EDITORIAL: We should all be nervous in the service dog controversy

Too bad for everyone, there really does need to be a law covering so-called “service dogs.”
Last week Aurora Sentinel reporter Sara Castellanos’ story about Vietnam veteran Allen Grider Sr. pointed out how complex the service-animal issue can be.
Grider owns a pit bull named Precious that helps him cope with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms caused by his time spent as a soldier in Vietnam in the 1970s. He’s had the dog since 2003 and says the pet is remarkable at sensing his stress level and interacting with him to make him feel better.
It was an emotional and heartwarming account. But there’s much more to the story. For almost five years, pit bulls have been illegal in Aurora and Denver. We have consistently agreed with many animal experts in that pit bulls and similar breeds have a strong tendency to be unpredictably vicious and dangerous. For the good of the public, which has been at considerable risk before the pit bull ban, it was important to restrict ownership of this and similar animals.
So when it came to the attention of the city’s animal control department that Grider has one of these dogs, they had no choice but to confiscate it until they could sort out what they could do.
Grider and a Denver man have since filed suit against Aurora and Denver, and the remarkably, the U.S. Department of Justice are taking their side.
Justice officials agreed that any dog that is trained to do tasks for humans would be classified as a service dog under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Justice officials say that cities or states can’t impose breed-specific bans on service animals, in essence saying that, a dog is a dog.
That’s dead wrong and deadly to boot. For the Justice Department to deem itself an expert in canine psychology, ignore undeniable statistics and research, or rule without even addressing pit-bull behavioral issues at all, is unreasonable and illogical.
Aurora’s law by no means discriminates against disabled Americans. Disabled Aurora residents can have the same dogs as can every other Aurora resident, but they must, and should, live under the same restrictions.
While Aurora’s determination that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dog breeds is certainly controversial and open to debate, the fact is that Aurora and cities and states all over the country are absolutely within their right to restrict what each community agrees is a dangerous animal. While the right to own a gun is protected in some sense by the U.S. Constitution, a right to own any beast you please certainly is not.
There are hundreds of pit bulls in Denver and Aurora that were grandfathered into the two cities’ pit-bull laws, and Grider’s dog certainly could and should have been included. But state and federal lawmakers need to intervene now.
The Obama administration’s decision in the matter points out two serious problems. First, given this logic, there’s no reason a service animal couldn’t be part or maybe all wolf, a burro or even a python. Given the Justice Department’s logic and vagaries, there’s no reason to believe that an argument could be made that any creature could not only be considered a service animal, but that local safety and zoning laws shouldn’t apply to anyone playing the ADA card.
In most cases, the public has little reason to worry. Most service dogs are chosen for their pleasing dispositions and extensively trained. But that clearly doesn’t have to be the case, and a well-publicized case like this begs could easily prompt pit-bull aficionados to feign disability to keep a potentially dangerous animal. It begs the questions as to what constitutes a disabled American, and therefore, who’s entitled to a service animal.
Federal lawmakers need to clarify just who is considered disabled under federal law and who’s not. And while it’s important that no state law put at risk the rights of a disabled American, it’s just as important that no disabled American put at risk the rights, life or limb of any other American. Wheelchairs aren’t allowed on interstate highways whether the passenger is disabled or not. Likewise, those with disabilities must live with the same safety restrictions as do we all.

On a state level, it’s time for lawmakers to codify what service animals are and how future cases like this are to be handled. Disable Americans are able to bring their service animals into public venues that other animals are banned from. If we must live with the Justice Department’s faulty ruling, the state must help cities like Aurora protect its citizens by ensuring pit bulls, or any animal, doesn’t injure a member of the public.

____________________________________

While, I am glad that the JD is stepping up and standing behind Grider, whose dog was confiscated until the city “figures out what to do,” it agitates me that the author states, “We have consistently agreed with many animal experts in that pit bulls and similar breeds have a strong tendency to be unpredictably vicious and dangerous. For the good of the public, which has been at considerable risk before the pit bull ban, it was important to restrict ownership of this and similar animals.”

