Total Pageviews

Monday, 18 May 2015

Pit Bull Popularity by State BY CHRISTOPHER – POSTED ON MARCH 11, 2013 POSTED IN: DOGS, PIT BULLS

Pit Bull breeds across the USA
Pit Bull breeds across the USA
In the last post, I looked at the Google trends regional interest for the AKC and UKC’s “Top 10″ breeds. The number 2 most popular breed registered with the UKC is the “American Pit Bull Terrier” but unlike many breeds which are wholly captured in one registry and which have very little variation, the politics and history of the bully breed landrace don’t settle nicely into a single search term.
So, here are few more interest maps for Bully Breeds. Remember that the data is normalized to factor out gross search volume (i.e. population).  In the case of “Pitbull” I added -lyrics to remove the error introduced by the rapper of that name, and for “bulldog” I added puppies to remove the error of popular sports franchises that biased the results away from actual interest in dogs.
Pit Bull, Pitbull, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, American Bulldog Johnson Type, American Bulldog Scott type, Bulldog, Bull Terrier:
The overwhelming conclusion of the data is just how South-centric the Pit Bull search terms are.  Save for the one Minnesota ping on the “American Staffordshire Terrier” search and Alaska for “Staffordshire Bull Terrier,” there is light representation outside the South.
It’s interesting to compare the above maps with the states that have enacted Breed Specific Legislation against Pit Bulls according to this anti-BSL site.  They are a veritable firewall around the South:
BSL Firewall
BSL Firewall
This find was initially very appealing to the hypothesis that “pit bull” culture as a whole is radiating out of the South and the backlash against the fighting and thuggish elements of that culture would most likely begin along the borders where local appeal and custom clashed with outside culture that would be offended enough into legislation: a border war.
Unfortunately I don’t believe the handful of cities that have BSL as represented in the above map are necessarily representative.  For example, the only city in Oklahoma that has BSL is a 2 square mile town with 2k people on the border with Arkansas called Spiro. The only ban in New York is the 1 square mile town of under 6k people called Larchmont.  Highlighting an entire state when one little municipality has an anti-Pit Bull law doesn’t really give the right impression. It turns out that there are over 700 cities in the USA with BSL and there are only 12 states that don’t include at least one municipal law banning, restricting, or declaring pit bulls vicious.
So until someone else takes the time to map out those 700+ cities, here’s a map of the 12 states that are BSL-free (Hawaii had a ban but it lapsed).
No BSL map
No BSL map
It’s not a big surprise that the three Whitest states in the Union {Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire}, two of which are also quite affluent, and all three which are low crime don’t have BSL.  But Virginia and Arizona stand out as two states that one would think would have at least one municipality with anti-pit bull legislation.  Virginia is a firewall state for much of the culture clash between the South and the Mid Atlantic states and it hosted the Michael Vick affair; while Arizona borders numerous California counties that have enacted mandatory sterilization laws for Pit Bulls (and even Chihuahuas) and itself is embroiled in the sort of culture, gang, race, and poverty conflicts which are fuel for BSL legislation.
Certainly more questions than answers, but the potential regional angle to the question of Pit Bull culture is interesting and appears to be worth further exploration.
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies'Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebookfor more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
Posted by at No comments:

Breed-specific Legislation (BSL) FAQ

Q:      What is breed-specific legislation?

A:       Breed-specific legislation (BSL), also referred to as breed-discriminatory legislation (BDL), is a law or ordinance that prohibits or restricts the keeping of dogs of specific breeds, dogs presumed to be specific breeds, mixes of specific breeds, and/or dogs presumed to be mixes of one or more of those breeds. The most drastic form of BSL is a complete ban; but BSL also includes any laws or governmental regulations that impose separate requirements or limitations, including but not limited to: mandatory spay-neuter, mandatory muzzling, liability insurance requirements, special licensing and additional fees, mandatory microchipping or tattoos, owner / walker age requirements, property posting requirements, confinement and leash requirements, breed-specific pet limits, sale or transfer notification requirements, restrictions on access to certain public spaces with the dog [e.g.: public parks, school grounds], required town-issued items [e.g.: fluorescent collar; vest], training requirements, requirement that photos of the dog and/or owner be kept on town file. BSL, in all of its forms, results in the destruction of many pet dogs.

