What does BSL stand for?

BSL stands for Breed Specific Legislation.

Why they don't work

Breed-specific bans do not work, first of all there is no objective method to establish the lineage of cross bred dogs or dogs not registered with a national kennel club. Many municipalities do not have access to qualified people who can accurately perform breed identification. Dangerous dogs exist in every breed and breed cross. Dangerous temperament and behavior are the product of many factors. Evidence shows that breed-specific bans result in the exclusion of some dangerous dogs, and the inclusion of many dogs who are not dangerous. The incidents of of dog bites has not been shown to be reduced by restricting the ownership of certain breeds. Below are the facts surrounding dog-related injuries and deaths, and my attempt to dispel the myths behind the breed ban.

What is a breed ban

A breed ban is a ban on the ownership of, purchasing of, importing/exporting breeding of a proscribed breed (the breed(s) legislated for banning).  Breed specific legislation can include many restrictions on the ownership of a proscribed breed. These measures may include muzzles while in public places, short leashes, fenced yards, extra insurance premiums (average of 2 million dollars liability), mandatory spay/neutering and kennel/breeding licensing (if permitted).

Inaccuracy of dog bite statistics

Authoritative organizations such as the Canadian Kennel Club, American Kennel Club), The Canadian Safety Council, American and Canadian Veterinarian Medical Associations, Centre for Disease Control, have clearly stated in their conclusions to their bite studies, that breed bans simply do nothing to prevent dog bites or fatalities.  According to the American Veterinarian Medical Association:  "Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite." 

A study done in England and published in the International Journal of the Care of the Injured (1996) found that the banning of three breeds (American Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweilers, and Doberman) did not decrease the number of fatal attacks or the degree of severity of the bites reported. What occurred was relatively the same number of dog bites but the breeds responsible were not of the proscribed breeds.  Invariably, the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem.  This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite.  Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury and even death.

There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mix breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds.  Secondly, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed and existing licensing data is then incomplete.

Among the few serious data available is that of 2002 Report of Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program.  The fatalities could be attributed to the following breeds in order of decreasing incidence: Labradors, Staffordshire bull terrier, German Shepherds, Bull terriers, Rottweiler, pit bull.  The Labrador is on the top of the list.  It totally makes sense as Labrador figures as number one family dog. Now, if we look at dog bites in accordance to prevalence of occurrence: German Shepherd, Cocker Spaniel, Rottweiler and Golden Retriever.   Again, popular family dog such as cocker spaniel and golden retriever makes the top five. 

What we must observe is that dog bites and fatalities is more a reflection of the breed popularity than its propensity to bite. According to another report published in 1989 in the Journal of American Medical Association, over 66% of all dog related deaths are attributed to more media friendly type dogs such as the Labrador and cocker spaniel, while the other  1/3 are the pit bull, pit bull mixes, Rottweilers and Shepherd, the group more commonly portrayed in the media as "dangerous dogs" and most often banned.

In fact, as stated by the Centre for Disease Control:  "American and Canadian Veterinarian Medical Associations, Humane Societies all presently studying the problem of dog bites, acknowledges that no breed has a propensity to bite humans more so than others, that in almost all instances of bites, it is the owner at fault be it by neglect, purposeful training towards aggression, breeding to supply the demand for bigger macho dogs with attitudes by back yard breeders, inexperienced dog owners. "  All of the present data can be manipulated to support a desired point of view.

The fact is that no breed has been identified scientifically, to be more predisposed to being dangerous than any other.   According to Dr. Porter,  "At this point in time, to the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific proof that any breed of dog is inherently more aggressive or vicious than any other breed. I believe that socialization and training are the most important factors in producing the final temperament of an individual dog"

In fact, according to behaviour testing performed by the American Temperament Testing Association, the Rottweiler and the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier scored as high or higher than the dogs the public consider to be family oriented, "safe" dogs.

