Delmarva Daily Times, MD

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:14 am (PST)
Delmarva Daily Times, MD
August 15, 2007
Proposed 'dangerous dog' rules draw controversy
By J.L. Miller

DOVER -- When Erin Guerke was pregnant with her daughter, Ava, some
of her friends just assumed she would get rid of her dogs: an Akita,
a Doberman pinscher and a German shepherd, all large and powerful
breeds.
That thought never entered Guerke's mind. She considers the three
dogs members of the family, and she says she feels perfectly safe
having them in the house with 7-week-old Ava.

But if a proposed rewrite of Dover's animal ordinance becomes law,
Guerke's Akita and Doberman would be deemed dangerous dogs.

She would have to register them with the Kent County Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, give them tags that single them out
as dangerous dogs, keep them confined or muzzled, and comply with a
number of other restrictions if she wanted to continue to keep the
dogs at her Beechwood Avenue home.

"This is a shame. It's almost like racism in dogs," said Guerke,
whose Doberman, Dylan, is an American Kennel Club champion. Her
Akita, Phoebe, is a certified "Canine Good Citizen" and therapy dog.

The rewrite of the animal ordinance also would require all dog owners
in the city to have their pets outfitted with microchips, tiny
implants that contain identifying information that can be read by a
special scanner.

That costs about $50 at a veterinarian's office, although some spay
and neuter clinics can inject the chips for less; in some cases, for
free.

The ordinance also would cap dog or cat ownership at four, a
provision that came in response to two incidents in which homeowners
kept dozens of animals in squalid conditions.

The Dover measure is similar to a dangerous dog ordinance proposed in
New Castle County last year by Councilman Jea Street of Wilmington.
It was defeated 11-2.

If adopted by the City Council, the ordinance would add the city to a
growing number of municipalities in the country that have adopted
similar laws. In the past two years almost 100 municipalities
nationwide have passed breed-specific ordinances, according to the
American Kennel Club. The club opposes such legislation.

Breed labels

By far the most controversial part of the Dover ordinance, which has
been in the works for almost a year, is a provision that designates
specific breeds of dogs as dangerous.

That provision has raised the hackles not only of pet owners, but of
Delaware's veterinary community. Council members also have been
deluged with letters and e-mails from across the country urging them
to eliminate the dangerous-breed classification.

"I thought we were going to get our heads tore off," Councilwoman
Sophia R. Russell said Tuesday after a surprisingly civil meeting of
the council's Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee.

The committee heard testimony from veterinarians urging it to drop
the breed-specific portion of the ordinance. Although the committee
made no promises, it agreed to work with the Delaware Veterinary
Medical Association to fine-tune the proposal before handing it to
the full council for consideration.

In addition to Akitas and Dobermans, the designated dangerous breeds
are the Cane Corsa, the chow-chow, mastiffs, pit bulls, the Presa
Canario, the Rottweiler, Staffordshire terriers or a mix of any of
those breeds.

Even dogs that resemble those breeds would be deemed dangerous -- and
they and their owners would be subject to restrictions.

Those include a prohibition on breeding dangerous dogs and a
requirement that they be spayed or neutered. The dogs would have to
be contained in a secure enclosure and be muzzled and leashed when in
public. Owners would have to be at least 21, and those convicted of a
violent or drug-related felony within the past 10 years would be
barred from ownership.

"The effort is strictly to control behavior -- the behavior of
people," Councilman Eugene B. Ruane, who sits on the committee, said
last week.

Talk of putting more teeth into the ordinance began after two dogs
were killed by other dogs in separate incidents in Ruane's district a
couple of years ago.

Russell, who chairs the committee, has raised concerns about drug
dealers owning potentially dangerous dogs in her largely inner-city
district.

But veterinarian Janice L. Sosnowski, the longtime owner of Governors
Avenue Animal Hospital, said the proposed ordinance is targeting "the
wrong end of the leash."

The council aims to curb the behavior of irresponsible dog owners by
focusing on the dogs when it should focus on the owners, she said.

"If they really do pass the breed-specific legislation, all it's
going to do is make the good dog owners jump through hoops," she
said. "The target population doesn't license" their dogs.

Sosnowski, who spoke at Tuesday's hearing and volunteered to be the
veterinary association's liaison to the council committee, said that
the vast majority of pit bulls she has seen at her practice are
"absolutely sweet, lovely dogs."

But she says she can tell when a dog is likely to be trouble -- by
looking not only at the dog, but at the owner as well.

The dogs "come in with the big, black, spiked collars -- and the
owner has his wallet chained to his belt," Sosnowski said.

Vasheka Oliveras, a Dover native and Army sergeant, owns two pit
bulls, Ranger and Rico. She was visiting with her mother last week
before moving to Alaska, where she is stationed.

"The dog breed is aggressive, but it's all about how you raise them,"
Oliveras said.

"We have been breeding pit bulls for six years now and never have we
had an aggressive dog," she said, adding that irresponsible owners
"make it worse for people like me."

Courts are divided

In New Castle County, Street's measure required owners to carry at
least $100,000 in liability insurance in case the dog caused property
damage or injury to a person or animal.

Street's ordinance was in response to two unprovoked attacks by pit
bulls on children, one of them fatal.

In 2000, Wilmington mandated registration of pit bulls, banned new
pit bulls and required owners to keep them muzzled when outside.

Such laws have been upheld in some courts but thrown out by others.
In 2006 an Ohio appellate court found unconstitutional a breed-
specific ordinance, ruling that the legislation's authors "relied on
what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical
image of pit bulls."

About 4.7 million people nationwide are bitten by dogs, according to
the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Statistics on which breeds of dogs are more likely to attack are
harder to come by, and the numbers are in dispute.

A study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association on the 238 fatal dog attacks on humans from 1979
to 1998 showed 66 attacks attributed to pit bulls, 39 to Rottweilers
and 17 to German shepherds.

Many others were attributed to mixed-breed dogs, and in 27 cases the
breed was not reported. The study's authors cautioned that the
statistics should not be used as evidence that one breed is more
likely to attack than another.

Some insurance companies aren't waiting for governments to act:
Homeowners with pit bulls, Akitas and other targeted breeds can face
higher premiums or even a cancellation of their policies.

Insurers oppose efforts to change their dog policies, arguing that
the industry's claims history shows some dogs are inherently more
likely to bite than others, according to the Insurance Information
Institute.

But if Dover's ordinance makes it to the full council with the breed
designation intact, at least one member plans on voting against it.

"I am strongly opposed to this concept of dangerous breeds," said
Councilman Kenneth L. Hogan.

"I'd like to see you define dangerous owners," he said.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]