Rissmiller, K. (SS) 52 KJR-SW04 Type: IQP Date: 5/01 interactive qualifying Project Kje- .50)64 -sA
Zurich, Switzerland D term, 2001
A Comparative Analysis of the Legal and Political Aspects of the Dangerous Dogs Problem in the U.S., Switzerland and Germany
05/02/01
Elizabeth Levandowsky
Ondrej Cistecky
Taeyun Choi
Presented to:
Dr. Antoine Goetschel, Sponsor. Goetschel & Raess Ilgenstrasse 22 Postfach 218 8030 Ziirich
Prof. Kent Rissmiller Worcester Polytechnic Institute Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our sponsor, Dr. Antoine Goetschel, for his active and enthusiastic interest and support in completing this project.
Furthermore, we are grateful to all of our interviewees — Dr. Susanne Arnold, Ms.
Ursula Horisberger, Dr. Marlene Zahner, Dr. Heinrich Binder and Mr. Harry Meister — for their cooperation, opinions and insight on the topic of dangerous dogs.
We also thank Prof. Kent J. Rissmiller and Prof. Wes Jamison for their guidance and counseling in various stages of the project. Abstract
Attorney Antoine Goetschel in Zurich, Switzerland expressed a concern for the public backlash against breeds of dogs that have been associated with a few highly publicized dog attacks. By interviewing veterinarians and breeders and researching archival data, we were able to make recommendations on how to reduce the number of dog attacks while treating the dogs fairly. We concluded that communities act quickly and irrationally without looking into the problem and that the solution requires a multifaceted approach. Executive Summary
Nearly 17 dog bite related fatalities (DBRF) occur in the U.S. each year. While
DBRF pose a severe problem, an additional 2% of the American population receive non- fatal bites annually. The concern for the occurrence of dog attacks and the well being of the animals is not limited to the United States. Our sponsor, Attorney Antoine F.
Goetschel in Zurich, Switzerland, expresses a similar concern for these events occurring in Switzerland. The Foundation for the Well-being of the Dog, of which Dr. Goetschel is a founding member, is concerned about the public backlash against dogs involved in attacks and is interested in protecting the dogs.
In the 1980's, various forms of breed specific legislation (BSL) approved in different towns, counties, and cities in the U.S. were aimed at isolating, controlling or banning the breeds of dogs generally known as pit-bulls. However, BSL has been subject to constitutional challenges. It has been argued that it is difficult to enforce and ineffective. Consequently, in the past decade significant improvements have been made on the state level. Dangerous dog laws, which maintain an equilibrium between protecting citizens, respecting the rights of responsible owners and treating dogs
humanely, have appeared in different parts of the U.S.
While studies have sought to find a correlation between number of dog bites and
breed, gender, neutering, spaying and the age of dogs, many researchers in the U.S. have
concluded that lowering the number of dog attacks involves many factors. Ultimately,
many reach similar conclusions, suggesting that appropriate education for owners, better
dog bite reporting and dog population records are needed.
We discovered that a third of all U.S. homeowner's insurance claims are the result
of dog bites. This translates to a cost of over a billion dollars a year to insurers. Many
insurers in the U.S. have found it in their best interest to refuse insurance to homeowners with dogs that have bitten. Some companies have gone as far as keeping list of breeds which they refuse to insure.
We used archival research, secondary sources and interviewing as our primary method of data collection in Switzerland. For interview subjects, we sought out veterinarians and breeders who were intimately involved with Swiss dangerous dog policy.
Through archival research, we discovered that Germany, from the outset of the
Hamburg incident in summer of 2000, has been enforcing some of the harshest BSL.
Much of Swiss debate over dog control issues appears to be closely linked with events in
Germany. However, Swiss organizations such as the Foundation for the Well-being of the Dog and Working Party for Dangerous Dogs (AGGH) were in existence prior to the
Hamburg incident. These organizations are knowledgeable in effective policy approaches. As a result, only one canton out of twenty-six hastily adopted BSL. Many experts realize the flaws of BSL and recommend alternative ideas and preventative measures instead.
From our interviewees, we obtained opinions on what owners, breeders and veterinarians are, are not, and should be doing to lower the chances of dog attacks. All of
our interviewees agreed that education is the most important factor in preventing dog bites. Our respondents recognized that owners should to seek proper education and select
dogs that they are capable of handling. Breeders and veterinarians have the responsibility
to guide and further educate owners. Breeders must also be conscientious of their
breeding activities. Currently there is a lack of education standards for breeders, owners
and the public. The Foundation for the Well-being of the Dog is beginning to address
this problem through its Certodog® program and has received favorable reviews from
our interviewees.
II We also gathered information on governmental and insurer involvement and responsibility through our interviews. Because of the nature of the political systems,
Switzerland and the U.S. lack uniform dog control law. There is not a central source for statistical data, such as the C.D.C. of the U.S., in Switzerland. In addition, Swiss insurers, like those in the U.S., tend avoid the costs associated with biting dogs.
The analysis section first describes the good and bad aspects of current activities of Swiss breeders, veterinarians and owners. Then, Swiss governmental and insurer involvement are compared to that in the U.S.
We conclude that a multifaceted approach must be taken to solve the problem of dog bites. Breeding, raising, selling, ownership, governmental involvement and insurance must all be considered. A holistic approach is necessary to address the problem and provide society with rational approaches to reduce the number of dog bites.
Breeders and private parties must implement selective breeding techniques that take into account animal health. Breeders should also establish support networks for buyers, and follow up to ensure that new pets are well established in their new homes.
Owners must then continue the training and make use of the support network when necessary. We describe Certodog® as an excellent example of this.
State or cantonal level mandatory insurance for all dogs is the most feasible way to provide an incentive for owners to be responsible. It is crucial for companies to work together to handle the problem. Thus, we believe that a network for sharing experience between insurers must be established. Furthermore, it is essential that the communication between insurers and owners is clear. This will influence individuals to be more
responsible owners and avoid costly litigation.
For a dog control policy to be effective it should be non-breed specific. A
dangerous dog should be defined according to its actions and behaviors. Legislation
III should also encourage responsible pet ownership while ensuring criminals and negligent owners are held criminally liable. Furthermore, to be fair to responsible and conscientious dog owners, effective dog control law should outline a judicial process.
We believe this is important because rational motives, rather than emotion, should move policy. We also understand that leashing and muzzling should only be used in appropriate situations. For this reason, we are not in favor of mandatory leashing and muzzling laws already in place in some parts of U.S. and Germany.
Because of the nature of the political systems described above, implementing uniform dog control policies would consume too much effort and time. Thus for
Switzerland, we recommend that legislators and politicians begin work on cantonal levels. We further recommend that governments support private efforts to educate the public, owners and breeders. Cantons, which currently collect dog taxes for licensing and registration, should allocate these funds to education programs.
Finally we address the idea of chipping. We are not convinced that it is more effective and less costly than paper registration. We believe chipping is currently being
advertised falsely as a solution to the dog bite problem. There are also questions of how much information should be put on a chip and who will have access to it. Because these
questions and others remain unanswered, we understand that more research must be
conducted to determine the feasibility of chipping. Other areas in which further research
could be conducted in Switzerland are the need for a centralized data source, the specifics
of dog insurance, and how dog bites are reported.
IV Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Chapter 2. Literature Review 4
2.1. Legal History and Development in the United States 4 2.2. Published Studies 11 2.3. Insurance 17 2.4. Conclusion 19
Chapter 3. Methodology 21
3.1. Nature of Data 21 3.2. Data Collection and Organization 22 3.2.1. Pet Owner Responsibility 23 3.2.2. Governmental Responsibility 24 3.2.3. Insurer Responsibility 24 3.2.4. Veterinarian, Breeder, and Trainer Responsibility 25 3.3. Conclusion 25
Chapter 4. Results 26 4.1. Archival Data and Swiss Secondary Sources 26 4.1.1. Developments in Germany 26 4.1.2. Developments in Switzerland Prior to the German Incident 30 4.1.3. Hearing on the topic of Kampfhunde 31 4.1.4. Efforts to Make Stricter Dog Control Regulations 33 4.1.5. Alternative Ideas, Opinions, Recommendations to BSL 34 4.1.6. Legal Developments and Background 36 4.2. Interview Data 38 4.2.1. Owners, Breeders and Veterinarians 38 4.2.2. Government 43 4.2.3. Insurer 46
Chapter 5. Analysis 47 5.1. Breeders, Veterinarians and Owners 47 5.2. Government and Insurance 53
Chapter 6. Conclusions 65
Authorship Statement 69
Glossary of German Terms and Acronyms 70 Appendix A: Ordinances 72 California Food and Agricultural Code 72 HSUS Fact Sheet 77 HSUS Guidelines for Regulating Dangerous or Vicious Dogs 78 City of Hamburg Dog Ordinance 95
Appendix B: Email Correspondence 98
English References 102
German References 105
List of Interviewees 106
Legal References 107 Chapter 1. Introduction.
On January 26, 2001 Diane Whipple was mauled by her neighbor's dogs just in front of her apartment door. Whipple, a thirty-three year old lacrosse coach in San
Francisco, was returning from the grocery store, as her neighbor, Marjorie Knoller, was heading outside to walk her dogs. The animals, two Presa Canarios, rare mixes of bulldogs, English mastiffs and Canary Island herding dogs were adopted by Marjorie and her husband Noel from two of their clients. The dogs, named Bane and Hera, were trained to fight and guard illegal drug labs by their previous owners. As
Whipple neared the animals and their owner, the dogs attacked her. Knoller attempted to restrain the two 120-pound animals unsuccessfully. Bane seized
Whipple's throat while Hera tore at her clothing. Shortly after the attack, Diane
Whipple died in the hospital. Bane was immediately put down while Hera is currently being held awaiting a hearing.
Nearly 17 dog bite related fatalities (DBRF) occur in the U.S. each year.
While DBRF pose a severe problem, an additional 2% of the American population receive non-fatal bites annually. The death of Dianne Whipple and cases with similar circumstances dating as far back as 1980's cause legitimate public concern. Parents fear for the safety of their children. Pet owners see their animals as unfairly targeted.
Animal rights groups perceive the rights of animals as transgressed. Insurance organizations are stuck in a quagmire of lawsuits and subsequent remuneration of victims and public servants are responsible for appeasing all sides.
Reports of DBRF have sent shock waves of fear through the hearts of many.
The Whipple case demonstrates that even young, healthy adults are not invincible to attacks by canines. Many view children as especially vulnerable as a result of their curiosity, and because they play in the same areas where individuals walk their dogs.
These anxieties are not ill founded as adolescents are often the victims of more severe attacks than adults, due to their size, and inability protect themselves.
1 Widespread fear leads to hysteria, resulting in public backlash against dogs involved in highly publicized cases. Local, state and federal civil servants feel pressure to make quick decisions to allay such fears. Frequently, in the weeks following attacks political hand waving occurs. A mandatory muzzle law for all dogs was proposed by San Francisco's Commissioner of Animal Control and Welfare just two weeks following the death of Diane Whipple. Similarly, in 1983 Cincinnati, Ohio passed legislation banning the sales of pit-bulls as the result of a fatal bite on a child.
Pet owners suffer as the result of demagoguery. Hastily developed ordinances
tend to infringe upon pet owners' rights. Many feel that choosing the pet which best
satisfies their needs is a fundamental right. For some, dogs are a form of expression
as well as a source of companionship and comfort. Others make a livelihood from
breeding and selling these animals that also aid in the matters of everyday life.
The American Kennel Club (AKC), the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS), and the Washington State Veterinary Medical Association (WSVMA) are
just a few of the handful of interest groups which attempt to preserve owners' rights
and the integrity of the animal. AKC provides information and various strategies to
organizations sharing its mission in promoting sensible dog control law. Similarly,
the HSUS has guidelines for developing dog control ordinances for vicious dogs. The
WSVMA supports strong canine control ordinances that promote responsible pet
ownership.
There are also those groups that have a substantial financial interest in
decreasing the occurrences of dog bites. Insurance companies bear the cost of
lawsuits brought by the victims of dog attacks. Some companies tired of paying, have
been rumored to compile blacklists of various canine breeds that they will not cover
under home-owners insurance because they believe these breeds pose a high risk of
biting. The list of those affected financially by attacks is not limited to insurers.
Health care providers may suffer financial loss by covering the cost of medical
2 treatment of the victim. Animal breeders may also suffer substantial financial loss as a result of policies banning certain breeds in their town or city.
The concern for the occurrence of dog attacks and the well being of the animals is not limited to the United States. Attorney Antoine F. Goetschel of
Goetschel and Raess, in Zurich, Switzerland, expresses a similar concern for these events occurring in Switzerland. The Foundation for the Well-being of the Dog, of which Dr. Goetschel is a founding member, is concerned about the public backlash against dogs involved in attacks and is interested in protecting the dogs.