Q:      What breeds of dogs have been targeted by BSL?

A:       Various breeds have been or currently are targeted by BSL. Until the law was repealed in 2009, Italy regulated the keeping of 17 breeds. In the United States, jurisdictions have either banned or put discriminatory restrictions on one or all of the following: Akita, “Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldogs”, Alaskan Malamute, “American Bandogge”, American Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Belgian Malinois, Bullmastiff, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Chihuahua, Chow Chow, Dalmatian, Doberman Pinscher, Dogo Argentino, “Fila Brasileiro”, German Shepherd Dog, Miniature Bull Terrier, Neapolitan Mastiff, "Pit bull" (please note that "pit bull" is not a breed of dog), Perro de Presa Canario, Rottweiler, Shar Pei, Siberian Husky, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, “Tosa Inu”, and wolf-hybrids. These ordinances also target dogs suspected of being mixes of one or more of the named breeds.

Q:        What position do legal, animal-related, and non-animal related organizations take on BSL? 

A:         All of the following organizations do not endorse BSL:
American Animal Hospital Association, American Bar Association, American Dog Owner's Association, American Humane Association, American Kennel Club, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Veterinary Medical Association,American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior,Association of Pet Dog Trainers, Australian Veterinary Association, Best Friends Animal Society, British Veterinary Association, Canadian Kennel Club, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Federation of Veterinarians in Europe, Humane Society of the United States, International Association of Canine Professionals, National Animal Control Association, National Animal Interest Alliance, National Association of Obedience Instructors, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (UK & Australia), United Kennel Club, and the White House Administration. In addition, many state and local-level veterinary medical associations and humane organizations oppose BSL.

Q:      Aren't certain breeds of dogs more likely to injure or bite than others?


Q:      Does BSL reduce dog bites?

A:       No. BSL has not succeeded in reducing dog bite-related injuries wherever in the world it has been enacted. 

• An analysis published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Associationexplains one reason that BSL could not be expected to work even if particular breeds could be identified as high risk. The authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community in order to prevent even one serious dog bite-related injury. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to remove more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted group. To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number.[3]

• Denver, CO enacted a breed-specific ban in 1989. Citizens of Denver continue to suffer a higher rate of hospitalization from dog bite-related injuries after the ban, than the citizens of breed-neutral Colorado counties.[4] 

• A study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior, compared medically treated dog bites in Aragon, Spain for 5 years prior to and following enactment of Spain’s “Law on the legal treatment of the possession of dangerous animals” (sometimes referred to Spain’s Dangerous Animal Act) (2000). The results showed no significant effect in dog bite incidences when comparing before and after enactment of the BSL.[5]

• The Netherlands repealed a 15-year-old breed ban in 2008 after commissioning a study of its effectiveness. The study revealed that BSL was not a successful dog-bite mitigation strategy because it had not resulted in a decrease in dog bites. [6]

• The Province of Ontario in Canada enacted a breed ban in 2005. In 2010, based on a survey of municipalities across the Province, the Toronto Humane Society reported that, despite five years of BSL and the destruction of "countless" dogs, there had been no significant decrease in the number of dog bites.[7]

• Winnipeg, Manitoba enacted a breed ban in 1990. Winnipeg’s rate of dog bite-injury hospitalizations is virtually unchanged from that day to this, and remains significantly higher than the rate in breed-neutral, responsible pet ownership Calgary[8]

    Q.      How costly is it to implement and enforce BSL?

    A:       BSL is very costly, penalizes responsible pet owners, diverts resources, and is open to challenge.
     
    • Use the Best Friends Fiscal Impact Calculator: http://bestfriends.guerrillaeconomics.net/ to calculate an estimate of the additional expenses for your community (and you as a taxpayer) that will result from BSL: costs for enforcement, kenneling, euthanasia and litigation, among others.
     