If the author knew anything about the breed, he or she would know that pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other breed of dog. I do not know who “we” is in the above statement about being vicious and dangerous, but I am sure that they know nothing about pit bulls or pit bull type dogs. It irks me that the man’s service dog was taken until “they figure it out.” It is asinine that people are probably robbing, murdering, and raping in the city of Aurora and they are worried about this man’s SERVICE dog because she is a pit bull. So foolish…………

Officials Discuss Concern After Latest Dog Attacks

Official Discusses Concern After Latest Dog Attack

Pit bulls have a nasty reputation and have been responsible for some horrific attacks, but the chief dog catcher in Pittsburgh believes that the recent attacks may not be a case of nature, but nurture.

A man was taken to the hospital Sunday evening after a dog attack in Pittsburgh's Arlington Heights section.

"The neighbor's dog went after my boyfriend and ripped his hand apart and tore his shirt, his back; he had scratches and was bleeding everywhere," said Jessica Rieber, the victim's girlfriend. "They just left him out there, just shut the door."

A few days ago, a 6-year-old Allentown boy was mauled in the face.

Pit bulls were blamed in both incidents and the perception may be that Pittsburgh is being overrun by them, but that is not the case.

According to Animal Control, only 5.2 percent of dog licenses are sold to pit bull owners in Pittsburgh.

"If you look at the bites and the context in which it happened, a majority of the time it wasn't really the dog's fault," Pittsburgh Animal Control Supervisor Gerald Akrie said.

Of the 133 animal bites reported so far in 2010, about 40 percent have been from pit bulls.

Those numbers may lead some to say the breed should be banned, but the next breed on the list are Labrador retrievers.

Pit bulls can be aggressive, but Akrie said the person holding the leash is usually responsible for the dog's behavior.

"Most of the time, animals reflect their owners. I guarantee it. As many times – I've been on this department for almost 18 years, you see an aggressive dog, you talk to an owner, you got a knucklehead owner," Akrie said.

The man attacked in Arlington Heights Sunday night was taken to UPMC Mercy Hospital and is expected to make a full recovery.

____________________________________________

 I thought this was an interesting article because so many people are quick to say “Ban pit bulls” after a dog attack. I particularly like how it states that Labrador retrievers are the second most responsible for dog bites in this city, which is ironic to me considering they are such “family dogs” by most people. BSL does not prevent dog attacks and dog bites. Responsible ownership is the only answer to dog bite prevention.

From My Google Alerts- October 7, 2010

On October 7 in Morton, MS, all breeds of dogs pertaining to the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier, and the Wolf-dog hybrid will be banned. The breeds may not be owned, harbored, or kept within the city limits of Morton, Mayor Greg Butler said last week.

_____________________________

In Austria, a Bernese mountain dog bit off a chunk of its owner’s upper lip when she opened the car door. In a separate incident a seven-month-old boy received minor injuries after being bitten by his grandfather’s dog; no dog breed mentioned. Also in Austria, a 10-year-old girl was hospitalized after being mauled by a friend’s Landseer.

______________________________

A pit bull named Trooper was attacked by other dogs and found with bite marks and abrasions to his face, legs, and chest. He is recovering at a foster home after undergoing procedures for bite wounds and abrasions on its legs, face, and chest. The dog was first treated at Angels of Assisi and sent to Vinton Veterinary Hospital.                     

Lisa O’Neill, volunteer coordinator with Angels of Assisi, an animal rescue organization in Roanoke, said maggots had to be picked out of Trooper’s mouth, eyes, and sinus cavity. He was dehydrated and could barely stand up.

