On Pit Bulls and Courts of Law

Pit bulls are usually lovely, wonderful, loving pets.  Pit bull pet owners are usually  responsible, loving owners. And of course there are the bad guys that give everyone else a bad name.   This afternoon I was reading this article: One City’s Experience:  Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed Specific Legislation is Justified at http://dogbitelaw.com/pitbullDenver.pdf , the Dog Bite Law site.  (Side note- I didn’t write it!) The author claims that there is clear evidence that while not every pit bull is a problem, they’re more likely to exhibit “unique behavioral traits” in their attacks, and they’re more likely to do serious harm.

“The Colorado Dog Fancier’s trial court made this clear,” writes the author, Attorney Kory Nelson, “…while it could not be proven that pit bulls bite more than other dogs there was ‘credible evidence that pit bull dog attacks are more severe and more likely to result in fatalities.’”  Why? 

Among the 17 reasons cited by the court according to Mr. Nelson, was a statement that  while pits often really good dogs, they have management and temperament issues and require “special attention and discipline”, and that 13% of them attack their owners, while only 2% of other breeds attack their owners.  Come on.  Only 2% of any other breed bite their owners?  EVERY breed?

The article includes an incomplete citation so I can’t track their data, but a commission in Emporia Kansas produced a statement in 2006 that “pit bulls are only as dangerous as their owners”.  They cited a nationwide ban in England that started in 1991 that produced no reduction in dog bites which indicates that maybe, just maybe, breed specific legislation isn’t the answer.  http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2006/nov/13/pit_bulls_only_dangerous_their_owners_aspca_tells_/

Great.  Good.  I know I’m getting the old thumbs up from the owners of those breeds considered dangerous just by virtue of being themselves. 

Quite frankly, the legal system’s approach to this kind of thing is set up to fail.  A dog bites, there’s a public and media outcry, the dog is put down, the person is penalized in some way, legislators make laws intended to punish dogs because they happen to be of the same breed as the one that bit someone and lo-and-behold, nothing changes.  There’s no way that plan could work.  It doesn’t address the root of the problem.

Where is the problem?  Well, the pit bull is a powerful organism with a repertoire made up of reinforced behavior.  Behavior that is reinforced through negative reinforcement both naturally occuring in the environment and applied by some breed owners, and positive reinforcement, both naturally occuring and administered by some owners.  We have very genuine safety concerns and we have very genuine behavioral concerns. 

The people in Emporia were probably right in one sense.  Handling by owners has a whole lot to do with their behavior.  But I hope they didn’t mean to say that all owners of dogs who bite are dangerous owners.  I work with aggressive dogs and I must say that I meet a whole lot of very responsible owners who never dreamed they’d end up owning an aggressive dog, and who are doing their best to resolve the matter. While the owners do play a part in the dog’s behavior, it’s often because they never had a dog that acted this way before (and/or) they can’t figure out what to do about it. 

I just googled “Elephant attacks” and came up with a whole bunch of hits.  It’s no surprise to anyone that a 7,000 pound animal can easily do harm, and that a 7,000 animal who is irritated, is protecting a baby or is sick might lash out and hurt someone. If the animal was trained with harsh methods you might expect more of that kind of trouble.  But even an animal trained solely with positive methods may sometimes get irritated and lash out or be startled and hurt someone or accidentally bite harder than he thought he was biting in play.

When experienced horse people work with horses, one thing they think about is keeping the horse from “mauling” them.  What does this mean?  Horses who aren’t afraid of people and who know people are often the bringers of good things may begin to “get in the handler’s face”, pulling at their clothing or nudging them.  This can get far too pushy and move from being cute to being dangerous.  On the other hand horses who are hurt in the course of training may decide to take matters into their own hooves and that can be dangerous.  (Over 250 people a year are killed by horses, as opposed to 31 by dogs last year.  That dog stat came from Karen Delise, who does a laudable job of tracking down such numbers: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/fatalattackstatistics.asp.)