    • Miami-Dade County banned “pit bulls” in 1989. The ban did not reduce dog bites, but has generated litigation costs. Hearing officer proceedings, as well as a circuit court case, have questioned the enforceability of the law.

    • The Department of Justice guidelines for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) state that it is contrary to the Act to deny a disabled person equal access to public facilities based upon the presumed breed of their service dog. This has exposed municipalities with BSL to litigation costs when they have attempted to deny such access based the presumed breed of a person’s service dog.

    Q:      What is the trend in BSL?

    A:       There is a growing awareness that BSL does not improve community safety and penalizes responsible dog owners and their family companions. From January 2012-May 2014, more than seven times as many American communities have either considered and rejected a breed-specific ordinance, or repealed an existing one, as have enacted BSL.[9] Massachusetts, Nevada, Connecticut, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Utah have recently enacted state laws that prohibit their towns and counties from regulating dogs on the basis of breed. Eighteen states now prohibit BSL. The White House Administration has announced its opposition to BSL, stating that “research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”[10]

    Q:      What is the best way to reduce dog bite-related incidents in a community?

    A:      The trend in prevention of dog bites continues to shift in favor of multifactorial approaches focusing on improved ownership and husbandry practices, better understanding of dog behavior, education of parents and children regarding safety around dogs, and consistent enforcement of dangerous dog/reckless owner ordinances in communities. Effective laws hold all dog owners responsible for the humane care, custody, and control of all dogs regardless of breed or type.

    Updated 11 August 2014



    Click the thumbnail for a PDF of this page



    SOURCES
    [1] AVMA Animal Welfare Division. (17 April 2012). The Welfare Implications of The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention. Retrieved from:https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Documents/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf

    [2] Patronek, G.J., Sacks, J.J., Delise, K.M., Cleary, D.V., & Marder, A.R. (2013). Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 243(12), 1726-1736.

    [3] Patronek, G.J., Slater, M., & Marder, A. (2010). Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite-related injury.. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,237(7):  788-792.

    [4] National Canine Research Council. (2013). Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective. Retrieved from:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Denver%20BSL%20Brutal,%20Costly,%20and%20Ineffective%20_%20Aug%202013.pdf

    [5] Rosado, B., García-Belenguer, S., León, M., & Palacio, J. (2007). Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2(5): 166-174.

    [6] Cornelissen, J.,M., & Hopster, H. (2010). Dog bites in the Netherlands: a study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation. Veterinary Journal, 186(3): 292-298.  

    [7] Peat, D. (2010, April 28). Pit bull ban fails to reduce dog bites. The Toronto Sun. Retrieved from:http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/04/28/13753106.html

    [8] National Canine Research Council. (2012). Winnipeg, Manitoba Far Behind Calgary in Community Safety. Retrieved from:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Winnipeg,%20Manitoba%20far%20behind%20Calgary%20in%20community%20safety_July%209,%202012.pdf

    [9] National Canine Research Council. (2014). Breed-Specific Legislation is on the Decline. Retrieved from:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Breed%20specific%20legislation%20on%20the%20decline.pdf

    Posted by at No comments:

    Thursday, 2 April 2015

    The Reality of BSL

    ZOMBIESANDDOGS
    bsl-logo
    BSL- breed specific legislation send ripples of fear and unrest through communities. The fear of cities having the ability to come into your home and confiscate your innocent family dog and euthanize it. It’s a well-founded fear considering this happened in 1987 in the town of Denver Colorado. “The Denver Pitt Bull Ban was enacted in 1987 after one particular dog attacked a man. The story erroneously reported that a “slew” of attacks was what led to the ban.”
    What BSL is and always will be will be a knee jerk reaction based off fear and lack of education. What BSL does is denies the opportunity to educate the public about just how essential dog owner responsibility is. In fact, responsible dog ownership can be the key preventing a tragedy. Although, in my research, what I have found is: those pushing for BSL are the individuals who refuse to acknowledge their own responsibility in a dog attack.
    Elles-Reading-Pic1
    The Birth of Dogsbite.org
    Colleen Lynn never has denied how much she hates the pit bull type breeds. Even though- according to Lynn, her 5 second attack was so severe that she would be unable to work for months, “Lynn will recover but is unable to work as a freelance web designer. “For the next two months, and it will cause me great financial problems,” Lynn said”- she somehow worked through the pain and launched Dogsbite.org in 2007. She then went on to create “MaulTalk”- her personal blog filled with hate, stereotyping, racism and generally just insults directed at pit bull owners.
    Learn more about the colorful Lynn through many media sources:
    1. SwayLove
    2. WICL
    3. Foolish Follies too

