Dutch government to lift 25-year ban on pit bulls
Jun. 9, 2008 11:03 AM
Associated Press
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The Dutch government says it will lift a long-standing ban on pit bulls because it did not lead to any decrease in bite incidents.
Agriculture Minister Gerda Verburg has informed parliament of the decision, which follows the advice of a commission of experts appointed to review the policy.
Instead, the country will focus on enforcing local leashing laws and owner education programs.
Spokesman Koen Geelink said Monday the ministry hopes to have a new policy in place by year-end, in which dogs that have displayed aggression will be tested by an expert.
The country banned the breeding and possession of pit bulls in 1993, after three children were killed by the dogs.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
BANISHING DOGS
Banishing dogs
Breed-specific legislation is wrong
Is this a dog problem or a people problem?
Pit bulls and other so-called dangerous breeds have created such fear in some people that they want some restrictions. A proposal to let cities and counties ban or control certain breeds has been brought before the Legislature, sponsored by Rep. Perry Thurston, D-Plantation. His House Bill 101 would reverse an 18-year-old prohibition on breed-specific regulations.
And yet breed-specific legislation does not have a proven track record.
And such legislation is dead wrong.
Who's going to determine which breeds get targeted? Pit bull often describes three types of dogs - the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier and the Staffordshire bull terrier. But other breeds get mistaken for pit bulls. Are those part of the regulations?
What about Doberman pinschers, who got a lot of bad press years ago? And rottweilers? German shepherds used to be the big bad bully.
Any dog can become dangerous - especially those abused or trained to be aggressive.
And what about cross breeds? How would the pet owner or dog police determine ancestry?
Do we want to pay for a cadre of dog police to roam the streets looking for all the bad breeds?
No.
Animal control officials who do not back such breed-specific bans note they are tough to enforce and unfair to non-threatening dogs - all handed the dangerous-breed label without so much as a hearing. Due process? Forget that.
Then there are some who argue that breed-specific legislation is akin to racial profiling. Canine discrimination, they say. Are we going to round 'em all up and put them in fenced camps?
Breed bans also punish responsible pet owners. That, too, is not fair.
Protecting people from dangerous dogs is a worthy goal. But we should be targeting pet owners, enforcing leash laws and rounding up free-roaming dogs - not banning certain breeds.
Strong dog-bite laws, with owners getting socked with fines and losing their animals in extreme cases, would have a greater impact. Such vicious dog laws should be strictly enforced.
The Humane Society of the United States opposes breed-specific legislation. The organization notes that breed alone cannot predict a dog's temperament, citing a 2000 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. The report, compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, examined bite-related deaths in this country from 1979-1998 and found that 25 different breeds or crossbreeds were responsible - including St. Bernards.
The American Temperament Test Society has been administering standardized tests on dog breeds since 1977, measuring shyness, stability, aggressiveness and friendliness as well as protective instincts. Dogs that pass the test receive a Temperament Tested "TT" designation, and an average of 81.2 percent of all dogs have earned the TT title.
The American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier and Staffordshire bull terrier all scored at least two points above that passing mark. Rottweilers and German shepherds notched similar passing grades.
Several breeds that failed to pass include the beagle, collie and sheltie.
Breed-specific legislation is wrong
Is this a dog problem or a people problem?
Pit bulls and other so-called dangerous breeds have created such fear in some people that they want some restrictions. A proposal to let cities and counties ban or control certain breeds has been brought before the Legislature, sponsored by Rep. Perry Thurston, D-Plantation. His House Bill 101 would reverse an 18-year-old prohibition on breed-specific regulations.
And yet breed-specific legislation does not have a proven track record.
And such legislation is dead wrong.
Who's going to determine which breeds get targeted? Pit bull often describes three types of dogs - the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier and the Staffordshire bull terrier. But other breeds get mistaken for pit bulls. Are those part of the regulations?
What about Doberman pinschers, who got a lot of bad press years ago? And rottweilers? German shepherds used to be the big bad bully.
Any dog can become dangerous - especially those abused or trained to be aggressive.
And what about cross breeds? How would the pet owner or dog police determine ancestry?
Do we want to pay for a cadre of dog police to roam the streets looking for all the bad breeds?
No.
Animal control officials who do not back such breed-specific bans note they are tough to enforce and unfair to non-threatening dogs - all handed the dangerous-breed label without so much as a hearing. Due process? Forget that.
Then there are some who argue that breed-specific legislation is akin to racial profiling. Canine discrimination, they say. Are we going to round 'em all up and put them in fenced camps?
Breed bans also punish responsible pet owners. That, too, is not fair.
Protecting people from dangerous dogs is a worthy goal. But we should be targeting pet owners, enforcing leash laws and rounding up free-roaming dogs - not banning certain breeds.
Strong dog-bite laws, with owners getting socked with fines and losing their animals in extreme cases, would have a greater impact. Such vicious dog laws should be strictly enforced.
The Humane Society of the United States opposes breed-specific legislation. The organization notes that breed alone cannot predict a dog's temperament, citing a 2000 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. The report, compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, examined bite-related deaths in this country from 1979-1998 and found that 25 different breeds or crossbreeds were responsible - including St. Bernards.
The American Temperament Test Society has been administering standardized tests on dog breeds since 1977, measuring shyness, stability, aggressiveness and friendliness as well as protective instincts. Dogs that pass the test receive a Temperament Tested "TT" designation, and an average of 81.2 percent of all dogs have earned the TT title.
The American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier and Staffordshire bull terrier all scored at least two points above that passing mark. Rottweilers and German shepherds notched similar passing grades.
Several breeds that failed to pass include the beagle, collie and sheltie.
"Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive," the CDC wrote in that special report. "From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites. An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior."
The report goes on to note that in a "great many cases" of fatal attacks, problem behaviors - of dogs and owners - came to the attention of authorities beforehand and "should be sufficient evidence for preemptive action. . . ."
"Approaches to decreasing dangerous dog and owner behaviors are numerous. The potential importance of strong animal control programs is illustrated by our data."
The society also notes that out of the estimated 4.5 million dog bites annually, about 10 to 20 are fatal. While those numbers are still disturbing, and one death is too many, statistically the fatality rate is very low. A quarter of those dog-bite fatalities occurred while the canines were roaming off their owners' property.
That certainly points to a people problem - irresponsible dog owners who fail to keep their pets secure, and those who train the animals to be aggressive.
Breed-specific regulations will not work.
Thurston's measure looks like a loser in this legislative session. We hope that is true, since this is just overzealous government interference targeting the wrong part of the problemThursday, February 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