Through extensive research in Zurich we developed policy recommendations that will best satisfy the needs of society as well as the animals. Research regarding the history of canine attacks in Switzerland provided us with a background to the
situation which allowed us to compare the Swiss experience with dog attacks to that
of the U.S and Germany. Studying insurance, registration and licensing policies, and
dog control law informed us of the actions that have already been taken to improve
the situation. Interviews with veterinarians and animal rights groups gave us insight
into how the Swiss view this problem. All of this information was used in writing
policy recommendations to minimize the occurrence of attacks and to promote the
welfare of the animal.
3 Chapter 2. Literature Review.
2.1. Legal History and Development in the United States.
As early as 1980, the city of Hollywood, Florida adopted new breed specific legislation (BSL) targeted at regulating pit-bulls. Two events led up to this, a serious mauling of a child and another involving an elderly woman (A.P. Wire Service,
1980). Shortly after the incidents, owners of such dogs were required to purchase
$25,000 public liability insurance and sign special registration forms (Hollywood,
Fla., Code § 6-25, 1980). In the subsequent years, public hysteria and anxiety spread and intensified across the country. News archives were inundated with reports of pit- bull attacks. However, Thorne (1988) points out in her law review that pit-bull
attacks receive widespread media attention not because of the frequency of the attacks
reported, but rather the severity of the injuries inflicted to the victims. This prompted
local officials to initiate municipal dog control laws similar to those of Hollywood,
Florida. Lawmakers in Cincinnati, Ohio passed an ordinance that had owners of pit-
bull terriers keep their animals indoors or muzzle and leash them outdoors. The new
law also prohibited the sale of pit-bulls within the boundaries of the city (Cincinnati,
Ohio, Mun. Code § 701-25 & 701-45, 99-B, 1983). Animal control officers in the
Village of Tijeras, New Mexico took more dramatic action, impounding and
subsequently exterminating the dogs (A.P. Wire Service, 1984). By 1984, the number
of states that considered adopting breed specific legislation grew to seven. These
included Alaska, California, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio
(Marmer, 1984).
Various forms of BSL or Municipal Dog Control Ordinances approved in
different towns, counties, and cities are aimed at isolating, controlling and banning the
breeds of dogs generally known as pit-bulls. Baumgartner's (1990) research guide on
pit-bulls gives the history of the dogs that are collectively referred to as pit-bulls. The
term pit-bull is "used to generically refer to a group of dog breeds that have
4 historically been bred as fighting dogs" (Baumgartner, 1990, p. 38). The American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, and bull terrier are dogs commonly defined as pit-bull type dogs by BSL. The common ancestors of these four breeds come from the coal-mines of Staffordshire, England where dog fighting was prevalent. The Staffordshire terrier came to America and diverged into another breed that was larger in size. In 1898 the United Kennel Club
(UKC) registered both the smaller English Staffordshire terrier and larger American counterpart as American pit bull terrier. The American Kennel Club (AKC) distinguishes between the two breeds. In 1972 the AKC registered the larger
American terrier as the American Staffordshire terrier and in 1975 recognized the
English terrier as the Staffordshire bull terrier.
Various states where breed specific policies against pit-bulls were enacted have extensive lists of cases challenging their constitutionality. Both Marmer (1984)
and Thorne (1988) in their law reviews study and present arguments raised in these
cases. Marmer's review was written in the infancy of BSL and argued such laws
violate the dog owner's Fourteenth Amendment rights protected under the U.S.
Constitution. BSL intrudes on the rights of due process and equal protection, on the
basis that it can be construed as either under-inclusive or over-inclusive (Marmer,
1984). By separating one breed of dog out of many and branding all dogs of that
breed as innately dangerous to society, these ordinances neglect the possibility that
many other breeds can act viciously. Therefore the laws are under-inclusive (Marmer,
1984). Alternatively, Thorne (1988) reasons that by using the term pit-bull, BSL may
be interpreted to encompass any dog that "even remotely resembles a pit bull or bears
any of the characteristics commonly associated with pit bulls" and thus are over-
inclusive (Thorne, 1988).
Marmer (1984) quotes Constitutional Law by Nowak, Rotunda, and Young
(1983) that an ordinance violates procedural due process if it is vague. She cites a
5 case in 1982 when the Everglades Pit Bull Dog Club challenged Florida's pit-bull law on the basis that it was "vague, arbitrary, and unfair in violation of due process" and prevailed (Holder v. City of Hollywood, No. 81-13968CR, 1982). During the early
1980's a lack of technology rendered determining a dog's breed scientifically and objectively impossible (Hoffard, 1984). A similar identification problem was associated with a Cincinnati, Ohio ordinance. Ohio veterinarians testified, "they could not identify a dog's breed using any test known to science" (Marmer, 1984, p.
1080).
Unlike the Hollywood, Florida ordinance that was revoked in 1982, many other breed specific ordinances survived the challenges based on vagueness.
Baumgartner (1990) cites the following court cases in which the constitutionality of the breed specific ordinances was upheld: Garcia v. Village of Tijeras (106 N.M.116,
767 P.2d 355, 1988); American Dog Owners Association, Inc. v. Dade County (728 F.
Supp. 1533, 89-771-Civ., 1989); and American Dog Owners Association v. City of
Yakima (113 Wash. 2d 213, 777 P.2d. 1046, 1989). In all three cases, the courts determined that the term pit-bull is commonly understood to describe and distinguish a certain breed of dogs.
Proponents of BSL argue that it passes the substantive due process requirements or the test of reasonableness. Thorne (1988) also quotes Nowak,
Rotunda & Young (1986), "If a rational relationship exists between the challenged
regulation and a legitimate governmental end, the constitutionality of the challenged
act will be upheld" (p. 1451). Based on the number of vicious attacks by pit-bulls, the
severity of the wounds inflicted by them, and the fact that pit-bulls were bred as
fighting dogs, it does not seem unreasonable to classify pit-bulls as a dangerous breed
Because of the combination of pit-bulls' physical characteristics and their gameness,
they have a higher predisposition for aggression. Gameness refers to a quality that
6 compels an animal to continue to fight regardless of injury. Therefore, these dogs become unstable and dangerous to the public (Thorne, 1988).
Thorne's law review article presents alternative solutions to breed specific legislation. The solutions include ordinances which cover all breeds of dangerous dogs and focus on prosecuting owners and breeders of vicious animals. She believes that the fundamental problem does not lie in physical or mental characteristics of a certain breed but in the people who breed, train, sell and own such dogs. She notes,
"any law that attempts to regulate human behavior by punishing or regulating the animal is misdirected and ineffective" (Thorne, 1988, p. 1482). In addition, Thorne
(1988) contends that breed specific legislation is ineffective in lowering the number of dog attacks. Not only are such laws subject to constitutionality challenges, but also they fail to acknowledge the probability that all dogs could bite. Therefore these laws do not address measures to encourage all pet owners to behave more responsibly. The
Washington State Veterinary Medical Association (WSVMA) also expresses a similar opinion in their 1990 position statement, "There are many problems associated with ordinances that are breed specific ... Breed specific ordinances fail to address the most important issue — owner responsibility ... Owners should be held criminally as well as civilly liable for the actions of their dogs" (WSVMA, 1990, p. 1).
Model ordinances are not breed specific and maintain an equilibrium between protecting citizens, respecting the rights of responsible owners and treating the dogs humanely. Guidelines for Regulating Dangerous or Vicious Dogs (1987) by the
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) offers more practical approaches to dog bite incidents and, therefore, provides guidance in creating ordinances. The HSUS
guideline (1987) provides strategies that communities can follow in order to address
their own needs (p.3). It outlines the elements of an effective dangerous dog law (p.
4) and gives the definitions of a dangerous dog (p. 5). The guideline is non-breed
specific because it automatically defines a dangerous dog as, "Any dog which ... has
7 inflicted severe injury on human beings without provocation ... killed a domestic animal," or is " ... trained for dog fighting" (p. 5). It aims to control the behavior of dogs and addresses irresponsible owners. "A workable dangerous dog law should ... describe the penalties that will be assessed if the dog owner does not comply with the above requirements" (p. 4). In addition, the guideline discusses the following important issues thoroughly: "Indications Following a Hearing" (p. 5), "Actions to be
Taken by Owners of Dangerous Dogs" (p. 9), and "Actions to be Taken Against
Owners of Dangerous Dogs" (p. 13).
Dangerous Dog Control Law (DDCL) (GA. CODE ANN. §§ 4-8-7, 4-8-20 et seq., 2001) effective on January 1, 1989 and the Maryland Act (MD. ANN. CODE art. 27 § 70E, 1987) effective on July 1, 1988 were the first state-wide efforts to move away from breed specific legislation. Both laws are non-breed specific. They require vicious dogs to be securely enclosed indoors, carefully restrained outdoors (i.e. leashed and muzzled) and the owners of such dogs are required to carry some form of special liability insurance. In addition, when the pet owner transfers his or her ownership of a vicious dog, he or she must notify the appropriate local authority.
Under the Maryland laws, it is mandatory for sellers to further notify the buyers in writing of the risks associated with keeping a dangerous dog. Under the Georgia
provisions, the owner of a vicious dog that was involved in an attack may be
criminally liable, whereas the Maryland Act does not specify criminal liability.
More recent non-breed specific ordinances appeared in New York City (Title
17, Chapter 3, Subchapter 6, 1990), Botetourt County, Virginia (Article 2, Division 1
and 1A), Tacoma, Washington (§ 5.26 — 5.27, 1988) and California (Food and
Agriculture Code: Division 14, § 9, Article 1-5. Penal Code: Part 1, Title 10 @399.5,
2001). These ordinances closely resemble one another. They give similar definitions
of a "dangerous dog" or "vicious dog" and guarantee a pet owner's right to a fair
hearing for his or her dog. A dog becomes "vicious" from "dangerous" if it kills or
8 severely injures a person without provocation. In addition, all of these laws impose confinement and detailed registration of animals and stiff liability insurance on the owners, if the dog is determined to be dangerous by a court. In all cases, courts may order the termination of a dog deemed too dangerous to be released.
Thorne (1988) cites five court cases in which the dog owners were held accountable for their dogs' attacks. They are as follows: Munn v. State of Florida (158
Fla. 892, 30 So. 2d 501, 1947), People of New York v. Sandgren (302 N.Y. 331, 98
N.E. 2d 460, 1951), State of Kansas v. Reynolds (No. 84-CR-347, no official reports),
Turnipseed v. State of Georgia (186 Ga. App. 278, 367 S.E. 2d 259, 1988) and People of California v. Berry (208 Cal. App. 3d. 783, 256 Cal. Rptr. 344, 1989).
Circumstantial evidence from these cases generally indicates that these attacks could have been avoided. By taking precautionary steps such as posting warning signs or providing adequate control over their dogs, owners could have minimized threats to the neighborhood. Further evidence suggested all of the owners charged knew about their dogs' vicious tendency to attack without provocation. Thorne (1988) concludes that the "States must consider incorporating criminal liability provisions into any existing or new animal control legislation..." when "...the owner of a dangerous or vicious animal has behaved in a criminally negligent or reckless manner" (p. 1483).
Although non breed-specific dog control law appears as early as 1988, by
2001 towns in thirty-eight states continue to use breed specific ordinances. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho,
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and
Wisconsin (Cooper J., 2000). According to the Fact Sheet (1999) attached to the
HSUS guideline, the following twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have
9 dog control laws on the state level: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
PennsylVania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia and Washington, DC. In eleven states, the owner of a dangerous dog must provide a clear warning sign. In seventeen states, owners must obtain a special license to keep their dangerous dogs and in nineteen states dangerous dogs are required to be restrained when off the owner's property. California,
Colorado and Minnesota are the only states that do not allow local ordinances to be breed specific. Therefore, in states such as Maryland, where fair and enforceable canine control laws exist, misinformed county officials attempt to pass breed specific ordinances. In 1999 the Federalsburg, Maryland city council passed an ordinance placing confinement restrictions on rottweilers, dobermans, pit-bulls, and imposed strict liability insurance on owners (The American Kennel Club, 2001 a).
In the past decade various animal interest groups have played a major role in reversing breed specific laws within the United States. The AKC, the most prominent of these interest groups, maintains a Canine Legislation Department which assists any individual or grass roots efforts interested in fighting against unreasonable dog control laws. The department maintains a government relations consultant in Washington
D.C. and observes and advises state and local legislators on proposals related to canines. It also supplies free information packets and sample letters to anybody sharing the cause.
In the AKC's online news archive, there are many recent reports on the reversal of BSL in various states as a result of local dog owners' collective endeavors.