When a municipal government tries to come to grips with the problem of dangerous dogs, it must also look with a critical mind at data available to it. According to the Canadian Safety Council, Canada has no national data on it's canine population, including dog-related injuries and deaths, or which breed cause the most harm. If fact, there is no mandatory reporting of dog bites, dog ownership, breed, spay/neuter status or history of aggression. Yet we rush to find solutions to this problem, and we justify our decisions using unreliable data.

What is an appropriate criterion to use to determine whether a given dog is dangerous?

If a breed is not an appropriate criterion to use to determine whether a given dog is dangerous, what are some of the conditions which experts tell us can produce a dangerous dog? One commonly seen in the humane societies are dogs who are surrendered because they lack proper training. Most of these dogs, however, when properly trained, do become well-behaved animal companions. Some do not. Breed, however is not the factor.

Dangerous dogs can also be a product of genetic makeup as a result of inappropriate breeding practices or intentional breeding for aggressive traits. Sometimes dangerous dogs result from a lack of proper exercise or interaction with people and other animals. Some have been mistreated, and almost none have been neutered.

The alternative to breed ban

Local, provincial, national and international humane organizations, as well as the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Kennel Club, and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Counsel of Canada amongst others, share the concern of municipal and provincial governments and of the public regarding the impact of dangerous dogs.  Further these organizations finds incidents of dog attacks extremely disturbing and the issue of dog aggression a serious matter that must be addressed. All of these bodies are supportive of some of the measures currently being proposed to help deal with this issue, particularly those that focus on irresponsible breeding, deliberate breeding and training for aggression, and irresponsible ownership. What is opposed is any proposal which involves breed-specific legislation particularly a breed-specific ban. Such proposals are no more than quick fixes which in the end do not effectively deal with the problem and which serve to victimize innocent animals and their families. The answer to dangerous dogs should be found in generic Dangerous Dog Laws.  Addressing the underlying cause of most dog-related deaths and injuries, which is the irresponsible dog ownership. Any dog can bite; any dog can be made aggressive and be trained to attack. There is at least one bite fatality attributed to a Yorkshire Terrier. Therefore, it isn't always the size of dog. Good Dangerous Dog laws place the owner in the position of ensuring that their dog(s) comply with all state and local requirements. Fines for violations can vary, but the leading principle is that dog ownership should be more costly to the irresponsible individual.

Experience has taught us that most bite incidents are examples of irresponsible ownership, not the specific dog breed involved.  In other words, we need stricter regulations on dog ownership, no matter what the breed.  Dog ownership should not be an inherent right; it should be carefully regulated and properly enforced. Recognized factors that increase risks of bites include: Unaltered dog or bitches, male dogs, unsocialized, negative early experiences, poor health, neglected, abused, more than one dog, lack of training, poor breeding, previous aggression, pregnant and/or lactating bitches.  An example of regulations would be higher licensing cost for unaltered dog.

The National Companion Animal Coalition members consist of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association, the Pet Industry Advisory Council and the Canadian Kennel Club. Each member of NCAC support the intent contained within those sample by-laws: "Dangerous Dog By Laws are non-breed specific and address the underlying cause of most dog-related deaths and injuries, which is the irresponsible dog owner."

Non-breed specific legislation is cost effective in comparison to the outright breed ban and is more readily accepted for the most part.  More importantly, a well-thought non-breed specific legislation addresses the root cause of most if not all dog related injuries and deaths, which is the irresponsible canine owner.

Consequence and speculation on the impacts of breed ban

The Implementation and enforcement of breed bans is costly and difficult.  In Cincinnati, Ohio, during a ten-year period, the police department spent over $160,000 per year trying to enforce their Pit Bull ban.  Among the many seized dogs were Boxers and Golden Retrievers.  Many Animal Control officials cannot accurately identify the 800+ dog breeds in the world, let alone the 157 breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club.  There is no legally proven method of distinguishing a dog with recent wolf ancestry from another type of dog so how does a community ascertain one breed from another that is proscribed?