    The Evolution of Jeff Borchardt
    Borchardt, a 41 year old DJ from Wisconsin lost his only child due to a dog attack from his babysitter’s pit bull type dogs.  Although at first, his babysitter Susan Iwiki stated they were boxer mixes- it was reported that the parents had ordered the sitter to keep their child away from the dogs however she failed to follow the request.
    No one can really say what really happened that tragic day since the only adult there somehow walked away from an alleged “ 15 minute sustained attack” unharmed yet the child was killed. But what we do know is how this tragic event created a man intent with the extermination of multiple breeds.
    jeffborchardt6
     Since becoming a poster child for Dogsbite.org, he’s promoted violence towards pit bull type dogs and owners. Openly acknowledging his enjoyment of harassing and stalking pit bull owners, he has dedicated multiple Facebook pages and profilesto help him gather info such as images of children. During this time he created Daxton’s Friends, a non-profit under the guise of helping families decide on dog breeds. In reality, his new non-profit is just another vehicle to legitimize his stance on BSL/Bans.

    Read more about Jeff Borchardt and his rise to infamy here:
    1. Foolish Follies too
    2. SwayLove
    3. Zombies and Dogs

    The two public faces of BSL/Ban supporters suffered tragedies… wait, let me rephrase that, preventable tragedies. The concept of preventable tragedies is incredibly important because if we look at the small number of dog bite fatalities, we see a lack of responsible dog ownership. I’m not against throwing the book at irresponsible dog owners and I’m not against euthanizing dogs if they need be. I don’t support the nanny dog myth, I support mandatory s/n on all dogs but I refuse to support anything that punishes the mass for a handful of irresponsible owners.
    This is why I feel that BSL is fueled by more than just a desire for a safe community- its fueled by hate, myths and fear. In fact- I have yet to read anything from the two main public BSL supporters that promotes safe communities. It’s no secret that BSL does not prevent dog attacks, because all dogs are capable of attacking. It’s very disconcerting when I read BSL advocates state“Oh sure, allll dogs bite, but those bites are not a big deal….because they are not done by pit bulls.” When has it ever been okay to excuse dog attacks based off the breed of dog not being a certain breed? Like never…. Unless you are a BSL advocate.
    In the history of mankind, can you please point out where bans on anything have ever been successful and fail proof? Government’s and civilizations have attempted to ban Christianity, witchcraft, homosexuality, the basic fundamental civil rights of a human being, booze, drugs, women reading, women working… I mean, the list can on and on with the things that have been banned throughout centuries and each and every one of them have failed. Banning a breed of dog has failed also and will always fail. It’s a false sense of security that only damages the community because it pushes the issues that are needed to be fixed and addressed underground.
    I get it, I don’t think every person should own a pit bull, but I also feel that many people don’t deserve to own any animal, but once a BSL/Ban is in place it doesn’t fix the core of the issue- irresponsible ownership. I don’t have an issue with legislation that forces all dog owners of all breeds to stand up and be responsible and neither should anti pit people. If anything, they should embrace the idea that all dog owners should be held responsible on all levels because that would include the pit bull type of dogs. If BSL advocates were smart and really focused on making a community safer than they would stop the hype, stop the hate, stop the harassment, bullying and lies.
    It’s time to face reality, as humans- if you care about the human race you would do everything possible to promote the well-being of both man AND dog, but I have this feeling that BSL advocates are not about the majority of the population… just a small select few
    Posted by at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)