Enforce state's existing dangerous-dog law rather than ban certain breeds

Anyone who thinks a breed ban will solve the problem of major dog bites is barking up the wrong tree.

A new study shows that breed bans cost a lot of money and do little to prevent dog bites and attacks. The report by the Best Friends Animal Society calculates that such a law in King County would cost more than $ 2.5 million without a corresponding public-safety benefit. That includes the costs of enforcement, kenneling, DNA testing, euthanasia, veterinary care and litigation.

The Best Friends study, released last month, analyzed data from a wide variety of sources such as the U.S. government, national dog-bite victims groups and animal-welfare organizations. The data is the best available information on dog-ownership rates and the costs of animal-control programs.

Several jurisdictions, including King County, Arlington and Covington, recently have considered breed bans. But there's a more effective way to protect the public.

It is time for localities to demand that the local animal-control agencies enforce the dangerous-dog law that is in effect in the state of Washington. Unenforced laws, breed bans and skyrocketing licensing fees are not going to make citizens safer.

The city of Denver is an informative example. Denver enacted a ban on pit bulls in 1989. Yet, according to the Canine Research Council, the city has not seen any appreciable difference in the number or severity of dog attacks compared to cities without breed bans.

The behavior of pit bulls has been much debated in our region, with anti-pit-bull activists petitioning to ban the breed. At the Seattle Humane Society we believe that a breed ban would not address the real problem and would unfairly target the group of dogs called pit bulls.

Over the past four decades, only 5 to 10 percent of all reported dog bites have been classified as serious (i.e., requiring suturing, surgery or hospitalization), regardless of the geographic area and regardless of whether that area had enacted or attempted to enforce breed-specific laws.

Every time a human is hurt by a dog, it is a tragedy — both for the person and for the dog. But that said, it is crucial to keep the problem in perspective and recognize that if passing laws solved problems, we would not be troubled by drunken driving or illegal drug use.

Since we know breed bans don't work, how do we solve the problem of serious dog bites?

We must insist on enforcement of the Washington state law that puts severe limitations on "dangerous dogs," defined as dogs that have inflicted severe injury on a human or killed a domestic animal on or off an owners' property.

Under current law these dogs must be registered as dangerous, confined in specially built kennels and wear muzzles in public. Their owners must purchase $250,000 in liability insurance in order to keep them and are guilty of a felony if the dogs inflict injuries.

As communities, we must focus on the positive steps we can take to prevent dog bites. In the majority of serious bites, the incidents were largely preventable, according to Karen Delise, founder and director of research for the National Canine Research Council.

Most dog bites occur in predictable circumstances — when young children are left alone with a dog, when dogs are encouraged to be aggressive by their owners, when dogs wander alone, or in packs, when dogs are isolated and unsocialized and perhaps most importantly when dog owners ignore the problem of aggressive behavior.

Until we start focusing on the underlying causes of bites — instead of focusing on specific breeds of dogs — we will never decrease the number of major dog attacks.

The result of breed-ban legislation would be to increase the number of dogs who are killed in shelters, take money from the King County budget already in crises to enforce the mandate while not making anyone safer. That's why breed bans are bad business.

Brenda F. Barnette is CEO of the Seattle Humane Society.