Banning a breed will include the mixes thereof, who is going to be able to determine what a particular mix dog has in its genetic makeup?  In cases where there are disputes as to a mixed dog parentage, expert testimony will be necessary. Courts place the burden of proving that a dog is of the proscribed breed on the enforcing agency unless proof can be produced by the owner. In the meantime, said dog will have to be housed, fed and treated in a humane manner for a period no less that it takes for the courts to process the challenge on the animal seized.

Bans do not stop the bad owners from taking any breed and make it aggressive. All dogs can and will bite, they all will protect their home and owners. Any dog can be taught to attack.

Local shelters and rescues will be deluged with surrendered animals; the irresponsible owner will simply turn his animal loose for others to deal with. As proof, look at the appalling number of pit bulls ending their life in shelters and pounds all over North America, despite the fact the American Temperament Testing Association established once and for all that the breed displays no more aggression toward humans than the golden retriever of the beagle.

The very people one wishes to live within their area will be gone.  Those owners that participate in search and rescue, pet therapy programs, and are law-abiding citizens, the breeders who carefully and ethically breed for stable wonderful canines will leave when faced with losing their loved companions.  In Germany, where breed bans have been legislated in some regions, dogs have been allowed under a grandfather clause.  The proscribed dogs have been the victims of beatings, stabbing and even death while helpless owners attempted to simply walk their friends in public according to the law.  Is this where you want to live?

The irresponsible dog owner will likely let their dogs lose rather than pay to have them placed under special licenses or make modifications to their properties to comply with new regulations as with breed specific legislation i.e. higher fences, increased insurance coverage.

As all the above-mentioned authoritative organizations that have studied the data available on dog related injuries state in their conclusions, through education of the public as to dog safety and responsible ownership the rates of injuries will decrease.  Non-breed specific legislation utilizing the term "Dangerous dog" should be based on a particular dog's behaviour and not its breed.  The American Kennel Club as well as The Canadian Kennel Club have excellent examples of this type of legislation and are more than ready to assist any township requesting assistance with animal control issues.

Breed Ban Conclusion

Breed specific legislation is based on faulty statistics, media hysteria and politicians looking for a quick answer to the increasing number of people being injured or killed by dogs in North America and abroad.  It is often stated that deaths from dog bites are about one per 10 million of the population.  Any death is not acceptable but let's be practical, reaching zero risk is not only improbable, it is simply impossible.  More children die from accidents in the playground, skateboards and bicycle riding each and every year. Have you heard of banning either activity?  Of course not, but sensible regulations and parents whom teach their children responsible behaviours and provide them guidelines as to their use hopefully will lower the numbers each year.  Breed ban are an illogical answer, which may makes certain individual safer, but will not do a thing to reduce bite accidents.

We need to recognize that any dog, treated harshly or improperly trained may bite. We need to acknowledge that any dog can be turned into a dangerous animal. In most cases, it is the breeder or the owner who have been irresponsible. It is not the breed, and it is not the dog.

We must not assume that every dog bite means we are dealing with an aggressive or dangerous dog.. We must look closely at the circumstances surrounding the animal's behaviour when assessing a dog bite. Any dog can misread someone's intention, and may respond from surprise, fear or pain. It is for these and other reasons that we must assess not only the animal, but also the owner and the circumstances surrounding the animal's behaviour.

Solutions

Now that you see why Specific Breed Bans don't work, let's discuss safer alternatives to provide public safety. In Ontario, Canada where the Bill was past and we have a Specific Breed Ban in effect starting August 29^th, 2005 against Pit bulls.

What should a municipality do to provide increased increased public safety from dangerous dogs?