According to an October 4th, 1999 news report, Hattie Gasser, a rottweiler owner, led a successful campaign to reverse the Federalsburg ordinance mentioned above (The
American Kennel Club, 2001 a). On May 5, 2000, the Florida Legislature rejected
10 two bills that would have added breed-specific clauses into Florida's existing canine control. According to the AKC President and CEO Al Cheaure, this law was already deemed effective and enforceable, (The American Kennel Club, 2001 b). In San
Diego, California the Del Sur Kennel Club worked in conjunction with the AKC to defeat a restrictive proposal set forth by the Department of Animal Control (DAC) in
December 1999. In May of 2000, the two groups persuaded the DAC to approve Pet
Project 2000 (The American Kennel Club, 2001 c). Finally, in Crawford County,
Michigan, the Michigan Association for Purebred Dogs defeated a countywide proposal to specifically control pit-bulls with the help of the AKC Canine Legislation
Department (Ortel, 2000).
2.2. Published Studies.
Since the 1970's, researchers have been striving to find a correlation between various characteristics of dogs and victim behavior. This research has to some extent been the basis for policy decisions concerning dog attacks and has attempted to dispel the myths surrounding highly publicized cases.
Many researchers, contrary to legislation passed in the early 1980's, have concluded that lowering the number of dog attacks involves many factors. Seven studies are reviewed here. The first involves research on animal bite incidents conducted by Hanna and Selby (1981) at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, and Whiteman
Air Force Base, Montana. They focused their studies at the bases because the strict reporting and thorough investigations of bite incidents. Another by Lauer E.A., White and Lauer B.A. (1982), looks into occurrences of dog bites in a Denver pediatric group consisting of four pediatricians and a child heath associate. These individuals obtained their data through phone interviews as well as questionnaires. Yet another, by Wright (1985), takes a case-study approach in analyzing the dog bite problem.
Wright analyzes 16 dog bite cases considered very severe, those in which the dog
11 continuously bit and shook the victim. A Navajo Reservation study by Daniels (1986) looks at a closed population similar to that of the two Air Force Bases. One by Avner and Baker in 1989 examines incidences of canine attacks in urban children. Which
Dogs Bite, A Case-Control Study of Risk Factors by Gershman, Sacks, and Wright
(1984) reports results from a case-control study at Denver Animal Control. Morton
(1973) studied Health Department data on dog bites in Norfolk, Virginia. A study of
DBRF from 1995-1996 is also reviewed. Next to last, is an article entitled
Epidemiologic and Clinical Aspects of Animal Bite Injuries by Kizer (1979). Finally, an analysis of DBRF between 1979 and 1998 by Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, and
Lockwood (2000) is analyzed. All the studies dissected, ultimately reach similar conclusions, although they differ in respect to data.
In their research, Avner and Baker (1991), delve into the idea that injury rates cannot be attributed to a certain type of dog due to insufficient population data. Such an injury ratio has commonly been calculated as the number of dog attacks or DBRF attributed to a breed of dog divided by the total number of dogs in that breed.
Furthermore in order to achieve ratios that are not biased, breed attack data must be complete and breed population data must be accurate. Sacks et. al. (2000) argue there is a lack of such information. They suggest registration and licensing records as the two main sources of information on breed population densities. Both of theses methods severely undercount breed population, as owners of certain breeds are prone to avoiding registration and licensing. Sacks et. al. further indicate such calculations are potentially misleading as they omit variables such as animal treatment. Finally,
Avner and Baker offer a connection between publicity directed at pit-bulls and possible misidentification of this breed as the perpetrator of attacks, resulting in over inflation of attack incidents.
Although such limitations exist, researchers strive for quantitative analysis.
Hanna and Selby (1981) in their study conducted between January 1976 and
12 December 1977 reviewed 529 cases. They find that dogs of mixed breed have the lowest bite rates, followed by poodles, schnauzers, dachshunds, Labrador retrievers, cocker spaniels, German shepherds and collies. Conversely, Daniels (1986) in his research from 1980 through 1983 on a Navajo reservation concluded that canines of mixed breed were responsible for 87.8% of attacks. On a similar note a Norfolk,
Virginia study in 1971 indicated mixed breeds inflicted 41.5% of bites while German
shepherds and poodles accounted for 25% and 4.4% respectively (Morton, 1973).
Gershman et. al. (1984) in their investigation find Akitas, chow chows, collies and
German shepherds far more common among biting dogs. Still others including Avner
and Baker (1991), cite pit-bulls as major contributors to unprovoked bites. Sacks et.
al. (2000) implicate over 25 breeds in DBRF, citing rottweilers and then pit-bulls as
the most frequently involved.
Other studies strive to link severity of injuries to breed. Hanna and Selby
(1981) identify sporting breeds and working dogs as responsible for more severe
injuries. In comparing the severity of bites in non-sporting and working/sporting
dogs, they find 3.2%, and 14.5% of all bites as moderate, respectively. The study by
Wright (1985), analyzes 16 severe cases of 5711 dog bites between 1979-1982. This
group included Staffordshire bull terriers on five occurrences, St. Bernards on three, a
German shepherd-St. Bernard mixed breed on one, cocker spaniels on two, and one
by a cocker spaniel-poodle mixed breed. A bulldog, a rottweiler, an Irish setter, and a
Siberian husky were involved in one severe attack each.
Another characteristic often associated with dog attacks is gender. Gershman
et. al. (1994) find female dogs less likely to bite than males dogs by a factor of 6.2.
Similarly Daniels (1986) concludes male dogs are responsible for 73% of attacks.
Morton (1973), in his research finds a negligible difference between the number of
male and female attacks.
13 Neutering, or spaying is seen as a way of potentially limiting dog attacks.
Data collected by Gershman et. al. (1994) finds unneutered dogs more likely to bite
than neutered dogs by a factor of 2.6. Some theorize that the spaying of female dogs
may lessen the chances of biting. Contrary to this Gershman et. al. find according to
their study that there is not a significant difference in bite occurrences between intact
female dogs and spayed dogs.
Yet another factor associated with dog bites considered in some studies is dog
age. Daniels (1986) finds the majority of dog bites to be committed by dogs of age 1-
5 years. The age ranges, less than one year, and greater than five years resulted in an
equal number of attacks. By the same token Gershman et. al. (1994) find dogs of age
less than five years more prone to biting. Hanna and Selby (1981) suggest dogs less
than four years old are responsible for 70% of attacks.
Victim age is cited by various researchers to be directly related to the
likelihood of involvement in a dog attack. Wright (1985) indicates that children under
eight years of age are more likely to be involved in a dog attack. The 1995-1996
DBRF study identifies 80% of DBRF victims to be under age 11 (C.D.C., 1997).
Dividing his study into different age ranges, Morton (1973) finds that 73% of attack
victims involve individuals less than age 20. Of this 73%, age 0-4 composed 18%, 5-
9 composed 30%, and 10-19 composed the remaining 25% of the cases. Forty-two
percent of cases Daniels (1986) cites involve adolescents of age ten years or less.
Morton and Kizer (1979), in their explorations, explain why children are the victims
of the majority of dog attacks. They mention that often children do not know the
appropriate methods for rearing a dog, abuse dogs and, in their playing, arouse dogs'
attention. They conclude that attraction of children to the animals culminates in
disproportionately high bite rates in children.
Various researchers have been unable to conclude if there is a substantial
difference in the number of male victims involved in incidents. Gershman et. al.
14 (1994) conclude in their work that 64.7%, or the overwhelming majority of victims are male. Morton (1973) similarly finds males to be at a greater risk, noting a number of reasons for this. These factors include more aggressive behavior in men than women and the greater probability of males having canines as pets. Contrary to these studies, Daniels (1986) suggests only 52.6% of victims are male.
Daniels explores possible causes of bite incidents. He brings to light the concepts of teasing and territoriality. He describes teasing in the following manner:
...the victim chased the dog, attempted to pick the dog up, tried to stop a dog fight, tried to interfere with mating attempts, fell on the dog, tried to pet or play with the dog (particularly an unfamiliar one), tried to free the dog from a trap, tried to extract potentially harmful objects such as chicken bones from the dogs mouth, or tried to move the dog after it had been hit by a car (1986, p. 51).
Furthermore he explains that in some instances, that although humans might try to aid animals and become the victims of attacks, these situations still must be viewed as forms of teasing because animals do not realize the true intentions of individuals.
Also in his research Daniels explores the meanings of territoriality. He states:
In this study, territoriality was inferred if the bite reports described any of the following incidents: the dog bit as the victim entered or left the owner's home or yard, the victim leaned over the owner's fence, the victim "walked by" a home in which the dog had access to the street, the dog chased children who were riding on bikes as they passed the owners home (there is functionally no difference to a dog between chasing a car or a bike, except for the possible outcome), a sheepdog was herding and an intruder approached the flock, a nursing female bit as her pups were handled or approached, a dog was approached while eating (1986, p. 51).
Daniels in his Navajo reservation study found territoriality and teasing to elucidate
94.1% of bite cases. Moreover unprovoked attacks occurred only 1.6 percent of the time. Some studies like those of Gershman et. al. (1994), due to limitations of available data do not take into account the circumstances involved with bitings.
15 Kizer's (1979) study seeks to develop statistics on victim and dog relationships. He finds that 30% of the occurrences involve the victims' pet or the families', 55% involved acquaintances' pets, and lastly 15% involved stray or wild animals.
Nearly all studies take into account factors such as anatomical location of bites and the geographical location in which they occur. Morton (1973) finds that the height of dogs is directly related to the anatomical location of the bites. A study of animal bite incidents by Hanna and Selby (1981) suggests serious wounds and facial bites are far more common among individuals up to age 18. Kizer (1979) in his research cites that children under the age of ten comprise 48% of bites to the face and
58% of all attacks involving young adolescents were either on the head or neck. He offers possible reasons for this, discussing the size of children relative to dogs. Often children are vulnerable to head and neck wounds due to the proximity of these unprotected body parts to a dog's mouth. Overall Morton finds similar results with respect to bite location. Seventy-one percent of bites were located on the extremities, and the head, face, or neck experienced 15%. On a similar note Daniels (1986) finds the majority of bites are to the legs, followed by the hands, and although 10.7% of all bites are to the head, face, or neck, these occur mostly in children.
The study by Gershman et. al. (1994) took into account information concerning the geographical location of attacks when such information was available.
They report that 50.5% occurred on the sidewalk, street, alley, or playground, 29.7% occurred on the animal owner's property, 13.9% occurred in the owner's house and
4% occurred on the property of the bite victim. The Kizer (1979) study indicates much higher rates of attack at owner's homes and relative's homes. The study of dog bites in urban children indicates the majority (55%) of the attacks involved restrained dogs. Containment referred to animals being on a leash (4%), inside a fence (10%), or in a house (41%) (Avner & Baker, 1991).
16 Nearly all researchers describe a plethora of factors involved in dog attacks, many of which are contradictory. Ultimately, many reach similar conclusions. They suggest no one factor is responsible for dog attacks, but rather an amalgamation of human and animal factors. The findings of Sacks et. al. perhaps best sum up the ways in which to solve the dog bite problem.
Public education strategies should include school-based and adult education programs addressing bite prevention and basic canine behavior, care, and management. Programs should strive to ensure that dogs receive proper socialization, exercise, and attention; that they are given adequate food, water, shelter, and veterinary care; that they are neutered if they are not maintained for legitimate and responsible breeding purposes; and that they are trained humanely and confined safely (2000, p.840).
They further say appropriate education can aid pet owners in selecting a pet based on their needs and experience. Also they identify the current inadequacy of dog bite reporting as well as dog population records. The solution to this problem lies in mandatory reporting of all dog bite incidents, registration and licensing (Sacks et. al.,
2000). Finally, they cite an increase in funding as pivotal in implementing these various steps.
2.3. Insurance.
Insurance in the United States is private and the policies regulating insurers vary from state to state. As a result uniform coverage does not exist. Those insurers which have policy holders in nearly all states are especially of interest to us. From these, we can draw a general sense of the nature of U.S. insurance. However, we also understand that not all insurers behave in the same ways. Therefore, we discuss three insurance companies. Allstate and State Farm are two large companies who have policy holders throughout the United States and Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance is a local New England insurer.
17 According to Insurance Information Institute, a clearing house for insurance information, a third of all homeowner's insurance claims are the result of dog bites.
