The National Canine Research Council has identified the most common factors found in fatal dog attacks occurring in 2006:
97 percent of the dogs involved were not spayed or neutered.
84 percent of the attacks involved owners who had abused or neglected their dogs, failed to contain their dogs, or failed to properly chain their dogs. 78 percent of the dogs were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.
Stephan Otto, director of legislative affairs for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, notes that “if a person keeps a dangerous dog to guard their drugs or property or for fighting purposes,
they’ll just switch to a different breed and train that dog to be dangerous to get around a breed ban. The BSL accomplishes nothing in those cases.”
VanKavage points to all of the above factors as reasons for communities to focus on “reckless owners” rather than singling out specific breeds to be regulated, and she recommends improving dangerous dog laws generally, addressing the above factors without
singling out any breeds. She cites St. Paul, Minnesota, and Tacoma, Washington, as both having passed model laws in 2007 that target troublesome pet owners.
The ASPCA has proposed a list of solutions for inclusion in breed–neutral laws that hold reckless dog owners accountable for their aggressive animals:
Enhanced enforcement of dog license laws, with adequate fees to augment animal control budgets and surcharges on ownership of unaltered dogs to help fund low–cost pet- sterilization programs.
High–penalty fees should be imposed on those who fail to license a dog.
Enhanced enforcement of leash/dog–at–large laws, with adequate penalties to supplement animal control funding and to ensure the law is taken seriously.
Dangerous dog laws that are breed neutral and focus on the behavior of the individual dog, with mandated sterilization and microchipping of dogs deemed dangerous and options for mandating muzzling, confinement, adult supervision,
training, owner education, and a hearings process with gradually increasing penalties, including euthanasia, in aggravated circumstances such as when a dog causes unjustified injury or simply cannot be controlled. (“Unjustified” typically is taken to mean the dog was not being harmed or provoked by anyone
when the attack occurred.)
Laws that hold dog owners financially accountable for failure to adhere to animal control laws, and also hold them civilly and criminally liable for unjustified injuries or damage caused by their dogs.
Laws that prohibit chaining or tethering, coupled with enhanced enforcement of animal cruelty and fighting laws. Studies have shown that chained dogs are an attractive nuisance to children and others who approach them.
Laws that mandate the sterilization of shelter animals and make low–cost sterilization services widely available.
Recently, VanKavage revealed that Best Friends Animal Society has developed an economic analysis tool (view it at their website, www.bestfriends.org) that would help cities determine the potential fiscal impact of enforcing BSL versus having a good non–breed–
specific dangerous dog law in place.
Armed with this tool, cities can now consider cost as
one additional factor to weigh before deciding to enact BSL.
National animal organizations such as the American Veterinary Medical Association, Humane Society of the United States, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Best Friends Animal Society, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Kennel Club, and the National Animal Control Association all oppose BSL.
Otto sums up their position this way: “If the goal is dog–bite prevention, then dogs should be treated as individuals under effective dangerous dog laws and not as part of a breed painted with certain traits that may not be applicable to each dog.
By doing so, owners of well–trained, gentle dogs are not punished by a breed ban, while dangerous dogs of all breeds are regulated and may have their day in court to be proven dangerous.”
As an example, consider the 2007 Michael Vick dogfighting case in Virginia, in which 50 of the former pro football player’s fighting dogs were seized and about to be euthanized according to conventional wisdom that dogs trained to fight to the death are too dangerous to humans and other animals and cannot be retrained.
"Champions"
However, in an unprecedented move, the court agreed with amicus briefs filed by animal welfare groups and appointed a special
master, animal law professor Rebecca Huss, as a guardian for the dogs to oversee temperament evaluations to be done on each dog by a team of behaviorists.
Source..... Viktory to the Underdog.....
As a result, only one dog was destroyed owing to temperament; the other 49 were saved and shipped to rescue groups, where they were rehabilitated and are now enjoying media attention as service dogs and beloved companions.
Time will tell whether this unexpected outcome successfully turns on its head the argument that fighting dogs or certain breeds of dogs are inherently dangerous, untrainable, hopeless.
By Dana M. Campbell
And it has.....
Re-union.....
Seven dogs, rescued from Michael Vick’s dog-fighting operation in Virginia, pose with their owners. (Photo credit: Mark Rogers Photography/BADRAP)
October 27, 2012 marked the five-year anniversary of the discovery of NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s extensive dog fighting operation.....
Many of the dogs have passed on having taken full advantage of their second chance living long fruitful lives......
Dana M. Campbell has a solo practice focusing on animal law and employment rights, provides legal work for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and teaches animal law as an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School. She may be reached at danalaw@mac.com.
More to come.....
No comments:
Post a Comment