What do we do when we are dealing with large animals with the potential to be dangerous?  When it’s an elephant or other large species more and more zoos are turning to no contact policies in which they do not enter the enclosures with the animals, but instead train them and manage them from the outside of their enclosures using specially designed secure management gates and enclosures and training methods that encourage animals to cooperate.   This is done even with the most docile of animals for the safety of the humans.

What is done with horses?  Some trainers, notably Alexandra Kurland, teach them to move their heads away from the trainer before treats are delivered.  She recommends learning to train management behaviors to the point of good stimulus control before engaging in trick training and other interactive activities.  http://www.shirleychong.com/keepers/archives/horses.txt

So what do we do when it’s a dog?  The common practice is to put a leash on and try to make it do what we want it to do.  One of my TTouch instructors, Kathy Cascade, sometimes asks her students, “Why do we do what we do to dogs?  Because we can.”  Think about that.  Why do we lead dogs around by leashes? Why do we pick up the little ones when they get into trouble?  Why do we put shock collars on German Shepherds?  Because we can.  Not because any of these are the best method for the animal, but because we can.

But why do we try to handle 90 pound massive powerful pit bulls with the same kinds of gear we handle chihuahuas with?  What are we thinking?  Do we handle horses with the same gear we handle chihuahuas with?  No of course not.  Why?  Well, silly, because they are horses.  

Is the birthright of breed or species a good enough reason to handle an animal in a certain way with a certain kind of gear?  What is appropriate for a chihuahua may not be appropriate for a pit bull.  One reason is that if the 90 pound pit slams his paws onto the 90 year old lady walking in the park it’s going to be a heck of a lot more trouble to drag him back by the flat collar and tuck him in your purse and he’s likely to do a tad more damage than your 3 pound hooey-hooey.

But here’s where I get stumped.  What gear is appropriate? I don’t think the right gear for certain powerful dogs has been invented.  I’m not a fan of halters for dogs, but I think for some it’s the closest we’ve got, so long as there are also connections to something that can be backed out of, like a body harness.   

Why do we put halters on horses?  Because although we can’t physically drag the horse around by the neck, we can turn his head and that will typically get him going in the right direction. Does that work with dogs? Not always.  Some dogs WILL lunge into a face halter, despite the claims of some trainers that they will not.  (I’ve seen it.)  And some WILL do it twice.  (I’ve seen it.)  Maybe horses will, too, but I’ll leave that to the horsepeople to sort out.

 Clearly the big issue here is training.  Training, training, training… which is a mixed bag of effectiveness and methodology.  Do we follow Cesar Millan or Karen Pryor? The Monks of New Skete or Jean Donaldson? I don’t think we have yet invented the appropriate gear for safely managing certain large breeds.  Training has to happen.

But hang on to your hats.  I’m going to step on the royal goose. 

Do smart, safe zoo keepers take elephants out into public when the elephants haven’t been adequately trained so that controlling them is a 99.9% sure thing?  They don’t.  Do smart, safe horsemen and horsewomen take untrained horses out into public among people on city streets or among groups of people?  They don’t.

So why do so many think that because a large, potentially dangerous, insufficiently trained animal happens to be a dog we should be given free reign to bring him into contact with vulnerable others?  

I get emails from people with aggressive dogs who ask me how to manage them in public parks and on city streets and agility meets.  I don’t think they should be taking their dogs to public parks and out on city streets or to agility meets while their dogs are still performing aggressive behaviors.  Training needs to be conducted with everyone’s safety and comfort in mind.  

It is my opinion that despite the fact that I once loved a member of a “dangerous” breed (A chow mix), if she had not been completely safe around people and animals I would not have had the right to bring her into places where there was the potential for her to do harm.  I might have earned that  right by ensuring that she was well trained and handled with gear capable of handling her. 

  

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Beyond Genetics: The handling of Pit Bulls and other canines.
• Where’s the proof that Breed Specific Legislation works?
• Pit Bulls: The Matter of Genetic Causation
• Large Dogs Banned from Public Housing, Leads to Increased Euthanizations