"Basically, to keep the dogs, the family had to move out of town," says Cynthia Morse, vice-president of the Bull Terrier Welfare Foundation. Morse, an Ohio resident who is familiar with the case and personally familiar with the two dogs, says dog owners in Akron are now facing even stricter breed banning laws. "They're including ‘bull-type' dogs," she says, explaining that this definition includes any breed that was originally bred for the sport of bull baiting – or bred to bite a hunted animal and not let go. Akron recently amended its laws to add Canary dogs (Perro de Presa Canario), and American Bulldogs to the list of banned breeds.

Akron, however, is not alone in its quest for banning specific breeds. "If I put a Staffie or a Bull terrier in my car, I could not stop in Minot, North Dakota," says Morse. If she did, authorities could take her dogs – because they are on the city's banned breed list – regardless of the dogs' temperaments. In Cripple Creek, Colorado, the city recently banned pit bulls, which it defines as Bull terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or "any dog which has the appearance of being predominantly one of these breeds."

At press time, Syracuse, New York, was considering a similar ban against pit bulls. In Port Deposit, Maryland, pit bulls aren't banned yet, but a new ordinance allows any unregistered pit bulls to be confiscated and owners fined.

The city ordinances and state laws banning specific breeds are not limited to bull-type breeds. In Iowa cities of Conrad, Des Moines, and Lake Mills, Rottweilers have been banned. Multiple cities in Indiana have banned Rottweilers, too. In South Carolina, Rottweilers, Chow Chows and Dobermans are banned in the cities of Columbia and Travelers Rest. Smithfield and North Salt Lake, Utah, have banned Shar-Peis.

The Reasoning Behind the Laws
Dog bites are serious business. The occurrence of dog bite injuries has reached almost epidemic levels. According to a 1994 survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs annually. That's roughly 13,000 dog bite injuries every day – with an estimated 800,000 of these victims requiring emergency room treatment. Of those suffering from dog bites, the vast majority are children under the age of 10. In addition to inflicting physical pain, these dog bite injuries can hurt the pocketbook, too. The insurance industry estimates that each year more than $100 million in medical expenses result from dog bite injuries, and about $1 billion is paid in insurance liability claims each year.

Are There Any Breeds that are Inherently More Dangerous than Others?
This has been the heart of the debate on breed-specific bans. If a person looks at the statistics for deaths related to dog bite injuries, five breeds show significant numbers. Between 1979 and 1994, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) reports that one of every three deaths can be attributed to Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Siberian Huskies, and Alaskan Malamutes. Wolf-dog hybrids were also responsible for a significant number of deaths.

Deaths, however, were not limited to these breeds. In the list cited by HSUS, the remaining two-thirds of fatalities were caused by a variety of dog breeds and mixes. In a study published in the September 1989 Journal of the American Medical Association, breeds one wouldn't normally consider "dangerous," such as the Labrador Retriever, Great Dane, Saint Bernard, Cocker Spaniel, and English Sheepdog, were attributed with one or more fatalities from a period of 1979-1988. (A Yorkshire Terrier has even been attributed with a fatality!)

According to Alan Beck, Sc.D., director of the Center for the Human-Animal Bond at Purdue University's School of Veterinary Medicine, the common denominator of fatal dog attacks is not the breed of dog, but the owner. Beck, who served on a multi-disciplinary task force to study the causes of fatal dog attacks, says, "In every case of a fatal attack [initiated by the dog], the owner was socially a hermit-type. They were unattached and single-single with a vengeance. A sociopath in a mild way." The dog and its owner, says Beck, were living in virtual isolation. "The dogs looked at kids as prey."

Scary stuff, but an insight that sheds some light on the topic of breed bans.

Why Breed Bans Don't Work
"The problem with most breed specific bans is that they are either over-inclusive or under-inclusive," says Beck "The bans are over-inclusive because not every bull-type dog kills. The bans are under-inclusive because not only can a bull-type dog kill, but so can a German Shepherd dog or a Golden Retriever." Beck notes, however, that some breeds – such as Pit Bulls – have lower thresholds for biting, and that when these breeds bite, the injuries are far more serious. For this reason, Beck says he is not "terribly against" legislation targeting Pit Bulls; however, he feels a dangerous dog law serves a better purpose and doesn't allow vicious dogs to fall through the cracks of a breed ban law, and holds their owners accountable and liable.

Beck likens the responsibility of dog owners to automobiles: "In an accident, a big truck is going to cause more damage than a little car, and the truck driver's margin for error is smaller. [With a large or strong dog] the owner should be more experienced and committed to socializing the dog properly," he says. The dog should also be well-mannered, constantly under supervision when in public areas, and safely confined-with some added precautions to prevent innocent trespassers from coming in contact with the dog. "Kids do come onto property," heeds Beck, adding that young children cannot read "Beware of Dog" signs.

In California, for example, if a dog is reported to an animal control officer or law enforcement officer as being a threat to the neighborhood, the state's dangerous dog law requires the dog's owner to be notified and a hearing held to determine if the dog is potentially dangerous (could cause serious injury) or vicious (has caused serious injury). Dogs that are found to be potentially dangerous must be licensed, vaccinated, and kept indoors or in "securely fenced yard from which the dog cannot escape, and into which children cannot trespass." Dogs that are found to be vicious may be destroyed by the animal control department if the court finds that the release of the dog back into the owner's custody "would create a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare." The California courts may also prevent an owner – who is found to own a vicious dog – from owning another dog for a period of up to three years.

American Kennel Club – The AKC's Canine Legislation Department publishes a monthly newsletter, "Taking Command," that is available to the legislative chairperson of local, regional and national breed clubs. For the rest of us dog owners, an electronic version can be downloaded monthly from the AKC's web-site at http://www.akc.org. The AKC also offers a free packet of information on dangerous dog legislation for those who are trying to battle or prevent breed banning in their areas.

Rott-n-Chatter – This informative web-site is from the Rottweiler folks who maintain up-to-date legislative information on all breed bans for all states. It can be accessed at:

http://www.rott-n-chatter.com
/rottweilers/laws/breedspecific.htm

"Dog owners of breeds that are often singled out for breed banning have an added responsibility," Sinclair echoes. "They not only need to keep an eye on the issues, they also need to be model dog owners." Dogs that are highly-trained, well socialized, and properly cared for, she notes, help to counter random images of those that are abused, isolated, ill-kept, and poorly trained. They might also help to prevent legislators from taking the easy way out with a breed ban law, and perhaps consider more complex laws that are fairer to responsible owners and better for dogs as a whole.