Part of the dog’s mouth had to be removed, he had a puncture wound in his eye, and he has a hole in his tongue, O’Neill said. When he arrived at Angels of Assisi, he was about 15 pounds underweight, she said.

mo

New Study Explains Why Breed Specific Legislation Does Not Reduce Dog Bites*

New Study Explains Why Breed Specific Legislation Does Not Reduce Dog Bites*
Important article now available from JAVMA website.
October 1, 2010 — For years, evidence has mounted that breed specific legislation (BSL) fails to reduce dog bite incidents. The data supporting this conclusion has come from cities and counties all over North America, and from four European countries.
An insightful new analysis, recently published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, explains why BSL has consistently failed to reduce dog bites. The authors, Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD, and Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB, of the Center for Shelter Dogs, Animal Rescue League of Boston; and Margaret Slater, DVM, PhD, of the ASPCA, have applied one of the most valuable and well-recognized tools of evidence-based medicine to this question.
Number needed to treat (called NNT) measures the effectiveness of new medicines or treatments. It asks the question: How many patients have to take the medicine or get the treatment in order for one patient to avoid a bad outcome? The fewer patients that have to be treated in order to avoid a bad outcome, the more effective scientists consider a medicine or treatment to be.
But what if we had to treat thousands of patients to avoid even one bad outcome? Would we bother with a new medicine if the number of people we needed to treat to prevent one bad outcome, was 10,000? If we could only identify 9,900 people suffering from the disease, we could not treat enough people with the new medicine to be sure that even one of them would avoid the dreaded symptom.
This is precisely the result that Patronek and his colleagues obtained when they applied this evidence-based method to estimating how many dogs a community would have to ban to prevent a single, serious dog bite. They called their mystery number the number needed to ban (NNB). Using dog bite injury data from the Centers for Disease Control, the State of Colorado, and other, smaller jurisdictions, along with guestimates of the population of various breeds or kinds of dogs, the authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community, in order to prevent even one serious dog bite. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to ban more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted breed.
To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number.
Dog-bite related fatalities are so extremely rare that not even a state could ban enough dogs to insure that they had prevented even one. (Consider: in Denver, Colorado, after they banned pit bull dogs in 1989, they had another dog bite related fatality in the Denver area, involving another type of dog.)
Spain, Italy, Great Britain and the Netherlands have all reported that their breed specific regulations have not produced a reduction in dog bite incidents. The Toronto Humane Society surveyed health departments throughout the province of Ontario, and reported that the breed ban enacted in 2005 had not produced a reduction in dog bites. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, after the city banned one type of dog, dog bites actually rose, just involving other types of dogs. Reports from Denver, Colorado, Miami-Dade, Florida, Prince George’s County, Maryland, and Omaha, Nebraska all tell the same story.
While there is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a person than another kind of dog and BSL’s documented record is one of ineffectiveness, BSL remains a policy that some find attractive. Patronek, Marder and Slater explain why.
“It is our belief,” they write in their conclusion, “that BSL is based largely on fear, and it has been emphasized that appeals to fear have their greatest influence when coupled with messages about the high efficacy of the proposed fear-based solution.”
The documented failures of BSL, now combined with the NNB analysis, can be marshaled to undermine such fear-based appeals. BSL proponents will be unable to show “high efficacy of the fear-based solution” or that BSL is rationally related to the public safety issues communities are typically attempting to address when implementing BSL.
The complete article can be purchased from the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association at http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/full/10.2460/javma.237.7.788
*Patronek, G., Slater, M., Marder, A., “Use of a number-need-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite-related injury,” JAVMA, vol 237, Number 7, October 1, 2010.
_________________________________

This is an excerpt from the new study; however, most people already know that BSL does not work because they have common sense. It is nice to have scientific data to back it up though!

From My Google Alerts- Spetember 16, 2010

A deputy serving a felony arrest warrant was attacked  by two pit bulls; he shot both of them, killing one of the dogs. Officials said Orange County Sheriff's Office Gang Unit agents were serving a felony warrant at a home on 6th Street in Bithlo at about 4 p.m. when the dogs attacked.

