Put the bite on owner, not breed
Nov 02 2007
Home >>

Read the fantastic editorial published in the October 13 issue of the Daily Press regarding pit bull bans.

by Tamara Dietrich, The Daily Press

Don't expect me to join the righteous chorus demanding a ban on pit bulls.

Banning pit bulls because 2-year-old Jonathan Martin was tragically mauled to death two weeks ago in Suffolk is about as helpful as banning handguns because an 8-year-old was tragically shot to death by a stray bullet as he lay in his Smithfield bed one night.

For one, Virginia law forbids banning a breed. And for another, a dog - like a handgun - is only as good or as bad as the person behind it.

Mistrain or mistreat a pit bull, or take in one of unknown temperament or background, let it roam unsupervised around young children, and you've got a mix as treacherous as leaving a loaded pistol on the kitchen table next to a bag of Gummy Bears.

Don't just take my word for it.

"I don't agree that any dog should be gotten rid of or banned simply because of the breed," says Mark Kumpf, president of the Virginia Animal Control Association and superintendent of the Newport News Animal Services Division.

"In general, the animal control community believes it's a matter of dealing with the deed, not the breed."

Anxious for quick fixes, we the public make a habit of demonizing breeds - Doberman pinschers, Rottweilers, mastiffs, wolf hybrids. It was slavering German shepherds unleashed on peaceful marchers in Birmingham, remember? They all lived down their reputations. Now, notes Kumpf, "the pit bull is currently the bad boy of the dog world."

Don't throw statistics at me, either. If pit bulls are more likely to seriously injure or kill, it's because we humans engineer it.

First, we build ourselves a fighting dog - "It's difficult to overcome hundreds of years of breeding for a tenacious, strong-willed, strong-jawed dog and convert it back to a household pet," says Kumpf.

Then we market it.

"Some people just want to have this because it's a 'mean' dog,' " he says. "People come to shelters and they don't want to see anything else -'Got any mean dogs? Got any pits? Got any Rotts?' They're not looking for this dog to lie at their feet as they read the newspaper. They're looking for the four-legged equivalent of a .357, and that's just tragic."

If you have young kids, common sense says don't get a fighting dog. Get a dog that can take some tail-pulling and teasing. Get a dog that, as Kumpf says, "doesn't squish too easy." Sadly, we end up killing millions of squishable dogs every year because we don't have enough homes for them.

A pit bull can be squishable, too, if you've raised it from a pup, socialized it and can vouch for its temperament.

If not, you're taking an awful risk.

If you do risk it and you're wrong, one Virginia lawmaker wants to hold you more accountable. State Sen. Edd Houck, D- Spotsylvania, plans to introduce a bill in the next General Assembly that would make dog owners more accountable if their animals maul and kill.

It's called the Dorothy Sullivan Memorial Bill, named for an elderly woman in his area who was killed in March by three pits - house pets that went marauding. The dogs' owner was indicted on involuntary manslaughter, the first time in Virginia this felony charge stemmed from a dog attack.

Among other things, the bill would amend state law to allow a felony charge against someone who allows his dangerous dog to roam at large and it kills somebody. It would also allow a reckless owner to be found guilty of felony unlawful bodily injury if his dangerous dog roams at large or escapes and injures someone.

Although some locales, such as the city of Denver, have banned pit bulls, that's not the bill's goal. "Sen. Houck stressed numerous times, 'This is a dog owner problem, not a dog problem,'" says the lawmaker's legislative assistant Andrew Wright. "He doesn't want this to be breed-specific."

For more on the bill, check out Houck's Web site at www.senatorhouck.com, then click on "news" and "latest update." The bill was crafted with input from local government and law enforcement officials, as well as representatives from various dog interest groups.

"There are many people with wonderful stories of loving, terrific pit bulls," says Kumpf. "Even though I teach dogfighting investigations, I always have to preface my instruction with the statement, 'I like these dogs.' In the hands of the educated owner, with a knowledge of the history and rearing of the animal, these are truly wonderful and loyal pets more likely to lick you than bite you."

"Do these dogs get a bad rap? Sure. But it is not entirely undeserved. Careful, well-crafted laws and ordinances are the best way to deal with dangerous and vicious dogs overall."

So does Houck's bill stand a snowball's chance? Even his aide is doubtful.

"A general rule of thumb is," says Wright, quoting his boss, "you don't introduce dog legislation because it doesn't go anywhere."

Tamara Dietrich can be reached at tdietrich@dailypress.com or at 247-7892. View this article at the Daily Press website.