This source further relates that dog bites cost insurers over a billion dollars a year
(Younker, 2001). Our research has shown that U.S. insurance companies have turned their backs to the risk that dangerous dogs pose to the public. This area of insurance has not been profitable for them and according to an interview between the Associated
Press and James Pappas, an agent for Quincy Mutual, lawsuits and settlements resulting from dog bites have been steadily increasingly. The article further relates an
incident in which a homeowner sought to adopt a German shepherd or husky. When
looking for insurance her agent, Peter Chetsas, informed her that Quincy Mutual Fire
Insurance banned 20 breeds including German shepherds, huskies, pit-bulls and
others. Chetsas also said that many insurers maintained lists of dogs they do not
insure (Associated Press, 1998). In our own interview, Peter Chetsas denied the
statements made to the Associated Press. He claimed that Quincy Mutual did not
maintain blacklists and, in fact, would insure all dogs provided they had no history of
dog bites. Another policy instituted by Quincy Mutual includes the one free bite rule.
This policy covers the first bite, however immediately excludes any further dog bite
claims (Chetsas, 2001).
Some states prohibit blacklists. They do not allow insurers to maintain a list
of dog breeds which they will not insure. Regardless, we found insurance companies
may keep informal blacklists. Allstate is one very large insurer which does not
maintain such lists. However, according to a spokesperson Raleigh Floyd, "...we have
breeds that we follow more closely than others, mostly because of a variety of trends
and statistics about dog bites" (Insure.com , 2001).
State Farm, the largest home insurer in the United States does not maintain
blacklists. A representative of State Farm, Dan Hattaway, stated that his company
treats claims strictly case by case. Agents ask potential policy holders specific
18 questions regarding any prior dog bite occurrences as well as circumstances surrounding such incidents. With this data they consider whether or not to insure a homeowner. Hattaway claims that they do not keep track of information from the application process. He also states, if individuals already insured claim a dog bite,
State Farm takes into account the circumstances of the incident. From this information they decide whether or not to continue their coverage (Insure.com , 2001).
Unlike most insurance companies State Farm has not ignored the problem completely.
As mentioned above they do not refuse insurance based on breed. They also started a prevention program by sending brochures to the public about proper behaviOr around dogs (Younker, 2001).
U.S. insurers find that covering dogs under homeowners insurance policies is extremely costly. State Farm pays out an average $73 million yearly and another insurance company in Louisiana averages approximately $3 million in dog bite claims
(Younker, 2001). With no regulation in the area of mandatory dog insurance and the financial cost of insuring biting dogs, they have minimized their risk by not insuring such dogs. This does not solve the problem of dog bites. Owners of such dogs do not face any consequences, such as higher rates, as a result of their dog's actions. This in turn provides no incentive for owners to take preventive measures against further attacks. It appears to us that owners of biting dogs, even if denied coverage will keep their pets.
2.4. Conclusion.
The early years of dog control policy in the U.S. were marred with BSL. In order to appease public hysteria law makers adopted rash policies, targeting specific dog breeds involved in highly publicized cases. However, numerous studies have shown BSL to be ineffective because dog attacks involve many variables other than breed. Various organizations such as the AKC, HSUS and state veterinary medical
19 associations have supported non-BSL for years, believing that it would move the focus of legislation to owner responsibility and therefore significantly lower the number of dog bites. Governmental authorities have been hesitant to take proactive measures such as requiring pet owners to have mandatory insurance for their animals, providing an effective dog control policy and training, initiating public and owner
educational measures, and imposing criminal liability on irresponsible owners. Many
insurers, afraid of the financial risk, have ignored the problem by refusing to insure
dogs once they have bitten: As a result, pet owners have not been given the incentive
or opportunity to become more responsible for their pet's actions. We believe that
policies which effectively influence owners to take preventative measures would
contribute considerably towards lowering the number of canine attacks.
20 Chapter 3. Methodology.
After our first meeting with our sponsor, Dr. Goetschel, it was clear that a comparative study of canine attacks between the U.S., Switzerland and Germany would be necessary to formulate policy recommendations. We decided that archival research and interviewing to be the most effective methods of data collection.
Archival data includes: Swiss and German newspaper reports and articles, journals
and books written by experts on legal, social, and political issues surrounding
dangerous dogs. In addition, we sought veterinarians and breeders who were
intimately involved with the Swiss dangerous dog movement for interviews.
3.1. Nature of Data.
Numerous archival data and secondary sources in regards to topics such as
"Gefahrliche Hunde" (dangerous dogs), "Kampfhunde" (fighting dogs) and
"Rassenverbot" (breed specific ban) were abundant in the form of newspaper reports,
magazine articles, journals, and books written by veterinarians, breeders and lawyers,
and studies published by various kennel clubs and foundations. The wealth and
availability of such information was largely due to the recent breed specific policy
development in Germany. Die Schweizerische Kynologische Gesellschaft (SKG, the
Swiss Kennel Club), Bundesamt fur Veterinarwesen (BVET, Swiss Federal Office of
Veterinarians), Arbeitsgruppe flir gefahrliche Hunde (AGGH, Working Party for
Dangerous Dogs), Stiftung fur das Tier im Recht (Foundation for the Animal in the
Law) and Stiftung fur das Wohl des Hundes (Foundation for the Well-being of the
Dog) are only a handful of organizations out of many which have publications, studies
and reports on developments and on possible solutions to the problem dangerous
dogs. The most prominent newspaper of Zurich, the Neue Ziircher Zeitung (NZZ),
seems to have closely followed tte dangerous dog issues in Switzerland.
21 Furthermore, we discovered that summaries of conferences and hearings on dangerous dogs or fighting dogs were available upon request.
Because of his work in the field of animal protection laws and deep involvement with two foundations, the Foundation for the Animal in the Law and the
Foundation for the Well-being of the Dog, our sponsor knew a number of experts whose opinion would be relevant to our project. These people became our potential interview subjects. Names and descriptions of their professional activities are as follows: Dr. Susanne Arnold, a founding member of the Foundation for the well-being of the Dog and veterinarian at the Klinik ftir Kleintierfortpflanzung, Tierspital Zurich
(Small animal clinic, Zurich Animal Hospital); Dr. Marlene Milner, a veterinarian, breeder, and executive director of the Foundation for the well-being of the Dog used to be affiliated with the SKG; Dr. Heinrich Binder of Veterinaramt Zurich (Zurich
Veterinarian Office), also a committee member of the Foundation for the well-being
of Dogs; Harry Meister, a breeder of the Swiss Rottweiler Club (SRC); Ursula
Horisberger, a veterinarian writing a thesis on receiving medical treatments for dog- bites in Swiss hospitals.
3.2. Data Collection and Organization.
Dr. Goetschel supplied us with all of the Swiss and German archival data. It
took quite some time to organize them since all materials had to be translated. By
reading the newspaper articles and reports, we were able to better understand the
political developments in Switzerland. Studies and policy recommendations made by
various Swiss animal interest groups were summarized for comparative analysis with
those of the U.S. and German counterparts. Lastly, we examined several Swiss laws
and ordinances related to animal welfare and dog ownership.
Once we obtained the addresses of possible interviewees from Dr. Goetschel,
we initiated the contact by introducing our project and ourselves and expressing our
22 interest in interviewing them. We consulted Chapter 4 of Berg (2001) for guidance on developing questions for a semistandardized interview. Every interviewee was asked similar "throw-away" (2001, p. 75) questions to give us background information.
Following these, essential questions as appropriate to the professional activities of the subject were discussed. Probing questions were used whenever elaboration was needed. Some of the essential questions were asked to multiple interviewees as extra questions, to maintain the objectivity of our research. These were questions regarding
owner, governmental, insurer, veterinarian/breeder/trainer responsibility. With
information from these interviews as well as some of the translated documents we
were able to develop policy recommendations to reduce the threat some dogs pose to
the public and at the same time treat these animals humanely.
3.2.1. Pet Owner Responsibility.
Providing appropriate training and care for their dogs is perhaps the most
important responsibility of pet owners. Through our interviews with Ms. Horisberger,
Dr. Zahner, Mr. Meister, and Dr. Arnold we wished to find out whether individuals
were capable of training the dogs themselves, or such responsibility should be left
only to professionals. We needed to assess what education options exist for pet
owners and the feasibility of implementing education programs. Pet owner
responsibility involves many factors including following laws on licensing,
registration, leashing, and muzzling.
Licensing and registration allow the compilation of accurate data including the
number of dogs, breed specific information, and vaccination records. Owner
identification will lead to owners being readily held liable for biting dogs, which may
provide an incentive for owners to better train or care for their dogs. Precise breed
and dog counts allow the calculation of dog specific bite ratios. Such ratios can be
used in determining what breeds, if any, pose a higher risk of biting. Also of interest
23 is the feasibility and usefulness of traditional animal registration and licensing methods, as well as modern identification through electronic chipping.
Leashing and muzzling are basic dog control techniques. Often times such
control measures are needed in high traffic public areas such as busy city streets,
playgrounds, and parks. By interviewing Dr. Arnold, Dr. Zahner, and Ms.
Horisberger we wished to ascertain if other control methods might be more
appropriate and effective.
3.2.2. Governmental Responsibility.
Governmental bodies have a major responsibility in minimizing the threat of
dogs to the public. Essentially they possess power to impose effective policy and law.
This includes, but is not limited to, requiring pet owners to license and register their
animals, restricting animals in certain situations, and requiring pet owners to purchase
insurance. Legal research showed us what policies and laws were in place. Dr.
Binder provided us with much information on the Swiss political system and the
feasibility of implementing legislation on the federal and cantonal level.
3.2.3. Insurer Responsibility.
By investigating insurance coverage we sought to uncover areas in which
Swiss policy recommendations can be made. Of interest to us was a law similar to
that requiring all vehicle owners to carry liability insurance. Much like auto
insurance, this would provide incentive for pet owners to ensure their dogs would not
bite. (i.e., sending their animals to obedience schools, erecting fences, eliminating
dangerous animals and in the future choosing more appropriate pets). Individuals
with no history of owning biting pets could also be rewarded with lower rates. Such a
proposition should be acceptable to all sides. Insurers would profit with these types of
laws and pet owners would no longer have to fear unjust animal legislation as the
24 result of a few highly publicized incidents. Such a plan would have further reaching effects as insurers could collect very accurate dog bite information. Our most important asset in the pursuit of information in this field was Ms. Horisberger. She began a thesis in the area of insurance but had difficulty receiving information from insurance companies.
3.2.4. Veterinarian, Breeder, and Trainer Responsibility.
Veterinarians, breeders, and trainers play a role in decreasing the threat of dogs to society. There are various ways in which these individuals can help including, implementing selective breeding techniques, ethology, and early training of animals. One aspect very interesting to our research was the possibility of achieving docile breeds while maintaining pure breed characteristics. Ms. Horisberger, Dr.
Arnold, Dr. Zahner and Mr. Meister are very resourceful in this area. The study of animal behavior can readily be put to use in identifying potentially dangerous dogs.
This information could be implemented in a wide-spread training program. We asked
Dr. Arnold and Dr. Zahner a number of questions regarding the effectiveness of ethology.
3.3. Conclusion.
The information gathered through archival research and questions answered by interviews laid the basis for a comparative analysis between the dog bite phenomena of the U.S., Switzerland, and Germany. This research became the ultimate foundation
for our policy recommendations.
25 Chapter 4. Results.
4.1. Archival Data and Swiss Secondary Sources.
In order to gain a better understanding of political and legal developments of the dangerous dogs situation in Switzerland, we examined newspaper articles, various publications and studies on the topic. Much of Swiss debate over dog control issues appears to be closely linked with events in Germany. Because of this, our archival research focuses first on developments in Germany, and then those in Switzerland.
From this we were able to organize different events into groups of topics which illustrate and summarize the political environment for dangerous dog policy in
Switzerland. Ultimately we used this as a basis for comparative analysis with
situations in the U.S., Switzerland and Germany.