__________-------------------------

The West Valley City Animal Shelter is offering owners of pit bull terriers or pit mixes a free spay or neuter service in October. Shelter manager Karen Bird says they are focusing on pit bulls because of the area’s large population of the breed. The West Valley shelter will provide 100 free sterilizations for pit bulls and mixes October 11 through 16. Interested dog owners must register in person at the shelter prior to those dates. The West Valley Animal Shelter is located at 4522 West 3500 south and is open Monday through Friday 10 am to 6 pm. The phone number is (801) 365-5800. This is great; don’'’’t get me wrong, but why not do this for every dog to cut down on the stray population in general? Oh, and KCPW, I was wondering, was that picture of a snarling pit bull really necessary?
---------------------
In Jonesboro, Arkansas, a Chihuahua was attacked and killed by a pit bull and as a result, it will be euthanized. Such ridiculousness; I cannot stand when a dog is put down for dog aggression. Even another resident thinks that euthanizing the dog is unnecessary. Ginger Dunavant thinks it's an unfortunate situation for both dog owners, but she adds euthanizing the Pit Bull is a little severe. She adds, "I feel for the owner of the Pit Bull, I feel for the Pit Bull, because he probably doesn't realize what he did.”””’’’’’’" Here is an idea: PUNISH THE IRRESPONSIBLE OWNER!
-------------------------
Queensland has lifted its breed ban restrictions stating that the American Staffordshire is a separate breed from the restricted pit bull terrier.

Pit Bull's Bad Rep: How Much is the Media to Blame?

In July, the Denver Post published a provocative article questioning the role of the media in the pit bulls' "bad rap," including the tendency to over-report attacks instigated by "pit-bull-type" dogs while under-reporting incidents involving other breeds.

You don't need to look very hard or be very bright to come to the conclusion that pit bull attacks sell papers. The National Canine Research Council recently issued a report that shows how similar attacks over a four-day period involving four different types of dogs resulted in significantly different media exposure. And the ASPCA issued a statement that the media has repeatedly told them that they have no interest in reporting attacks involving non-pit-bull-type dogs.

Petey

Last year, the Dogtime.com blog posted a story about a TV station in Mobile, Alabama that mentioned the breed in 100% of dog bite stories involving pits. Pit bulls, however, were only involved in about 20% of the dog bites in the community (also behind Labs).
To explore the potential bias of his own news agency, the reporter from the Denver Post looked at article headlines over the past five years and found that the paper had covered 20 different stories involving dog attacks. Nine had the breed of dog in the headlines and eight named pit bulls. (One named a Rottweiler.) When you put this into the context that "pit bulls" make up only 8% of the dog bites reported in the state of Colorado — and aren't even the top biting dog in the state (Labs were #1) — you might begin to wonder why the city of Denver went to the trouble of banning the breed in the first place.
(It's interesting to note that the term "pit bull" is a slang term used to describe three distinct breeds: the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. These three targeted breeds achieved a combined passing canine temperament score of 86.6% — a higher passing percentage than the Golden Retriever's 83.6%.)
So how does the San Francisco Chronicle's reporting fare, you ask? Inspired by the Denver Post story, I did a quick search in the Chronicle's archives for "dog attack," which yielded 34 stories about specific dog attacks on humans written between January 1, 2005 and today. While 22 of those articles mentioned the breed in the headline (100% named pit bulls as the attackers), the other 12 articles, which involved attacks by other breeds (including shepherd mixes, Boxers and a Golder Retriever mix), had only generic "dog attack" headlines, rather than outing the specific breed. Media bias? It certainly looks that way, but I'll let you be the judge.
Nearly every time a pit-bull-attack story appears in the news, it ignites new fervor for breed-specific legislation (BSL). However, the mass banning of specific breeds has been shown to be ineffectual when it comes to dog-bite prevention. Most BSL legislation that has been implemented has been costly, problematic to enforce and has ultimately not solved the problem. Most laws on the books contain vague language to determine what a pit bull is and often completely ignore the responsibility of the owner. Spaying and neutering of animals, proper training and socialization and responsible breeding are all important factors in preventing dog bites.
In Denver's case, the apparent media bias of its newspapers and television stations has helped spur countless lawsuits, the senseless killing of thousands of dogs and mountains of legal fees paid at taxpayer expense to support a ban that hasn't helped to solve the problem for which it was originally proposed: to reduce the overall number of dog bite incidents.
Share your thoughts about BSL and media bias here or on the Bay Area Pets Facebook page.
_________________________
Excellent article!