Running head: PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS

Pit Bull Regulation: Putting a Muzzle on Owners McKenzie Oster Liberty High School

One of the most feared and negatively reputed dogs in the world is the Pit Bull a dog that does not exist. More accurately, the Pit Bull that a large part of the world thinks it knows does not exist. The term Pit Bull has been loosely applied to many dogs with the characteristics of exaggerated jaw muscles, heavy necks and shoulders, and large physical mass (Weaver, 2013, p. 693) that are not actually Pit Bull Terriers. Even people that are around the breed all of the time cannot accurately distinguish between a true Pit Bull Terrier and other similar breeds. Addressing this issue, Weaver explains that a recent study contrasting perceptions of breed by workers at dog adoption agencies and animal shelters with DNA samples showed only 36 percent agreement between the label of pit bull or pit bull-type and [American Pit Bull Terrier] or [American Staffordshire Terrier] genomic markers (2013, p. 692). In turn, this term has gradually moved to include a wide variety of breeds, such as the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (Duffy, Hsu, & Serpell, 2008). Regardless of where this classification came from, and where it will be going, a main issue of today is this group of the bully breeds, and the issues surrounding them that have led to this sharp divide between Pit Bull condemners and Pit Bull activists. The dogs are most often associated with fear, dogfighting, and brutal attacks, but research shows they are not actually the most aggressive dog, especially toward people. Pit Bulls and Pit Bull-type dogs are strong breeds of dogs that must

PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS

have the correct type of regulationson the owners rather than the breeds themselvesin order to ensure the increased safety of surrounding dogs and humans. Research from the Center for Disease Control found that in the United States between 1979 and 1998 there were 327 fatal dog bites, averaging 16 deaths per year. Breaking this down by breed they found that Pit Bulls and their mixes accounted for 33% of these deaths, followed by Rottweilers, which were responsible for 18% of dog bite deaths. Thus, Pit Bulls and Rottweilers accounted for 51% of the deaths during this 20-year time frame (Schenk, Ragatz, & Fremouw, 2012, p. 152). In addition to these deadly bites, a total of about 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs annually, with 885,000 of the bites requiring medical attention (Schenk et al., 2012, p. 152). Some of these bites are from Pit Bulls as well. However, statistics on dog bites are not incredibly accurate as many bites are not reported when medical attention is not needed, therefore increasing the amount of large-breed bites reported as larger dogs can usually cause more damage than smaller dogs (Duffy et al., 2008). In a recent study, Pit Bull Terriers (along with German Shepherds and Rottweilers), were reported by members of the public for aggressive behavior more often than other breeds, but surprisingly only the German Shepherd was reported for biting or snapping (O'Sullivan & Hanlon, 2013). Another study claims that almost 7% of Pit Bull owners say that their dogs had attempted to bite, or bitten an unfamiliar person, and 22% of their Pit Bulls had bitten or attempted to bite other dogs (Duffy et al., 2008). Although these numbers may seem high, in the same study, Dachshund owners reported that 20% of their dogs had bitten or tried to bite a human, which is 13% higher than the reported Pit Bull bites and attempts (Duffy et al., 2008). Even with so many studies that show Pit Bulls are not as aggressive toward humans or toward other dogs as other breeds are, their physical strength, unpredictability,

PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS

and persistence (qualities that are often exploited for fighting), make them a dangerous dog in the case that they do decide to attack. Biology has equipped Pit Bulls to naturally be a more hazardous group of dogs, nonetheless, it is unfair to judge an individual dog on a behavior that varies greatly within the populationespecially as their behavior is often associated with the behavior of their owner. Many Pit Bulls have proven to be good around families, people with disabilities, the elderly, and other at-risk groups. When NFL quarterback Michael Vick was charged with illegal dogfighting, 47 dogs were seized from the dogfighting operation. Out of the fear and pain, many dogs showed the strong spirit of the Pit Bull and thrived in their new environments. A Pit Bull advocacy group posted a video on the internet showing some of the rescued dogs and voiced brief descriptions of their behavior: Hector, a dog covered with bite scars, has wonderful play manners. Ernie is a big dork who wants to be friends with everybody and happily lives in a home with a child. And Uba, who now lives with a dog and a cat, knows that the cat is his boss, and hes happy to take on a cat as part of his family. (Weaver, 2013, p. 696). The dog named Hector has another uplifting mention in a separate article. Greenwood (2011) shares that Hector and his owner/trainer Roo Yori make trips to middle schools to help teach children how to safely interact with animals. Another dog from the Vick case, named Leo, has been nicknamed Dr. Leo for the healing joy he has brought to cancer patients in his work as a therapy dog (Weaver, 2013, p. 698). Even owners, who were originally hesitant to own a Pit Bull, just as Rehder (2007) was, soon find that the dogs can have an overaffectionate personality with people and wrestle playfully with cats, but do authenticate the rumors of Pit

PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS Bulls startling strength. Referring to his experiences with his Pit Bull named Ezzy, and her intense fear of thunderstorms, Rehder (2007) states, Where does a terrified pit bull go?