4.1.1. Developments in Germany
In Hamburg, an American pit-bull terrier, Zeus, and an American Staffordshire
terrier, Gypsy, killed six year-old Volkan Kaja. The young boy was playing soccer in
his school playground on June 26 th, 2000 when the two dogs jumped over a 5 foot
wall and attacked Volkan in front of his friends. Ibrahim K., the owner of the dogs,
tried to separate the dogs from the child unsuccessfully. When police officers arrived
they shot the dogs dead (Mays, 2001). Shortly after it was revealed that 23 year-old
owner of the dogs had been previously investigated by the police 18 times on counts
of possession of drugs and weapons, theft and dog-fighting. His pit-bull terrier, Zeus,
was known as one of the top fighting dogs in the underground world of dog-fighting
and had been providing Ibrahim K. with a steady flow of income as well as a
notorious reputation. Prior to this incident, Zeus, had committed at least three non-
fatal attacks on humans and, as a result, was under a control order by the police to be
leashed and muzzled at all times. On the day of the attack, Ibrahim had not muzzled
either dog when he took them out for a walk (Mays, 2001; Simpson, 2000). Later in
26 December 2000, he was found guilty of negligence and sentenced to three and a half years in prison (Mays, 2001).
Two days after the death of Volkan Kaja, German Chancellor Gerhard
Schroder announced his plan to implement a country-wide ban on all "Karnpfhunde"
(fighting dogs). Sixteen Bundeslander or German states individually began drafting
more detailed BSL. Persistent media attention and public hysteria pressured each
state to establish some of the harshest breed specific dog control laws in the world
(Simpson, 2000). Of the 16 German states, the state of Hessen's BSL served as a
model to other states. First introduced on July 5 th, 2000 and later revised in August
15th of the same year, Hessen's BSL only allows owners who meet certain restrictive
conditions to keep no more than a single dog on their list. According to conditions
imposed by § 14 of the ordinance, this person must be 18 years old, physically
capable, intellectually knowledgeable of safe handling techniques, and be able to
demonstrate a " besonderes Interesse " (legitimate reason) for owning the animal. He
or she must also purchase liability insurance and micro-chip the dog (§14, (1), 1-10.,
2000). The state of Hessen divides dangerous dogs into three categories. The first
category includes three breeds of "Kampfhunde," the American pit-bull terrier,
American Staffordshire terrier and Staffordshire bull terrier. These dogs are
"unwiderleglich vermutet" (irrefutably supposed) to be dangerous (§2, (1), 1. a-c,
2000). Owners of these dogs must immediately sterilize their dogs (§10, 2000). The
second group of dogs includes the American bulldog, bull mastiff, bull terrier, Dogue
de Bordeaux, Dogo Argentiono, Fila Brasileiro, Kangal, Kaukasian Owtscharka,
mastiff, Mastin Espanol, Mastino Napoletano and Tosa Inu. Owners of these breeds
must prove to authorities that their dogs are not dangerous by a "Wesenspriifung"
(aggression test). This test can cost upwards of 1000 DM (§2, (1), 2. a-i. & §14, (2),
2000). The August 15 revision does not require neutering or spaying of dogs that
have successfully completed the test. Owners are nevertheless subject to strict
27 regulations including mandatory leashing outdoors, securing the dogs in a locked pen indoors, and posting a warning sign visible to the public (§6 & 7, 2000). The local authorities reserve the right to euthanize any dog they perceive to pose a risk to other animals or people (§11, (2), 2000). Any dog that kills or severely injures a human being can be euthanized. Finally, the third group of dogs is defined as any dog that has bitten or shown aggression in the past (§2, (2), 1-4., 2000).
The city of Hamburg (Appendix A, p. 95) has BSL similar to that of Hessen.
Their legislation again has three categories of "Kampfhunde" and outlines in detail conditions under which a permit for one of these animals may be given. These
conditions are quite stringent and include owners' proven expertise in keeping such a
dog, owner's trustworthiness, liability insurance, chipping, and sterilization (§2 & §3,
2000). In addition, once a permit is granted, the owner must carry it at all times, have
the animal leashed and muzzled at all times in public, and provide a visible warning
sign on his or her property, and cannot increase its aggression through training (§4 &
5).
Lastly, the BSL of Nordrhine-Westfalen (NRW) maintains four categories and
the largest number of breeds. Category one is composed of 13 breeds, category two
consists of 29 breeds, category three is defined as any dog deemed dangerous by its
previous behavior, and category four dogs consists of all dogs over 40 cm in height or
20 kg in weight (§1 & 2, 2000). The language requiring a permit to own these dogs is
very similar to that of Hessen and Hamburg (§3 & 5, 2000). Dogs belonging to any
category are subject to restrictions similar to those mentioned above, specifically in
regards to leashing, chipping, and insurance (§4 & 6, 2000).
Not only are many dogs discriminated against in Germany, but also public fear
and anger towards these dogs have been directed (or perhaps misdirected) to their
owners. There are disturbingly high numbers of reports about innocent owners of
some of these animals harassed, beaten and ridiculed in public. In an interview with
28 the German magazine Focus, Karl-Heinz Augsten, an owner of bull terriers and
Staffordshire terriers, recounted stories of people throwing objects onto his property to hurt his dogs and receiving anonymous threatening letters (Wichert, 2000).
Simpson (2000) also cites an instance on a Berlin street when a crowd killed a bull terrier by setting it on fire with petrol while the owner was severely beaten. In another, at a service station along an Autobahn, four men damaged an Austrian woman's car and clubbed her unconscious apparently because of bull terrier stickers on her car.
Ignoring their own people and thousands of complaints from all over the world, the German government relentlessly tried to extend breed bans to the European
Union. However, at the meeting of the European Parliament's Justice and Home
Affairs Council on September 28th, 2000 this effort was thwarted (Mays, 2000). This defeat has not slowed down the German government's pursuit of BSL. On February
16, 2001, the Bundesrat (upper house of parliament) passed the import and breed ban on pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers and bull terriers (Mays, 2001).
The current developments in Germany are comparable to the anti-pit-bull hysteria of the 1980's in the United States. Owners of these dogs have been voicing their disapproval and discontent over the new BSL in various ways. Opponents of
BSL have been regularly staging peaceful demonstrations all over Germany. For example, on July 22, 2000, more than 10,000 people joined the protest in the city of
Diisseldorf, which belongs to the state of NRW (Dusseldorf Today, 2000). Similar demonstrations have occurred in cities of Dortmund, Munster and Gelsenkirchen
(Steffen, 2000). The German dog owners' fight quickly found allies in all parts of
Europe as well as the U.S. In the U.K., Joanna Mason of Staffordshire bull terrier
Rescue East & West Sussex single handedly gathered 11,500 signatures for a petition opposing German BSL (Mays, 2000). Because the AKC has been intimately involved
29 with the BSL for a number of years, it is currently working together with the German
Kennel Club (Verbands fur das Deustche Hundwesen, VDH) to develop an effective counter-strategy.
4.1.2. Developments in Switzerland Prior to the German Incident.
Before Kampfhunde became a topic of discussion in Germany in the summer
of 2000, organizations had already been established in Switzerland to deal with the
dog control problem. These organizations were entirely the result of private efforts.
On May 14, 1999, the Foundation for the Well-being of the Dog (Stiftung fur
das Wohl des Hundes) was established in Zurich. Founding members included Dr.
Antoine Goetschel, Dr. Susanne Arnold and Dr. Heinrich Binder. These individuals
are now members of a committee overseeing the actions of the organization. Dr.
Marlene Zahner is the current director. The foundation recognizes the usefulness of
dogs to society and aims to free them of hereditary disease and aggressive traits that
have come about as the result of many years of inbreeding.
The foundation strives to prevent dog bite incidents from occurring through
selective-breeding and standardization of breeder and owner education. The
Certodog® program was set up in July of 1999 to meet these objectives. Certodog®
is a registered trademark in the U.S and throughout Europe, and is awarded by the
foundation only to responsible and conscientious dog breeders who maintain high
breeding standards. There are currently 35 Certodog breeders in Switzerland. The
foundation wishes to develop this trademark into a proof of quality which potential
dog buyers will recognize and appreciate. At the same time, they believe that
breeders will view Certodog® as a way to distinguish themselves as more
professional than non-Certodog® members. In order to ensure the excellence of their
Certodog® breeders, the foundation monitors breeding activities to a certain degree
and has identified a set of standards that are essential for producing good quality dogs.
30 Certodog® breeders are obliged to provide care, exercise and socialization for puppies, and build breeding facilities that satisfy the foundation's requirements.
Specifically, article 5.2 of the guideline, Richtlinie fur Zuchtsteitten, specifies conditions for a proper lodging facility which should be: a) dry, b) protected from draft, c) sufficiently isolated from the ground, d) accessible, e) easy to clean, f) and have enough daylight and fresh air. Furthermore, it is the duty of a Certodog® breeder to supply a buyer with weeks of feed for a puppy, a feeding dish, neckband,
leash and owner education material on how to properly raise the dog. A Certodog® breeder has an obligation to buy back a dog from irresponsible or problematic owners.
This is also true in the case the dog and owner become incompatible with each other
(Stiftung fur das Wohl des Hundes, 1999 b).
Towards the end of 1999, the Swiss Veterinary Association for Behavioral
Medicine (Schweizerische Tierartzliche Vereinigung fair Verhaltensmedizin, STVV)
formed the Working Party on Dangerous Dogs (Arbeitsgruppe Geflihrliche Hunde,
AGGH). Experts from the following organizations became members of AGGH:
STVV; Swiss Association for Small-animal Medicine (Schweizerischen Vereinigung
fur Kleintiermedizin, SVK); the Foundation for the Well-being of the Dog, Society of
Swiss Veterinarians (Gesellschaft Schweizer Tierartze, GST); the Swiss Kennel Club
(der Schweizerischen Kynologischen Gesellschaft, SKG); the Association of Swiss
Cantonal Veterinarians (der Vereinigung der Schweizerischen Kantonstierarztinnen
und —tierartze, VSKT), Swiss Animal Protection (Schwiezer Tierschutz, STS) and the
faculty of veterinary medicine the University of Bern. The AGGH was the first
private coalition specifically founded to research the topic of dangerous dogs.
4.1.3. Hearing on the topic of Kampfhunde.
The Hamburg, Germany incident prompted widespread discussion and
stimulated public interest. Kampfhunde quickly became a controversial topic even in
31 Switzerland. According to a report published by BVET (2000), the Swiss Federal
Veterinary Office (Bundesamt fur Veterinarwesen, BVET) had been under pressure by the public and media to develop public security measures against dangerous dogs.
The report further mentioned that in taking such actions BVET would be stepping outside its jurisdiction. Traditionally, public security has been and still is the responsibility of the cantons. The report suggests that it would be more logical for either the Federal Police Office (Bundesamt fiir Polizei) or Federal Justice Office
(Bundesamt fair Justiz) to handle the situation on the federal level. Nevertheless,
BVET and AGGH took this opportunity to be proactive and on August 31, 2000, invited Swiss dog experts and the public to a hearing on Kampfhunde. The purpose
of the hearing was to create a basis for further political discussion on this topic.
Based on feasible approaches suggested at the hearing, BVET was able to construct
an "action plan" (BVET, 2000, p. 3).
The action plan was a collection of different ideas, which could be
implemented to reduce the threat posed by dangerous dog's to the public. None of the
ideas in the plan included breed-specific approaches, reasoning that aggression is not
primarily related to breed. At the same time, it explains any dog can be trained to
behave viciously by owners with malicious intent. Underlying ideas adopted in the
plan include mandatory dog-bite incident reporting and prevention through education.
Another concept introduced was to establish a telephone hotline the public could call
to gain more information about the dog control situation. This hotline (dialing within
Switzerland: 031 322 2299) has been in operation since November of 2000. Yet
another idea was to make marking and registration of dogs mandatory. According to
BVET, there is already a legal basis for marking and registration in the Animal
Epidemic Law (Tierseuchengesetz).
The veterinary office is financially supporting research by AGGH to collect
and evaluate bite-statistics on the national level. BVET is also involved with the
32 Working Party on Legislation (Arbeitsgruppe Gesetzgebung betr. Gefdhrliche Hunde) formed in November, 2000, to draw up a model ordinance for cantons (BVET, 2000).
4.1.4. Efforts to Make Stricter Dog Control Regulations.
There have been efforts to make stricter dog control regulations in different
parts of Switzerland. An article that appeared in the July 27, 2000 issue of the NZZ,
reported on a failed initiative to add more restrictive measures to Zurich's existing
dog control ordinance. The initiative came after an incident in February of 2000 in
which a four-year old girl was severely injured by an un-leashed rottweiler in the
town of Tann. Councilman Stefan Dollenmeier proposed the following amendments:
mandatory leashing and banning of "grosse Hunde" (big dogs) in "Blockwohnung"
(block-apartments), an "Eignungsabkldrung" (aptitude test) and mandatory
"Fachausbildung" (professional training) for owners of such dogs. However, the
government council turned down Dollenmeier's amendments because it felt existing
measures were sufficient. It was the council's opinion that such measures would be
unfair to most responsible owners while not effectively controlling the small number
of reckless dog owners. Furthermore, the council understood that dogs that are well
socialized and freely run around are the least likely to display aggressive behavior.
They were also aware that the aggression in dogs is related to neither certain breeds
nor size (Neuenschwander, 2000).
At least one canton has adopted BSL that is similar to those in the German
states. On November 15 th, 2000, council members of the canton of Basel made a
decision to revise their dog control ordinance. Other cantons had been awaiting
Basel's decision with great interest, because it was the first canton in Switzerland to
vote for a legal revision in regards to the matter of Kampfhunde. As a result, Basel
citizens who wish to own "potenziell gefahrlicher Hunde" (potentially dangerous
dogs) must meet stringent requirements. He or she must be at least 20 years of age,
33 possess good knowledge of dogs and not have a police record on violent behavior or
"FOrderung der Prostitution" (promotion of prostitution). In addition, chipping was to be introduced for these dogs to trace their origin (Straub, 2000).