• First and foremost, it needs to look at the effectiveness of its enforcement of the Dog Owners Liability Act, and determine whether improvements are needed.
• It needs to establish significant fines for owners of dogs that are involved in a bite incident.
• It needs to develop well-established guidelines for professional temperament assessment of a dog as dangerous or vicious.
• It needs to provide significant incentives for owners to spay or neuter and properly socialize and train their dogs.
• It needs to provide public awareness and education programs promoting responsible pet ownership and bite prevention.
• It needs to be prepared to provide increased resources for both legislation and education.
•  A municipality needs to closely examine the legislation and experience of others throughout Canada and abroad before developing it's own strategies so that they are well thought out, wide ranging and comprehensive, not reactionary, based on media hype and irrational fear.
• The problem of dog attacks are best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training and legislation encouraging owners of all breeds. By amending the Dog Owners? Liability Act to remove the specific breed sections and adding *Courtney's Law*, in honour of Courtney Trempe. This law would protect citizens from all dog attacks, regardless of the breed, by targeting a dog's previous inappropriate behaviour and the owners' inability to properly train, contain, and socialize their dog.
• To have the Assembly create a dangerous dog registry to accurately record dog bites across the province to properly track offending dogs. 
• To have the Assembly financially support a province-wide dog bite prevention program aimed at dog owners, children, parents, service workers, and the general public.

Between the amended Dog Owners Liability Act and the additional amendments, we would see a definite decrease of dog attacks. Put the responsibility where it properly deserves, rather than targeting a specific breed. By eliminating irresponsible owners of dogs with confiscation and not allowed to own another dog, plus up to a year in jail and/or a fine of not more than $10,000.00. This solution will help eliminate puppy mills, back yard breeders, dog fighting, dog abuse and those individuals who use their dogs for illegal gains. These are the very dogs that are attacking the public, not the responsible dog owners.

This would keep the public safer than what Michael Bryant has proposed and can be applied to your province or state as well.

        Ms. Donna Trempe: Donna Trempe. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the Legislative Assembly, for inviting me to make a contribution to the debate on Bill 132 and the issue of dangerous dogs. My husband, my son and I are among the people most intimately involved in this issue and most grateful that the Attorney General is actively looking at the whole issue of dangerous dogs in Ontario. My family and I think it is not before time, as we have been waiting six years now for decisive action to be taken.

        I applaud certain sections of the bill: doubling fines to dangerous dog owners up to a maximum of $10,000, jail sentences, the requirement for dog owners to pay restitution to victims, and giving police and municipal bylaw officers the authority to search for dangerous dogs. What I don't agree with is banning specific breeds.

        On April 29, 1998, I dropped my beautiful eight-year-old daughter, Courtney, off at a friend's house after picking her up from school. That was the last time I saw my daughter alive. She and her friend went next door, where the owner let out his dog, a non-neutered, 150-pound bullmastiff. The dog immediately ran to Courtney and lunged at her throat. My 68-pound daughter did not stand a chance against this beast. Courtney had never been to this house before and certainly was not familiar with the dog. She was given no opportunity to familiarize herself with the animal while it was under the owner's control.

        Courtney died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital of massive blood loss and asphyxiation. In April 1999, there was a coroner's inquest into Courtney's death. The inquest ruled that Courtney's death was an accident. No. Courtney's death was a homicide. Homicide is when a person, directly or indirectly, by any means, causes the death of a human being.

        You see, this bullmastiff had attacked before. We have 16 former neighbours willing to testify that the dog was known to be aggressive before the attack on my daughter. The fact that the dog had shown aggressive behaviour is a reasonable basis upon which to believe that criminal negligence charges were warranted, or at least should have been considered. Todd Reybroek, a Toronto lawyer and the owner of this dog, in allowing his dog to be out in his yard, committed a homicide.

        Police in York region, we were told, were too busy to investigate. We fought for years in the Ontario justice system and spent $64,000 of our own money in legal fees. The owner, a lawyer, you will remember, was not charged, not fined so much as one cent.

       Our experience with the police investigation and the coroner's inquest process proves that these organizations are not carrying out their public responsibilities effectively and that the government places a very low priority on keeping our children safe. I hope, with work, that Bill 132 will ensure that we never have to hear again those terrible words, "A child was killed by a dog."

