Nothing But ‘Feel Good’ Politics

That Feels Very Bad To Many People Who Love Their Dogs

• Will the real pit bull please stand up. There is no such thing as a “pit bull.” It is not a recognized breed of dog. Most people associate it with American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers. Since there is no such thing as a “pit bull,” the legislation is unenforceable.

• Many other breeds are sometimes called “pit bulls” in the media and popular usage. These include the Perro de Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Alano Espanol, Japanese Tosa, Dogue de Bordeaux, Cordoba Fighting Dog, Bull Terrier, Antebellum Bulldog, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, American Bulldog, Boxer, Valley Bulldog, Olde English Bulldogge, Renascence Bulldogge, and Banter Bulldogge. How far does Rep. Yates want to go?

• This legislation sets a very dangerous precedent. What’s next? Guard dogs, such as German shepherds, rottweilers and doberman pinchers?

• Sporting dog owners wonder if we also are on the list of breeds to be included in bans at some point. This has been proposed in several states, and also in the failed federal Pet Animal Welfare Act, which died in Congress last year. This legislation singled out sporting and guard dog breeds for especially intensive regulation. We cannot accept breed-specific precedents.

• It would be an animal control officer’s nightmare. Many dogs can look like the popular conception of a “pit bull,” but are not related to the associated breeds. If you cross an English pointer to a boxer, the result might look exactly like the mental image of a “pit bull,” but be totally unrelated to that group of breeds. A Boston terrier crossed to a Chihuahua also give something that looks an awful lot like a “pit bull” that weighs three pounds soaking wet. If Rep. Yates didn’t want to brutally murder innocent dogs, the situation would be a joke.

• One can imagine the attorneys’ arguments in a court of law. Is a dog that has a “pit bull” parent a “pit bull?” What if it has only one grandparent that is a “pit bull,” or only one great grandparent? Perhaps Rep. Yates is proposing that we exhume the bodies of a dog’s ancestors for DNA testing.

• Guess what would happen if the state begins to seize dogs that appear to be “pit bulls,” but are not? About 100 new lawyer jokes will be born overnight. There will be enough lawsuits filed to clog Ohio’s court system for years, and the taxpayers and animal control agencies ultimately will pay the price for Rep. Yates’ bad idea.

• Breed-specific legislation is often criticized for being racist, or at least for being a kind of racial profiling, as “pit bulls” often are associated with the Black community, where they are very popular. Some people have the image of a gangsta-type Black man walking down the street with two “pit bulls’ wearing spiked collars on a leash, merrily conducting illegal drug business. Others imagine dog fighting rings, which already are prohibited by existing laws. While dogs of the “pit bull” breeds are popular in Black communities, the real reasons are because they are fashionable, seen as protective dogs in dangerous neighborhoods, are an eloquent statement of a lack of faith in urban police protection and, most of all, because these breeds have a reputation of being loyal, loving and protective family members. Ironically, Rep. Yates is Black.

• At the very least, Rep. Yates’ bill represents breed profiling that is based solely upon appearance, and not because of a dog’s proven behavior. Few people would object to restrictions placed on a dog that has exhibited proven dangerous behavior. But to define a dangerous dog based on its appearance or pedigree is arbitrary, capricious and just plain dumb. There is no evidence that “pit bull” breeds and crosses are inherently dangerous. In fact, Chihuahuas and cocker spaniels are believed to bite people more frequently. A law cannot be called ethical when it condemns dogs to death and subjects their owners to emotional pain and financial loss with no good reason. There are no scientific studies to justify this law. Rep. Yates’ opinions fall far short of being gospel.

• Rather than the breed, it is most often the owners of dogs who are responsible for dangerous behavior. Some people deliberately raise dogs to be aggressive. In other dogs, aggression is linked to abuse and cruel treatment by their owners. Rep. Yates blames the dogs. We blame their owners.

• Rep. Yates appears to need to expand his capacity for compassion and empathy. It is simply wrong to rip beloved pets out of people’s arms and put them to death. Imagine if that happened to your pet, or your child’s?

• And this legislation is needlessly intrusive to people’s lives and privacy. It also denies people the constitutionally guaranteed protection of due process under the law.