On January 25, 2001, the canton of Basel finalized the revision of its new dog control ordinance by adding the following eight breeds to the "potentially dangerous dogs" list: bullterrier, American Staffordshire terrier, pitbull terrier, Staffordshire bullterrier, rottweiler, Doberman, Fila Brasileiro and Dogo Argentino. These dogs were added to the list based on the previous year's statistics. Even though these eight breeds made up only 3.5 % of the total dog population of the city of Basel, they
accounted for 41% of dog bite incidents. People wanting to purchase any dog on this
list must take puppy-training courses, have a liability insurance of at least three
million Swiss francs (1.76 million U.S. dollars), pass the test administered by the
veterinary office, and be able to justify his or her desire to have the dog. The
"Bewilligungsgebiihr" (allowance fee) is 250 francs (147 dollars) per dog and this
does not include the cost of chipping, which is mandatory for all "potentially
dangerous dogs." The list also is subject to periodic updates (Straub, 2001).
4.1.5. Alternative Ideas, Opinions, Recommendations to BSL.
In addition to the action plan resulting from the BVET / AGGH hearing, we
studied another set of ideas, opinions and recommendations on dangerous dogs that
were non-breed-specific. Ms. Horisberger, one of our interviewees, prepared the
following report.
Horisberger (2001) found that in Switzerland, 80 % of bites happen within
"privaten Bereich" (private circles), such as families and neighbors who know the
dog. Furthermore that 60 % of those victims are children. Dog bites result from a
combination of various factors. Large and menacing looking dogs are the favorite
weapon of choice among criminals in Europe, where hand-gun regulations are much
34 stricter than in the U.S. These dogs are raised and trained to bring out their aggressive traits. Besides criminal cases, dog bites in public and families are the result of owner negligence, insufficient training of owners and dogs, incorrect up-bringing of dogs and a general lack of knowledge on how to behave around dogs. Regardless of these findings, exaggerated media reports have focused on some highly publicized criminal cases and thereby misled the public to believe that all big, powerful looking dogs in public are potentially dangerous dogs.
The AGGH proposes to fight against public hysteria and minimize the number of dog bite incidents through preventative measures and legal restrictions. Prevention through education is the key because the majority of dog bites could be avoided if owners knew how to properly train, raise and handle dogs and victims knew how to react in certain situations. Horisberger (2001) lists the following eight measures that will limit the numbers of aggressive dogs:
• Education of breeders;
• Prohibition of aggression building breeding methods;
• Optimization of owner education and dog training;
• Education of children and the elderly on how to behave around dogs;
• Early identification of problematic dogs;
• Precise evaluation of dogs in shelters so they can be matched with suitable
owners;
• Promotion of interdisciplinary research and scientific work on the topic coupled
with further development of "Wesenstesten" (temperament tests);
• The development of a network of qualified experts.
Some of these proposals are already being pursued by the Foundation for the Well-
being of the Dog (Certodog®), SKG (Das Goldene Glitezeichen, children's
educational booklet "keine Angst vor 'm grossen Hund" developed with Institut ftir
interdisziplinare Erforschung der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung, IEMT), STS (education
35 brochures for prospective dog owners on responsible pet ownership), and STVV
(training of veterinarians).
As for legal restrictions, the AGGH is in favor of revising the TShG. On the
cantonal level, there are sufficient provisions that can be used against aggressive dogs
and their owners. According to Horisberger (2001), some of the essential elements
that must be included in cantonal laws are:
• Chipping of all dogs;
• Making provisions to confiscate dangerous dogs;
• Banning pet ownership by irresponsible owners who violate cantonal ordinance
(this will include criminals);
• Leashing, muzzling or both of dogs in high volume-traffic areas (parks, near
schools, public transportation, restaurants).
She further recommends the following: reports of dog bite related injuries by doctors;
a flowchart instructing doctors how to treat and what to do for dog-bite victims; and
mandatory liability insurance for all dog owners.
4.1.6. Legal Developments and Background.
On September 5, 2000, the Federal Justice Office published its opinion on
possible legal measures on the federal level that can be useful in dealing with
dangerous dog problems (Trosch, 2000). We concentrated on the following four of
these legal measures. The first is the Federal Constitution, Article 118, Protection of
Health (Schutz der Gesundheit). It has been argued that dogs can be construed as one
of the "Organismen" (organisms) which endanger public health (Trosch, 2000). The
Civil and Criminal Law (Zivil- and Strafrecht) is another. It provides a legal basis for
irresponsible dog owners to be punished unless it can be proven that he or she took
every foreseeable precaution to prevent the incident from happening. Since a dog
may be valid as a "Tatwerkzeug" (tool in crime), in some cases owners may be
36 criminally liable as well (Tr6sch, 2000). The third is the Animal Epidemic Law
(Tierseuchengesetz). In November of 2000, the Federal Council authorized BVET to change the Animal Epidemic Ordinance so that it would be possible to introduce mandatory chipping (Horisberger, 2001). Lastly is the Swiss Federal Act on Animal
Protection (TSchG). It is the opinion of the justice office that revising the Federal Act on Animal Protection to protect animals from breeding methods that induce pain, suffering, physical injury and fear would be desirable (Trosch, 2000).
The TSchG provides several provisions that can be used against irresponsible, negligent or abusive dog owners, whose dogs as a result become more likely to bite.
Article 2 of the Act states "No one shall unjustifiably expose animals to pain, suffering, physical injury or fear" (TSchG, Section 1, Art. 2, para. 3, 1995). In addition, it is also forbidden "to organize fights between or with animals, in the course
of which the latter are maltreated or killed" (TSchG, Section 8, Art. 22-c, 1995) and
"to use live animals to train dogs or test their aggressiveness, except when dogs are
being trained or tested in an artificial burrow, under the conditions prescribed by the
Federal Council" (TSchG, Section 8, Art. 22-h, 1995). The above clauses can be
useful against criminals who participate in and train their dogs for the illegal sport of
dog-fighting. Article 24, Prohibition to Keep Animals, can be extended to such
owners "who have been punished for repeatedly or gravely infringing the provisions
of the present Act, enforcement orders or specific decisions taken by authorities"
(TSchG, Section 10, Art. 24-a, 1995). A person who intentionally violates Section 8,
Article 22-c on animal fighting, "shall be liable to imprisonment or fine" (TSchG,
Section 11, Art. 27-d, 1995) and "if the guilty party has acted through negligence, he
shall be liable to arrest or a maximum of fine of 20,000 Swiss Francs" (TSchG,
Section 11, Art. 27, para. 2, 1995). Lastly, according to article 32, paragraph 1,
"prosecution and passing of judgment on offenders shall be the responsibility of the
cantons."
37 From studying the Law on Keeping of Dogs of the canton of Zurich, we learned that cantons further delegate enforcement duties to municipal officials (I. § 1,
1971). The Zurich law prohibits intentionally provoking or setting dogs on humans and other dogs (II. §7, 1971). Furthermore, owners should keep their dogs in a way not to cause "Belastigung" (disturbance) to other people (II. §8, 1971). Dogs are banned from entering cemeteries, swimming pools, playgrounds in schools and sports fields (II. §9, 1971), and dogs must be on a leash (and muzzled if the dog is sick or prone to bite) in restaurants, market places, parking lots and high traffic areas (II. § 10,
1971). Finally, the law allows for humane destruction of dangerous dogs when necessary (II. §6, 1971).
4.2. Interview Data.
In our research we formally interviewed five individuals including Dr.
Susanne Arnold, Ms. Ursula Horisberger, Dr. Marlene Zahner, Dr. Heinrich Binder,
and Mr. Harry Meister. On a regular basis we discussed various issues with our
project sponsor, Dr. Antoine Goetschel. We understood all these individuals to have
very important opinions in our research. We used these sources to clarify various
areas of historical developments in Switzerland, and also discussed the current state of
dog control policy, and what needs to be done to solve the dog bite problem. More
specifically we asked individuals about topics such as pet owners, breeders and
veterinarians, government and insurers. We were interested in finding out what Swiss
owners, breeders and veterinarians are, are not, and should be doing to lower the
chances of dog attacks.
4.2.1. Owners, Breeders and Veterinarians.
Dr. Arnold, Ms. Horisberger, Dr. Zahner and Mr. Meister agree that the
problem lies in people and not the animal. Mr. Meister, a breeder of rottweilers,
38 mentioned that in his 16 years of experience 95% of the problems he had with animals were the fault of the owners. All our interviewees think there is a lack education and training among pet owners and breeders. Mr. Meister could not stress education of these individuals enough. Dr. Arnold first introduced us to the concept that the most crucial time for training is the first four months of the dogs' life. When we asked other interviewee's opinions about the most crucial time to raise dogs, all agreed that four months was reasonably accurate. Many of our interviewees also mentioned that puppies need to be exposed to all sights and sounds that they may come into contact in the future (i.e., automobiles, people of all ages and races, other animals). However, not all owners are capable of training their dogs. Mr. Meister mentioned that not everyone was capable of handling a powerful breed such as rottweiler. According to
Dr. Arnold, there are some breeds that are harder to train than others. She explained that a Jack Russel terrier was an excellent example of such a dog. A very small breed of dog, they are seen by many as cute, but are very active, aggressive dogs which require much expertise to raise. Although a dog may be trained in the first five to eight weeks of life by a professional, training must be continued by owners. If training is not continued with the dog, much like a child, it will test the limits of what it can do.
Ms. Horisberger and Dr. Zahner both mentioned that any dog could be trained to be aggressive. Dr. Zahner, referring to some strains of pit-bulls, said training may not guarantee good behavior in the animal as they have been bred on the basis of
aggressive characteristics for a long period of time. She commented that often times
these breeders have to separate puppies from the mother at a very early age because
she does not recognize them as her own and feels threatened. Even amongst
themselves, puppies will begin to fight, and ultimately destroy each other. She
explained that at some point, these strains of pit bulls lost the ability to recognize
fellow dogs. For example, in the case of an attack they do not recognize submissive
39 behavior from other dogs and continue to attack. This can even happen with children as they may identify them as prey rather than humans. She mentioned that this characteristic could remain dormant. An owner may believe that his/her dog has been trained well until an incident triggers behavior not previously known to exist. Dr.
Milner commented that these strains of pit-bulls are more dangerous to dogs than to people. Finally, she commented that these dogs suffer as a result of not being able to live amongst their own species.
Dogs also need a social structure. Mr. Meister stressed that dogs have a natural tendency to move up in the chain of command, only becoming comfortable when they have developed a social position within a pack (either a family, or a pack
of dogs). He and Dr. Zahner both mentioned insecurity about social status as the
cause of aggression. One instance when social status becomes an issue is when a
young child is introduced into a family with a pet. The animal may feel insecure
about its position, and attempt to "reprimand" a young child for violation of social
rules (an example of this could be a child nearing a dog's sleeping quarters or its
food) just as if the child was another dog. Unfortunately, humans are far more
delicate than puppies, and often severe injury can occur. Many pet owners are not
aware of such situations, and misunderstand a dog's actions.
Currently there is no certification or education standard needed to breed or
train dogs in Switzerland. Dr. Arnold believes schools are needed to teach behavior
characteristics to owners, breeders, trainers and to the public. Dr. Arnold, Ms.
Horisberger, and Dr. Zahner discussed the importance of being able to read dogs'
behavior well. They think that the majority of incidents could be prevented if people
knew when a dog was becoming frustrated or angry. A common opinion held by our
interviewees was that there are not enough competent professionals who could help
owners, trainers and breeders with their dogs. Another problem is that there is
currently a lack of standardization of education. Both Dr. Arnold and Ms.
40 Horisberger believe that all individuals should have the same basic knowledge, otherwise further misconceptions about raising dogs could arise.
Dr. Zahner, Ms. Horisberger, and Dr. Arnold said that some lines of dogs are becoming more aggressive. They were aware that many people perceive a golden retriever as a family dog. Dr. Arnold and Dr. Zanier commented that this is not always the case, as the potential for aggression is inherent in any breed. They further mentioned that people are becoming more aware of the dog bite problem and therefore it might seem as though some breeds of dogs are becoming more aggressive.
Dr. Arnold noted that she does not like to use the term aggression to characterize a dog's behavior. She prefers to say that some breeds need to be controlled more strictly by the owner.
Leashing and muzzling are control techniques that are used often. Dr. Arnold,
Ms. Horisberger and Dr. Zahner agreed that many pet owners believe these techniques are sufficient to control their animals. However, they think this is a false sense of security. When leashed, a dog feels more confident and protective of its owner.
Because of this, its actions are often misinterpreted as being aggressive. They also mentioned that when muzzled a dog can become angry and frustrated and as a result it may be more likely to be aggressive.
