Top veterinarians, best-selling pet-care authors and other top pet-care experts are all part of the Pet Connection team. If you would like the newest, freshest weekly syndicated Pet Connection articles from the Universal Press Syndicate for your newspaper, publication or Web site, find out more here.

Laws should punish individual dogs, not breeds

By Gina Spadafori

published 02/18/2001

PRINT   |   Email to a Friend   |        

After last month’s fatal mauling of a San Francisco woman by a cross-bred dog that could only be described as a hound from hell, it was only a matter of time before the call to ban certain breeds started echoing across the land.

The Presa Canario, a tough-minded protection dog from the Canary Islands that made up half of the killer dog’s makeup (the other half was a mastiff), would likely be at the top of any such list. Depending on your distaste for other large dogs, the rest of the list could be quite long, and it could include everything from pit-bull terriers and Rottweilers to breeds that look “sort of menacing” to some people, such as boxers, Rhodesian ridgebacks and even black Labradors (not to mention all the mixes of any breed that has ever curled a lip at anyone in the last 50 years).

Problem is, breed bans are not only unfair, but they also don’t work. Fashions in dogs among those who fancy owning the most aggressive animal on the block change year to year. The Doberman was once everyone’s urban nightmare, later to be reclaimed and redeemed as a reliable family dog by the concerted effort of responsible breeders. Once considered so stable a children’s pet that one had a starring role on the old “Our Gang” serials, the pit-bull terrier has yet to recover from its turn as the nation’s reigning terror. And reputable Rottweiler breeders are just starting to pick up the pieces from that noble old breed’s turn at most-feared status.

The people who wish to exploit the physical potential for destruction inherent in any large, powerful dog will find a way to do so, no matter the law against owning such breeds. And both the breeds and responsible people who care about them will suffer as a result. That’s why breed-specific legislation is about as fair as racial profiling, and about as effective when it comes to dealing with dangerous dogs.

Mind you, I have no tolerance for canine menaces and the people who seem to delight in owning them. Authorities were correct in euthanizing the dog involved in the San Francisco attack, although I’d rather that laws had been in place to allow it to be done when the animal’s aggression became known to people in the neighborhood. As for the couple who kept the dog, I hope they are headed to prison.

The experts agree that although the physical capability and potentially aggressive tendencies in those dogs bred for protection make them more prone to destructive behavior than other breeds, improper training and socialization have a greater role in producing a dangerous dog. So, too, does the flat-out neglect and abuse that many of these dogs endure at the hands of those who are drawn to a “tough” breed.

Instead of targeting breeds, the law should reflect a zero-tolerance stand against individual dangerous dogs of any breeding. While certain bites are unintentional (like the bite someone might get trying to break up a dog fight) or provoked (like the bite someone might get when tormenting a pet), those dogs who are clearly menacing should be dealt with in no uncertain terms. The laws should demand nothing less than muzzles and secure confinement for aggressive dogs, and euthanasia should be a given for any animal involved in an unprovoked attack.

Laws or no laws, the chances of any person facing a dog like the one involved in the San Francisco attack are relatively slim. Statistics on dog bites reveal that we’re considerably more likely to be bitten by our own pet than by a stranger’s dog. In next week’s column, I’ll write about how to prevent aggression in your dog, and what to do if your pet ends up a danger to your family or to others.