
January 10, 2008
City should target unsterilized dogs
internetservices.readingeagle.com/blog/editorials/archives/2008/01/city_should_tar_1.html
The Issue: Despite a rash of attacks this summer by pit bulls in Reading, the dog-bite statistics for the year do not elevate the breed to aggressive status.
Our Opinion: With almost nine of 10 bites coming from unsterilized dogs, City Council should rewrite the law to target owners who fail to have their animals fixed.
The 2007 statistics for dog bites in Reading demonstrate just how arbitrary the city’s ordinance covering aggressive animals can be.
After a summer in which it appeared inevitable that pit bull terriers would be designated as an aggressive breed, two bites — one by a German shepherd and one by a boxer — in the waning days of the year shifted the statistics.
According to Reading’s law, any breed responsible for 40 percent or more of the city’s dog bites in a single year is designated as an aggressive breed. Owners of such dogs are subjected to a $500 permit for each nonsterilized dog, and the animals — sterilized or not — would have to be leashed and muzzled.
The last two bites dropped the percentage of bites from pit bulls to 39.7 percent. But state statisticts tell a different story, with 111 dog bits in Reading, 12.6 percent from pit bulls.
This goes to show that blaming an entire breed for the actions of a few dogs is like blaming an entire race of people for the behavior of a handful of individuals.
In most cases dogs, like people, reflect the atmosphere in which they were raised. Pit bulls can be trained to be aggressive, which seems to be a trait that makes them popular among some people, or they can be trained to be gentle, loving, family pets.
As Karel I. Minor, executive director of the Humane Society of Berks County Inc. said, the common thread that runs through the vast majority of dog bites is not breed but sterilization.
According to Minor, in dog-bite cases where the sterilization of the animal is known, 88 percent were not spayed or neutered. And two-thirds of that 88 percent were male dogs.
It is interesting to note that of the city’s 400 or so licensed pit bulls, roughly three-quarters of them are not sterilized. That might help to explain why 29 of the city’s 73 dog bites in 2007 were by pit bulls.
We also should note that animal-control officials believe there probably are hundreds more unlicensed pit bulls, most of which have not been sterilized.
As a result, City Council should be looking into rewriting the dog ordinance and targeting not the owners of any particular breed but rather the owners of animals that have not been spayed or neutered.
Council should consider increasing the licensing fee for all unspayed females to $300 and unneutered males to $600, regardless of breed.
Council could consider special, lower licensing fees for unsterilized animals belonging to anyone who can prove he or she is a registered breeder. But that shouldn’t be a major consideration. Breeders simply pass on the licensing fees as part of the cost of doing business.
Of course the problem associated with high license fees for unsterilized animals is that it could compel owners not to license their dogs. So council also should consider implementing stiff fines for owners of any unlicensed dog that bites someone. A fine of $1,000 doesn’t seem unreasonable, and the amount could double if it turns out that the dog has not been fixed.
The key here is to target the owner, not the animal. After all, the owner ultimately is responsible for the animal’s behavior.
City should target unsterilized dogs
internetservices.readingeagle.com/blog/editorials/archives/2008/01/city_should_tar_1.html
The Issue: Despite a rash of attacks this summer by pit bulls in Reading, the dog-bite statistics for the year do not elevate the breed to aggressive status.
Our Opinion: With almost nine of 10 bites coming from unsterilized dogs, City Council should rewrite the law to target owners who fail to have their animals fixed.
The 2007 statistics for dog bites in Reading demonstrate just how arbitrary the city’s ordinance covering aggressive animals can be.
After a summer in which it appeared inevitable that pit bull terriers would be designated as an aggressive breed, two bites — one by a German shepherd and one by a boxer — in the waning days of the year shifted the statistics.
According to Reading’s law, any breed responsible for 40 percent or more of the city’s dog bites in a single year is designated as an aggressive breed. Owners of such dogs are subjected to a $500 permit for each nonsterilized dog, and the animals — sterilized or not — would have to be leashed and muzzled.
The last two bites dropped the percentage of bites from pit bulls to 39.7 percent. But state statisticts tell a different story, with 111 dog bits in Reading, 12.6 percent from pit bulls.
This goes to show that blaming an entire breed for the actions of a few dogs is like blaming an entire race of people for the behavior of a handful of individuals.
In most cases dogs, like people, reflect the atmosphere in which they were raised. Pit bulls can be trained to be aggressive, which seems to be a trait that makes them popular among some people, or they can be trained to be gentle, loving, family pets.
As Karel I. Minor, executive director of the Humane Society of Berks County Inc. said, the common thread that runs through the vast majority of dog bites is not breed but sterilization.
According to Minor, in dog-bite cases where the sterilization of the animal is known, 88 percent were not spayed or neutered. And two-thirds of that 88 percent were male dogs.
It is interesting to note that of the city’s 400 or so licensed pit bulls, roughly three-quarters of them are not sterilized. That might help to explain why 29 of the city’s 73 dog bites in 2007 were by pit bulls.
We also should note that animal-control officials believe there probably are hundreds more unlicensed pit bulls, most of which have not been sterilized.
As a result, City Council should be looking into rewriting the dog ordinance and targeting not the owners of any particular breed but rather the owners of animals that have not been spayed or neutered.
Council should consider increasing the licensing fee for all unspayed females to $300 and unneutered males to $600, regardless of breed.
Council could consider special, lower licensing fees for unsterilized animals belonging to anyone who can prove he or she is a registered breeder. But that shouldn’t be a major consideration. Breeders simply pass on the licensing fees as part of the cost of doing business.
Of course the problem associated with high license fees for unsterilized animals is that it could compel owners not to license their dogs. So council also should consider implementing stiff fines for owners of any unlicensed dog that bites someone. A fine of $1,000 doesn’t seem unreasonable, and the amount could double if it turns out that the dog has not been fixed.
The key here is to target the owner, not the animal. After all, the owner ultimately is responsible for the animal’s behavior.
I look forward to learning much here