Neutering or spaying have been used to decrease the aggressiveness of a dog.
One of the goals of Dr. Arnold and Dr. Zahner is to eliminate hereditary diseases in
dogs. Neutering and spaying reduces potentially valuable members of gene pools and
because of this it presents a conflict of interest to them. Although they are not
opposed to neutering, they do not believe it would make a big difference in reducing
the number of dog bites. Dr. Arnold mentioned that neutering could be effective in
reducing aggression if done in adolescence. She further mentioned that spaying of
females is ineffective, and it results in more aggressive animals.
41 Dr. Arnold believes dog attacks are not a big problem right now in
Switzerland as only a few fatal cases have occurred. More specifically she mentioned public hysteria, in large part, is responsible for exaggerating this into a major issue.
Regardless, Dr. Arnold reasoned that the opportunity could be taken to make effective dog control policy. Ms. Horisberger explained that the highly publicized incident in
Hamburg, Germany put pressure on surrounding countries to take proactive measures without thoroughly researching the problem. She gave the Basel legislation as an example of this. Mentioned earlier, the existing laws were changed so that a list of dangerous breeds could be made. In order to own a breed on this list an owner is required to go through a series of tests and receive approval from a veterinarian. Dr.
Arnold, Ms. Horisberger, and Dr. Zahner agree this is not an effective direction for policy. Dr. Zahner and Dr. Binder mentioned that identification of a breed is entirely subjective because genetic identification is impossible. Furthermore if one wished, one could breed a dog not on the list with the same aggressive characteristics.
Our interviewees also discussed their opinions about how to address dog control policy most effectively. Ms. Horisberger said that she would like owners to be more liable for their dogs' actions. Both she and Mr. Meister mentioned that breeders should not sell dogs to everyone. Breeders need to recognize that some individuals are simply not competent to own a pet because of mental or physical
capability. They think that this needs to be done not only to ensure the safety of the public, but also the welfare of the animal. All of our interviewees agreed education
should be the main focus, and should target pet owners, breeders, veterinarians and
the public. Dr. Zahner expressed a concern for the feasibility of implementing
mandatory education and training programs for owners. She reasoned that the money
and time necessary to support such programs currently does not exist. Furthermore,
the quantity of individuals competent to teach in these areas does not exist.
42 All our interviewees spoke highly of Certodog®, recognizing it as a program heading in the right direction. In our interview with Certodog® director Dr. Zahner, she spoke further about how breeders can become certified with the trademark. She explained that Certodog® does not actively pursue breeders, instead it waits for breeders to contact them. If breeders express interest in the program, representatives of Certodog® tour a breeders' facilities, thoroughly checking all aspects of the breeding and raising environment. Then, Certodog® board members consider the breeder for acceptance. The board is composed of various professionals including lawyers, breeders and veterinarians. Both Dr. Zahner and Dr. Goetschel feel that this is crucial in order to obtain a variety of objective opinions. Only when board members unanimously agree that the breeder has met quality standards, do they accept him/her. Otherwise, they make suggestions as to what the breeder needs to do in order to become accepted. She further explained that the organization is set up in such a way that ethics and high standards can not be compromised.
Dr. Zahner and others believe that an area in which Certodog® is lacking is in the PR section. It is still a young program with limited funds which makes advertising difficult. As a result, Certodog® has not had the opportunity to grow.
4.2.2. Government.
There are basically two sources of law in Switzerland. The first comes from the national level and is concerned with matters of national magnitude, such as national security and health. The federal government and individual cantons share the responsibility to deal with matters such as public security, education, and taxes, however, the majority of it falls under cantonal regulation. Dog control law falls
under the latter. For this reason, there is little to no ability to regulate this issue on the
federal level. Some, such as Ms. Horisberger, Dr. Zahner, and Dr. Arnold, think that
the cantons of Switzerland are capable of handling the problem. In our interview, Dr.
43 Arnold mentioned that the government should support and not control the cantons.
She is of the opinion that the government should support private efforts such as
Certodog®. Similarly, Ms. Horisberger mentioned that laws alone would not solve the problem. Private efforts to educate individuals about the dog bite problem would be more effective. Contrary to these opinions, Dr. Binder feels that there should be dog control regulations at the federal level. In his view, cantonal ordinances currently have many limitations, especially in the area of animal welfare.
Because every canton makes its own dog control ordinance, there is little uniformity among 26 separate regulations. This results in a number of problems. One of these is the lack of cooperation between agencies. In spite of the proximity of neighboring cantons, many have radically different laws. For example, an owner of a banned dangerous dog can simply move to a different canton with less stringent rules.
Dr. Binder mentioned that in some cases, changing cantons could be as simple as moving 15 minutes away without having to look for a new job.
Ms. Horisberger criticized the recently revised Basel regulation, saying that it
did not take into account that all dogs are capable of biting, that one can train any dog
from a young age to be aggressive, and that such BSL popularizes these breeds
making them a status symbol. Basel's breed list is targeting the wrong individuals,
according to Dr. Zahner and Mr. Meister. Responsible pet owners must pay
exorbitant prices to seek out veterinary approval and aggression testing, while
problem individuals can simply relocate. According to Dr. Binder, the problem
continues down the line to the lack of a uniform, fair definition of a dangerous dog.
He stated that breed is a cultural definition and there exists no scientific or biological
way to identify breed. Dr. Binder mentioned that this fact renders BSL of cantons
useless, and in many cases over-inclusive.
Another problem raised not only by Dr. Binder, but also by all other
interviewees is the lack of a centralized data source. Currently there are no hard data
44 on dogs, such as number of dogs, breed distribution, breeding activities and number of bites. Dr. Binder thinks that one way in which it would be possible to obtain such centralization and collection of data is through chipping. However, he does not think that this is the only method of data collection. In the long run he thinks chipping would become cheaper than current licensing and registration costs.
Tierseuchengesetz (Animal Epidemic Law) provides a legal background for mandatory licensing and registering. According to Dr. Binder, this is written in such a way that the power to enforce mandatory licensing and registration lies on the cantonal level. He mentioned that the intention of this law is to protect the nation from an epidemic ensuring that all dogs receive vaccines and have proof of this by registration tags or other marks. Dr. Binder clarified that the purpose of the law was to gather further information about an animal or owner. Regardless, he mentioned that there were movements at the federal level in Switzerland for mandatory chipping which would collect just such information. Although Dr. Binder doubts that there is constitutional basis for chipping he believes that it would provide a facility for useful information gathering. Further benefits would be quick and accurate access to information. He thinks that currently chipping costs are very high due to an oligopoly by a few companies, but with federal subsidy these prices could be reduced. He mentioned that if the federal government adopted such legislation, there would be an open forum for all those interested in the matter. Organizations interested in providing chips would openly bid for a contract, and those with the best plan would gain it. Ms. Horisberger and Dr. Arnold also mentioned that chipping would be beneficial. However, Ms. Horisberger thought, because of privacy issues and the lengthy federal process, that mandatory chipping was not likely to happen soon.
Conversely, Dr. Arnold felt that chipping would be instated in the next few years. Dr.
Zahner believes that those who have a financial interest are pushing chipping a great deal without assessing all aspects. She also mentioned that many believe naively that
45 chipping will solve the dog bite problem. On the same note, Mr. Meister reasoned that criminals who have dogs for aggressive characteristics would not get chips for their animals, and would simply import dogs illegally or remove the chips. He also believed that mandatory chipping would be ignored by many, and chips could be tampered with.
4.2.3. Insurer.
From our interview with Ms. Horisberger, we learned about the fundamentals of Swiss insurance. There are three types of coverage including health, accident, and liability. Swiss law requires that employers provide health and accident insurance.
For other individuals, there is basic health and accident coverage provided by the government. Some towns require liability insurance. Otherwise it is available for purchase by any individual wishing to have it. We understand from our interview that
Swiss insurers operate very differently from those in the United States. If an insurer
determines that a dog was involved in an attack, and the owner did not do everything reasonably foreseeable to prevent the incident from occurring, then the owner is held
liable (i.e. the dog was not leashed). According to Ms. Horisberger and Dr.
Goetschel, insurance companies thoroughly investigate all cases to determine if an
owner should be held liable. Mr. Meister believes that trying to motivate owners
through insurance companies would be the quickest and most realistic approach to
solving the dog bite problem. Until every pet owner is required to carry liability
insurance, there is no incentive (i.e., higher rates if negligent, lower rates awarded to
responsible owners) for individuals to ensure that their animals are well trained and
cared for properly. Nevertheless, he mentioned that he does not see such uniform
coverage anytime soon, due to the lack of interest and willingness of insurance
companies to pursue this option.
46 Chapter 5. Analysis.
Various parties have a responsibility in raising and training dogs which are acceptable to society. Some of these individuals have a further responsibility also in educating pet owners and the public about dogs. In this section we describe what these individuals are, are not, and should be doing between breeding, the birth of a puppy, the eventual sale and ownership of the dog. In later sections we develop an analysis of the responsibility of government and insurers. Our goal is to thoroughly describe all parties involved in enabling a rewarding human-dog relationship.
5.1. Breeders, Veterinarians and Owners.
Both in the U.S. and Switzerland irresponsible breeding is a problem. Mr.
Meister explained that 100 rottweilers are produced per year under the control of the
Swiss Rottweiler Club. He further estimated that 400 rottweilers are born outside the control of any organization or kennel club in Switzerland. In addition to these animals many more are imported from the eastern countries. In the United States, puppy mills produce a large number of animals. Conditions in these facilities are inhumane. Large numbers of dogs are born and raised in overcrowded and unclean
conditions. These facilities aim to sell a large number of dogs at very low prices.
Such a market makes it very difficult for responsible individuals such as Mr. Meister,
who refuse to compromise breeding standards, to operate because many people opt for
less expensive dogs.
Breeders are the first to address proper socialization of dogs as they are the
source of young animals. Breeder responsibility begins long before the birth of a
litter. It is accepted that in order to increase chances of producing good puppies, both
parents must carefully be chosen. We believe this is an important concept which must
be adopted by many breeders. However this does not often occur because choosing
proper parents can be very time consuming and expensive. This is especially true
47 when attempting to stay within breed lines. The complication of staying within breed lines is the risk of hereditary diseases which have come about as the result of constant inbreeding. Mr. Meister, in his sixteen years of breeding rottweilers has only produced 77 puppies. His numbers are low because he attends dog shows and working trials looking for desirable physical and behavioral characteristics in parent dogs. He then implements the BLUS, Best Linear Unbiased System, for choosing parents. This method attempts to identify the potential genetic makeup of offspring.
In doing so it increases probability of offspring which are free of hereditary disease.
These methods employed by Mr. Meister and the best breeders are very technical and
time consuming. For these reasons very many breeders do not implement them. A
way in which to more quickly and less expensively obtain desirable litters is by cross
breeding. This helps eliminate genetic disorders and decreases the chance of
producing overly aggressive dogs. However, many breeders do not breed out because
pure bred characteristics, that many pet owners have come to expect, are lessened.
This in turn makes it economically less desirable for breeders. Because of these
issues, mass breeders often choose economic prosperity over animal health.
Training is also an area on which breeders need to focus. They are the first
people with whom dogs come in contact and their training activities are very
important for the future behavior of a dog. From our research, we determined that
training is most crucial from the fourth to the twelfth month of a dog's life, however it
is also important early on. Breeders should not sell dogs prior to five weeks of age
and, beginning at this age, breeders should begin daily activities with a dog. In the
following weeks, a dog should begin to be introduced to new situations. This will
prevent any feeling of fear or insecurity later on as the dog will be familiar with most
situations.
The Certodog® program addresses these issues. The high standards
Certodog® imposes on breeders are excellent, because they make certain proper care
48 and training are provided to dogs. We recognize that the committee system which the program uses to oversee quality control is thorough and ensures that it has an excellent reputation for providing good animals. An area in which we foresee a problem is in widespread adoption of its approaches. We realize that breeders, who place profit above concern for animals, will always exist. Certodog® may face financial difficulty because other breeders can sell dogs at very low prices because they invest in little time and funds into facilities, training and care.
In other respects Certodog® provides an incentive for breeders by providing them a quality seal. An analogy can be drawn between Certodog® and vehicles such
BMW or Mercedes. Naturally such cars are more expensive than others, yet people pay the extra price because they know the car is reliable and has high quality. The same can be said of Certodog® -brand-dogs. Many individuals recognize dogs as valuable companions with which they can share many gratifying years of their lives.
When faced with a major decision such as buying a dog, we reason that rational
buyers will pay more for quality dogs, such as Certodogs. The quality seal ensures
buyers that these dogs are healthy, happy and of good lineage. Buyers can also trust
Certodog® breeders, because breeders are subject to demanding requirements and
direct oversight by a multifaceted collection of lawyers, veterinarians and breeders.
