Wednesday, March 25, 2009
House Bill 925: Profiling Pit Bulls
posted by Reeve Hamilton at 07:31 AM
Democratic Rep. Harold Dutton of Houston is proposing a law that relies on a tried-and-true American approach to police work: appearance-based profiling.
Dutton’s House Bill 925 would prohibit people age 15 or younger from handling a pit bull—or a mixed breed that sort of looks like a pit bull—without adult supervision.
Pit bull owners who allow someone under 16 near their dogs without adult supervision would commit a Class C misdemeanor, which could set them back up to $500. The bill also says that if the pit bull attacks or kills the child, the owner is liable.
Before giving cops the green light to comb neighborhoods separating 15-year-olds from dogs that look too pit bull-esque, lawmakers might ponder whether this is a wise use of taxpayer resources.
Laws that apply only to one breed of dog, known as “breed-specific legislation,” have been panned by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, and even the Centers for Disease Control as ineffective, difficult to enforce, and in some cases counterproductive. According to the ASPCA, “When limited animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, without regard to behavior, the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer.”
A CDC report in 2000 pointed out that “a ban on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the same qualities they sought in the original dog.”
Texas law already makes owners liable for dog attacks—including criminal prosecution. Dutton’s bill doesn’t significantly change the legal ramifications; it simply makes it a crime to let kids pet or walk certain animals.
“We’re not sure what the intent is here,” says Skip Trimble of the Texas Humane Legislation Network. “If [Dutton] is trying to protect the public from pit bulls, why doesn’t he just do that? I don’t see the benefit of segregating out an age bracket. And if he’s just trying to protect children, I’m not sure this does it. It’s going to hurt just as bad when they’re bitten by a German shepherd.”
Comments
Can I submit all the pictures I have of my children, my grandchildren and my friends children walking my dog? How silly is this? If one has a family friendly well behaved properly socialized dog what does it matter what it is?
While Dutton quotes the status he want to “use” he misleads people with those stats. How about he read The American Medical Veterinary Associations task force results put in paragraph form and released by Fordham Law Review “Attacking the Dog Bite Epidemic? NOW this information is based on intelligent, properly researched and put together by the most skilled professionals in the canine field.
http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub10738.pdf
There is no evidence that these dogs bite more, never mind the fact that people “group” 3 breeds in one AND people misidentify the dogs 90% per cent of the time (article quote from animal control officer).
Politians that “witch hunt” in which to blame dogs for society’s ills are the lowest of the low. It comes down to responsible ownership (of ANY dog), strong leash laws and child education. Dutton needs to get off the “banned” wagon and get on with making the real culprits pay the price. THEY walk on TWO legs NOT four.
NOTE: Netherlands removed their ban (after 20 years) in 2008. Italy removing there ban (92 banned and/or restricted breeds) in April 2009. Scotland and England looking to do same! These jokers NEED to go some proper research and look to what is right instead of what HAS been done and SHOWN not to work!
Posted by Fayclis on 03/25/09 at 07:13 PM
Dutton is WRONG and if he now learned the right way in which to handle the dog bite problem (see above Fordham Law Review), would he be “man enough” to admit he is WAY out in left field? One can only hope so. Dutton obviously had never “really” researched or studied the facts. If he did Dutton would know better. Houston? he is a politian NOT a dog expert!
If a dog is running free then FINE “the” owner who is responsible. If a dog bites than take “the” owner to task and make him/her accountable for not restricting a dog who has issues. Quit pandering to the incidents of a few people and make EVERYONE, who owes a dog that “might look” even a bit similiar to a pit bull type dog, pay the price! WHERE is the JUSTICE of turning thousands of responsible owners into 3rd class citizens because of a few incidents?
I am SO tired of politians causing MORE problems for taxpayers by putting in unforcable laws because of knee jerk reactions or because they like to see their names in the paper “LOOKING” like they are doing something.
Until bad owners are held accountable, the problem “of dogs” will never end.
Neatherlands found that out. Italy found that out and Scotland, England and Ireland ARE finding that out. How many thousands of you or your neighbors will be turned into 3rd class citizens because of this and how many thousands of innocent dogs who “might” look a certain way are going to pay the price? BSL is a NIGHTMARE and any dog that is not a registered breed with short hair can be “reported” and their owners “picked” on. What has “looks” to do with disposition, temperament, training or socialization anyway?
Calgary, Alberta’s growth has been staggering YET they have fewer dog bites than ANY other city in North America. Why not copy them? Dog bites there have DECREASED 25% and dispite there growth don’t BAN BREEDS! THEY hold and have held irresponsibe OWNERS accountable and been very successful in doing it! LOOK to successes and not failures. Example: Denver, who in spite of banning dogs for twenty years, have INCREASED dog bites.
Knee jerk solutions are costly to taxpayers and all but impossible to inforce.
Dutton owes it to the people who elected him to properly research the situation and NOT make more laws that will not work.
PS: Which type of dog now leads Denver in dog bites? Labourer Retrievers!
Italy was up to 17 banned breeds and another 75 restricted types of dogs until the politicans there FINALLY smartened up.
Houston? YOU HAVE A PROBLEM… and it is NOT the dogs.
Posted by Fayclis on 03/25/09 at 08:54 PM
Does Harold Dutton have nothing better to do with his time?
If a city is having problem with thugs using dogs to intimidate people, local governments can already use truancy laws, loitering laws, anti-gang laws and curfews to address the situation. Local governments can also make laws pertaining to minors handling dogs in public and they should apply to all dogs equally.
If a 14-year old is carrying a baseball bat to baseball practice, it’s not a crime. If the same 14-year old uses the bat to threaten someone, he -is- committing a crime. But no one is asking to make baseball bats illegal.
City ordinances can and do spell out that parents are liable for damages when a minor is handling a dog that causes damage or injury, regardless of breed.
Posted by Laura on 03/28/09 at 02:07 PM
Comments