Anywhere she wants after discovering both his backyard and home interior destroyed from her panic. Completely banning Pit Bulls and their crossbreeds and relatives, as over 300 cities have done (Tullis, 2013), is not fair to all of the people that have experienced their loyalty and have been touched personally by their service. Denver, Colorado banned Pit Bulls in 1989 (Legislating Dogs, 2014), which led to lawsuits in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allen Grider lives in Aurora, a suburb of Denver, and has an 8-year-old service Pit Bull named Precious. Grider suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder after fighting in Vietnam, and he claims that Precious is essential in helping him cope with his disability (Greenwood, 2011). Because of the implementation of a 3-year-old Pit Bull ban in Denver, city officials took Precious away from him. Although they later returned her to Grider, they implemented many restrictions, such as muzzling her in public, which made it impossible for her to perform her duties as a service dog. Situations such as this may bring up questions like, Why cant people get a different type of dog as a service dog? But, is that a fair question to ask? If Pit Bulls are able to effectively perform the service and are fun-loving, exuberantly happy, sweet, affectionate dogs who crave human attention (Weaver, 2013, p. 698) , as described by rescue groups, then they should be allowed to do their job and help people. Instead of blaming Pit Bull attacks strictly on the breed and harshly regulating them or banning them altogether, cities should regulate and place the blame on their owners, lack of proper training, and the cultural stigmas that plague them. Investigating the behaviors of college students that own dogs, Schenk et al. (2012) found, owners of vicious dogs displayed more

PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS antisocial thinking styles... in addition, vicious dog owners were more likely to use marijuana, have an arrest history, and past involvement in a physical altercation (p. 152). Although this

was a study on a decently uniform sample, it indicates a theme for dog owners of all ages, which is further explored in a data from the Hamilton Country Clerk of Courts in Ohio. In this study it was found that, 166 vicious dog owners were 6.8 times more likely to be convicted of an aggressive crime, 2.8 times more likely to have carried out a crime involving children, 2.4 times more likely to have perpetrated domestic violence, and 5.4 times more likely to have an alcohol conviction when compared with 189 owners of nonvicious dogs (Schenk et al., 2012, p. 152). These studies show a strong association between aggressive or unsafe owners and owning socalled vicious dogs, such as Pit Bulls, putting another bullet into an already loaded gun. Weaver (2013) presents a very interesting example of the way society has been steered to view Pit Bulls, explaining, my whiteness, queer identity, and middle-class status encourage other humans to read Haley [his pet Pit-Bull Terrier] as less threatening; in my presence she is perceived as less dangerous. Each of us shapes who the other is (p. 689). This is not just a statement on how society has come to make stereotypical or racial associations with a dogs behavior, but shows that the owner is being held responsible for the dog, its upbringing, and concurrently its behavior. If the fear was directly aimed at the breed of dog and every individual dog was considered equally aggressive, then no matter who owned the dog, everyone would be fearful of it equally. In the previous study involving college students that own dogs, the treatment of vicious dogs was compared with the treatment of other non-vicious breeds. Playful interaction time with owners, involvement in training classes, and the amount of time the dogs were chained outside were all examined. Despite the fact that there were no differences found in these factors for vicious versus non-vicious dogs, reports still showed the vicious dogs

PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS biting humans more often than other breeds. Schenk et al. (2012) claims, this research suggests that vicious dogs may require additional training classes, beyond that required of

nonvicious dogs, to decrease their future chance of becoming aggressive (p. 158). In increasing safety of Pit Bulls and surrounding humans, it needs to be recognized that they are a more aggressive dog that is equipped to fight and cause damage. Accounting for this fact with more knowledgeable and prepared owners, especially in the form of hands-on training classes, is an alternative to banning the dogs outright which all parties involved will benefit from. The effectiveness of breed-specific legislation (BSL) that has been implemented in cities, states, and countries varies greatly. There are some instances in which the hospitalization rates due to dog bites go down, as was the case when comparing two Canadian citiesWinnipeg, a city with BSL, and Brandon, a city without BSL. When the breed-specific legislation was introduced, dog-bite injury hospitalizations (DBIH) were lower. Conversely, when a city was compared against itself in a pre-BSL, post-BSL manner, no significant changes in DBIH were observed. Overall, when looked at in Canadian cities, BSL only made a significant impact on the DBIH rates of younger people (Raghavan, Martens, Chateau, & Burchill, 2013). With Canadian data showing that BSL is not generally effective, many questions are brought up about BSLs impact in the United States. One of the most predominant court decisions in the United States relating to BSL came from the Tracey v. Solesky case in Maryland. This case involved a dog named Clifford, who was defined by the defendants at trial as a Pit Bull, even though Animal control authorities had already put him down without identification (Gibeaut, 2012). Clifford escaped out of his pen, which was 4 feet high with no overhanging ledge and an open area at the top, (a design completely unsuitable for containing Pit Bulls) at least twice in one day, and attacked two boys

PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS

on those two occasions (Cathell, 2012, p. 4). In what is known as the Tracey decision, the highest court in Maryland changed the common law that was in place, which originally specified: In order to render the owner liable in damages to any one bitten by his dog, it must be proved not only that the dog was fierce, but that the owner had knowledge that he was fierce (Cathell, 2012, p. 9). According to the Tracey decision, all pit bull and cross-bred pit bull dogs are inherently dangerous as a matter of law and imposed strict liability on all persons who own, harbor, or control such dogs if they know or have reason to know that the dog is a pit bull mix (Schaffner, 2012). This seems to be a promising recognition that Pit Bulls are more aggressive and their owners need to be held responsible for their actions, but it resulted in many unintended consequences. Many landlords told renters that they could no longer have Pit Bulls on the premises, forcing owners to choose between their home and their pet. As expected, some owners moved and others gave their dogs up to shelters. Numerous shelters in Maryland stopped adopting out Pit Bulls, so these surrendered dogs (and the Pit Bulls already in the shelter) were often pointlessly euthanized (Schaffner, 2012). The decision also brought negative economic consequences. According to a study conducted by John Dunham Associates, the [Tracey] decision could cost the state of Maryland as much as $30,190,946 annually in state and local tax revenues and as many as 1,108 jobs (Schaffner, 2012). One of the primary issues with BSL is that, as Tina Register, a spokeswoman for the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals states, its not just a specific breed of dog but a group of dogs (as cited in Gibeaut, 2012), making it extremely subjective of which dogs are truly banned. This problem could be remedied by moving away from BSL and instead, as Schaffner suggests, holding all dog owners strictly liable for injuries their dogs inflict on innocent victimsbecause in modern society, where we all live in close proximity, accidents

PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS attributed to dogs biting, whether out of anger or play, are inevitable (2012). The Tracey Decision, despite the negative consequences it wrought, was a slightly misguided step in the right direction. Rather than completely outlawing Pit Bulls as most BSL does, it instead put responsibility on the owner, which is essential to protecting both Pit Bulls and people. Pit Bulls have not always had such a negative image in society. They were once a dog that could be seen romping on the big screen with The Little Rascals, or receiving awards for being the first U.S. Army dog promoted to Sergeant (Tullis, 2013). Through horrific stories of

brutal attacks and terrifying dog fights, they have become associated with viciousness, fear, and death. Tullis (2013) states they are one of the least adopted and most euthanized breeds in the U.S.. Some of this fear is warranted. Science proves that whether or not they are the most aggressive dog, they are built for fighting and are very capable of destruction. On the other hand, owner experiences show that they have an enormous capacity to love and be loyal. Banning Pit Bulls and their relatives only further establishes the image of ferocity in society, which will lead to killing more of the dogs and not significantly reducing the number of hospitalizations due to dog bites. In order to truly protect both Pit Bulls and surrounding humans, owners must be trained on how to properly raise Pit Bulls in a way that inhibits aggressive tendencies later in life, and must be held responsible for the actions that their dogs take. This will hopefully generate an economic and moral responsibility to creating a safe environment for everybody, which will allow a new identity and respect for the Pit Bull to be born.

PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS

References
Cathell, J., (2012). Strict Liability Adopted in Respect to Attacks on Humans by Pit Bull Dogs and Cross Breed Pit Bull Dogs, 53 (Court of Appeals in Maryland 2011). Duffy, D. L., Hsu, Y., & Serpell, J. A. (2008). Breed differences in canine aggression. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114(3-4), 441-460. Gibeaut, J. (2012). A Bite Worse Than its Bark. ABA Journal, 98(9), 15. Greenwood, A. (2011). Nuisance or Necessity? ADA Suit May Overtuen Pit-Bull Bans. ABA Journal, 97(9), 18. Legislating Dogs. (2014). (Lynn Media Group) Retrieved from DogsBite.org: http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs.php O'Sullivan, E. N., & Hanlon, A. J. (2013). A review of official data obtained from dog control records generated by the dog control service of county cork, Ireland during 2007. Veterinary Ireland Journal, 3(6), 1-8. Raghavan, M., Martens, P. J., Chateau, D., & Burchill, C. (2013). Effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations in people in the Canadian province of Manitoba. Injury Prevention, 19(3), 177-183. Rehder, B. (2007, September 17). A Dog Who Was Pure Muscle and All Heart. Newsweek, p. 19. Schaffner, J. (2012). Maryland's High Court Finds Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous (Cover story). Tortsource, 15(1), 1-6.

PIT BULL REGULATION: PUTTING A MUZZLE ON OWNERS Schenk, A. M., Ragatz, L. L., & Fremouw, W. J. (2012). Vicious Dogs Part 2: Criminal Thinking, Callousness, and Personality Styles of Their Owners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57(1), 152-159.

10

Tullis, P. (2013). The Softer Side of Pit Bulls. A reviled breed gets a makeover. Time, 182(4), p. 54. Weaver, H. (2013). "Becoming in Kind": Race, Class, Gender, and Nation in Cultures of Dog Rescue and Dogfighting. American Quarterly, 65(3), 689-709.