        The coroner's inquest into Courtney's death made 36 recommendations. The last time I checked, nine had been implemented, 10 had alternative measures adopted, seven were rejected, six did not apply to the agencies they were directed at and one did not get a response of any kind.

        In my opinion, Bill 132 has its good points and its bad points. A bullmastiff, not a pit bull, killed my daughter. Rottweilers killed a three-year-old boy in Vancouver. Presa canarios killed a woman in San Francisco. Even small dogs such as west highland white terriers and cocker spaniels have been recorded as killer dogs.

        Am I against dogs? Not in any way. I love dogs and own a German shepherd. What I am against are irresponsible dog owners. I agree with the Humane Society of Canada that banning only pit bulls will not solve the dog-biting problem. German shepherds, cocker spaniels, Rottweilers and golden retrievers are actually the most common biters. Personally, I would like to see a ban on bullmastiffs. I wish they were extinct.

        What we need are stiffer penalties and heavier fines for the owners of dogs that attack. Heavier fines and jail sentences for drunk drivers, along with increased public condemnation, have reduced the number of drunk-driving fatalities. When irresponsible dog owners learn that they will be sent to jail or fined $10,000 if their dog attacks, more people will muzzle their dogs or decide to own a breed less likely to be dangerous.

        Currently, the owner of a dog that rips his kid's face apart might face a muzzle order or fine. If a human being did that, he'd get 10 years in jail. We need owners of these dogs to know that they are going to have to pay. Why not adopt a law that will be implemented, a law that has a set fine or a jail term for the owner of a dog that bites or kills a person?

        I have a letter from the Honourable Irwin Cotler, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, stating that the Criminal Code of Canada already includes a law whereby charges can be laid against the owners of dogs that attack for criminal negligence causing bodily harm, a serious offence that carriers a penalty of 10 years in prison, and for fatal attacks, where the dog kills a person, criminal negligence causing death, with a potential penalty of life in prison. Why are we not charging the owners? Why are these charges not being laid? Mr. Cotler has been able to cite only two cases in which jail sentences were given, in spite of the fact that an estimated half a million dog bites occur in Canada every year.

        Please, let's not look at banning specific breeds of dogs. Let's look at banning the irresponsible, dangerous owners who either train their dogs to attack or don't train them in good behaviour. Put them in jail. Fine them as you would a drunk driver. Make our society aware that if their dog attacks, there will be serious consequences, not months and years of lawyers battling in the legal system. That's what happened to us and that's just not right.

        Why don't we adopt a law, Courtney's Law, that has a set fine or jail term for the owner of a dog that bites or kills a person? You can't know the endless heartbreak and frustration of being a mother, having your daughter killed by a dog that was known to be dangerous and not one arrest was made and not one fine, not one cent. Make them pay.

        The owner of the bullmastiff that killed Courtney should be in jail. If this kind of penalty had been enforced a decade ago, maybe my daughter would be in high school right now. Maybe Courtney would still be alive. Thank you.

Final comment

In conclusion, while public safety is a concern with regards to dangerous dogs, the solution lies in a combination of effective animal control measures, reputable breeders, responsible owners and public education, backed up with enforcement, and based on reliable data.

Breed-specific proposals are victimizing innocent dogs and innocent people. Consider the fact that the people who should not have any breed of dog - those who are interested in certain breeds for the wrong reasons - are not the people who will be licensing their animals. They will go further underground. They will train other breeds. Consider the fact that the large majority of municipalities in this and other countries have chosen not to have a breed-specific legislation, and many that have it are rescinding that legislation.

Breed Banning is nonsensical, provincial legislation gone to an absurd level. It is not fair; it's not reasonable; it's not effective, and it's just not right.

If this hasn't convinced you why the BSL is WRONG, check out this true story of Neville. A prime example of a convicted dog for his breed alone was sentenced to death, but by many acts of courage of people, Neville's heartwarming story did us all proud.