Thus they know Certodog® breeders are more competent than other breeders.
Finally, breeders follow up after the sale of the dog, assisting pet owners in
raising their puppies. Ultimately, we believe that a long lasting, mutually beneficial
relationship would develop between pet owners and Certodog®. Buyers would be
happy with the purchase of a quality animal, and Certodog® breeders could enjoy the
benefits of repeat customers and an increasingly better reputation.
Currently, we are not sure how much Certodog® breeders will charge for their
animals. We believe a very high price could be detrimental in building a large
customer base because people on moderate budgets could be driven away and settle
49 for cheaper animals. Furthermore, the brand could be incorrectly judged as exclusively for the elite. This would not facilitate increasing the number of socially acceptable dogs. Also, inconsistent pricing among Certodog® breeders could cause confusion and undermine the image of standardized quality. In order to build consumer confidence and loyalty we recognize that serious investment into public relations is needed. At the moment this is difficult because the foundation is still in its infancy and its funding sources are heavily dependent upon private donations.
Frequent fund-raising campaigns and/or partial funding from the dog-tax collected by the government may be helpful.
It is also important for breeders to be selective when choosing their customers.
Breeders of powerful dogs, such as rottweilers, should be especially critical of potential buyers. They must consider many factors, such as a buyer's physical ability to control a dog and motives for purchasing a dog. Many times, criminals, such as drug dealers buy dogs for their physical prominence and as status symbols. Even if breeders have trained a dog to be sociable, through physical abuse and maltreatment, a
dog can be made a lethal weapon. One only needs to study incidents such as the death
of Volkan Kaj a in Hamburg, Germany, or that of Diane Whipple San Francisco,
United States, to see examples of this. We recognize Mr. Meister as a good role
model for breeders. He trains his rottweilers extensively and only sells them to people
he feels can handle such a dog. He also makes an effort to determine any ill
intentions a buyer may have. If a situation arises in which he determines an owner
has abused the dog in any way, he buys the dog back and tries to re-train the dog. If
he determines the dog has irreversible character flaws he takes it upon himself to
euthanize it.
It is also the responsibility of breeders and veterinarians to provide education
to the public and to owners. Ethology, should be a basis of education, as it can be
used in many situations by the public to identify potentially dangerous, insecure dogs.
50 Veterinarians or breeders can use this to identify problematic traits, and warn pet owners of potential problems. Breeders can also use ethology to identify puppies with uncorrectable behavioral flaws and avoid selling problematic puppies to unsuspecting buyers. Currently, there is a lack of ethology experts in Switzerland. As a result, there is a break in the education system. Breeders and veterinarians cannot be taught, and in turn pass information to pet owners and the public. This poses a problem since there is no education system in place that guarantees a breeder's competence or knowledge on the subject. Education varies significantly from one breeder and veterinarian to another, and potential dog buyers are unaware of this. Again the
Certodog® program has begun to head in a direction we feel is necessary in addressing this problem by giving breeders an incentive to educate themselves and maintain a high quality. Certodog® breeders must attend regular training workshops offered by the Foundation of the Well-Being of the Dog. This system establishes a much needed standard level of education received by breeders.
It is important for Certodog® to be conscious of potential damage to its reputation. With such infrastructure in place, virtually guaranteeing wonderful pets, it is difficult to imagine that something could go horribly wrong. Yet the potential exists, and the reputation of the brand could be called into question. Careful breeding methods, proper training, and meticulous owner selection cannot always prevent accidents from happening. An example of an incident in which the liability and reputation of Certodog® could be called into question is follows: An owner of a
Certodog® is convinced that he or she did everything according to a Certodog® breeder's instructions. Yet one day, the dog bites his or her child severely while the owner is momentarily distracted. It is unknown if the child perhaps was tormenting the dog, or inadvertently caused pain to the animal. The parents of the child are naturally horrified and the animal is euthanized. The media gets a hold of this story
and sensationalizes it in the usual ways. In a very short time, questions surface about
51 who should be responsible for the child's injury. Should parents be held responsible?
Would it be the breeder's fault, since the owner could argue that he or she had brought up the dog according to the breeder's instructions? These questions may arise, even if it is clear that in this case the parents are to blame because children should never be left unsupervised around dogs. Even if a court decides that this was an unforeseeable accident and nobody is to blame, there is still a family with a disfigured child and an organization whose reputation has been tarnished. How can the foundation protect itself from such scandals that could instantly shatter consumer confidence?
This scenario raises the topic of owner responsibility. Pet owners are vital in reducing the number of dog attacks. They have the most contact with a dog and ultimately control their dog's behavior. Many pet owners do not realize this, believing a dog to is simply a possession rather than an animal that can feel frustration, anger and happiness. As mentioned earlier, the first four months to a year is the most crucial time for training a dog. For this reason it is important that owners are educated about how to raise and care for a dog. Certodog® has addressed this issue by providing a contract to buyers of their animals. The document is legally binding and outlines everything that an owner needs to do in the first year of a dog's life. If a buyer does not satisfy the agreement, the dog can be bought back from pet owners. Certodog® recognizes that even if a dog has been bought from a very respectful breeder and has been trained well, if an owner does not continue training, a dog will adapt to its owner. Dogs will test owner limits and therefore, it is important for owners to be firm regarding where the dog stands in the family and the rules it needs to follow. This is not always easy as some breeds are much harder to handle than others. In these cases owners should seek professional assistance or choose breeds that are appropriate.
Because many owners do not recognize the control they have over their dog,
they may believe they should not be held liable for their dog's actions. Too often
52 aggression will occur and an owner will simply ignore it, especially if it has occurred for the first time. It is important for a pet owner to recognize that if he or she does not react instantaneously, a dog will not recognize it has done something unacceptable.
As a result it is likely the dog will repeat the action. If punishment is delayed, confusion can occur within the dog, and often the results can be even worse than the original transgression.
5.2. Government and Insurance.
In both the U.S. and Switzerland dog regulation primarily originate from the state level. As mentioned previously the Swiss Federal Act on Animal Protection,
TSchG, gives cantons the ability to enforce dog laws. The cantons in turn give the responsibility of enforcing these laws to the municipalities. This system is similar to that of the United States in which there exists limited animal welfare law on the federal level. The U.S. Congress, under the Constitution, has the power to regulate interstate commerce and through its grants of research funding can regulate any organization accepting its funding. Through their own constitutions, states have the ability to regulate themselves and grant or take away power of municipalities. If a state does not specifically legislate in an area of public health or safety, generally local governments have the ability to fill in gaps in the law as they see necessary.
One foreseeable consequence of Swiss and U.S. methods of distributing power is a lack of uniformity in laws.
An example of non-uniformity in Switzerland is BSL in the canton of Basel as opposed to non-BSL in Zilrich. The legislation in Basel forced owners and those desiring to own some breeds of dogs to meet specific criteria. The most prominent, and ill-founded aspect of this law, was the list of eight dog breeds. A central theme we discovered throughout our research was that all breeds of dogs are capable of biting. Some may point out that these dog breeds make up only 3.5% of the dog
53 population in Basel, but cause 41% of the dog bites. Still, the legislation does not account for 59% of the bites. Another provision in the Basel law is an age requirement on pet ownership. Sometimes children and young adults do not realize that pet ownership is a major responsibility requiring a long-term commitment.
However, there are as many pet owners above the age requirement who are not aware of this. This may result in either intended or unintended maltreatment. Consequently, this portion of the law lacks credibility. Another requirement for ownership was a clean police record. This idea may have its merits on paper, however it is unlikely that criminals will obey this type of legislation, if they want a dog for illegal purposes, such as fighting and guarding drug labs. Therefore, such a requirement unnecessarily targets many honest individuals at very little benefit. Mandatory training for owners of the eight dog breeds was also required by the legislation. This idea has a logical foundation as many dog owners are unaware of how to raise, train, and care for puppies properly. But, it is not feasible to implement such a program as there currently are insufficient numbers of professionals prepared to educate pet owners of even these eight dog breeds. Adequate funding for programs of this size also does not exist. A final requirement of the Basel legislation was mandatory liability insurance in the amount of three million Swiss francs for dogs on the list. Re-visiting the theme that all dogs are capable of inflicting severe injury, we understand that insurance is necessary for all dog owners.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this legislation. One is that legislators in
Basel did not research the dog bite problem and simply made a bad decision. The
other is that they did research the situation and realized its complexity. Because of
widespread public attention they felt a need to act quickly and realized that they could
act in a politically effective manner by issuing these regulations on breeds making up
only 3.5% of the dog population. Furthermore, they understood clearly that
objections to such measures would be limited as 96.5% of dog owners were not
54 targeted. Either case is unacceptable, but unfortunately this sort of legislation happens all over the world. Similar cases include Hamburg, Germany and Akron,
Ohio.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder promoted the widespread use of BSL following the death of six-year old Vokan Kaj a. This incident occurred prior to the
Basel legislation, and it is conceivable that this canton modeled its ordinance after those of German Bundeslander. Breed lists, owner age limits, one pet per owner, physical and mental capability, mandatory education, liability insurance, chipping, sterilization, leashing and muzzling in public, and clear warning signs are detailed in many of the BSL of the German States. German breed lists are more extensive with various categories of dogs formed either by breed type, aggressive behavior, or size and weight. Although the lists cover a wide variety of dogs, again, the laws are clearly unfeasible, requiring extensive and costly aggression testing for all dogs and education for owners. The ideas not adopted in the Basel legislation include requirements of physical and mental capability, chipping, sterilization, and mandatory
leashing and muzzling. We believe that physical and mental capability are necessary
for owning all breeds of dogs. For some breeds of dogs, physical capability is
essential as they are very powerful, and have a natural tendency to want to move up in
their social status. Mental capability is also important as one can readily learn about
dogs, understand situations, and more readily be a responsible pet owner. Although
these requirements are very desirable, there is a question of how to determine such
capability. Perhaps this is can be addressed best by breeders and veterinarians.
Chipping is yet another concept introduced by many of the German States.
Certainly it is a way in which to obtain information about how many dog breeds exist,
owner information and previous bite history. As many have suggested and many
more have been led to believe, chipping is not an answer to the dog bite problem.
Some veterinarians and chipping companies support it as they have a vested interest.
55 Before adopting such measures, the factors associated with implementing such legislation must be considered. These often are not obvious and include: How many dogs will actually receive chips? What are the costs of chipping as opposed to traditional paper and tag registration? Are chips tamper proof? Who can access the information? Will chips target the problem areas? Who will track the vast amount of information? How are the chips updated with information? Clearly, these issues have not been addressed by chipping companies or supporters. Some may argue that traditional measures are very expensive and this may be true. Traditional methods require substantial number of registration tags and human resources. Consequently in the case of dog attacks, information is not conveniently and quickly retrievable electronically. We understand that in order to fully recognize the benefits of implementing chipping, a thorough cost benefit analysis will have to be conducted.
The mandatory sterilization of some breeds is also a notorious clause of some of German BSL. Many times it has been argued logically that any breed of dog is a potential danger. Sterilizing some breeds not only unfairly targets innocent and responsible owners, but also eliminates potentially valuable members of the gene pool.
A final idea not incorporated in the Basel legislation is mandatory leashing
and muzzling. It is a misconception that leashing and muzzling mean a safer dog.
Not considered are the effects that leashing and muzzling may have on a dog.
Frustration can build with a muzzled dog, and often times this is disregarded.
The BSL in Germany had many outcomes that went unnoticed by German
legislators. These include the beating of an Austrian bull terrier owner and the
burning of living bull terrier in Berlin. Much of the blame lies with the media for
these incidents, as it contributed to public hysteria by not revealing the facts about the
ways in which owners must train and control their dogs. The rest lies with the
government for its poor policy approach. Evidence demonstrates that legislators
56 thought carefully about the political effects of their policies. German breed lists did not include German shepherds. According to Simpson (2000), this is counter-intuitive given a 1998 dog bite survey done by the German government. This study found that
German Shepherd mixes and purebreds accounted for 2379 and 1956 bites respectively, whereas pit bulls and bull terriers only accounted for 320 and 169 bites respectively. Their absence from any lists also contradicts the "40 cm in height or 20 kg in weight" category definition of many German BSL. This is not to advocate that they should be on the list, but to demonstrate that German legislators were careful to satisfy public fear while making sure that owners of the most popular breeds of dog were not upset.
During the 1980's the U.S. had a similar experience with pit-bulls. One example of a community which adopted BSL is the city of Akron, Ohio. Legislation there put some limits on owners of dogs deemed to be vicious. A vicious dog was
defined as a dog which had inflicted injury to a person or another animal. However
the law puts many unjust restrictions on innocent owners of certain breeds of dogs, by
forcing them to leash and muzzle their dogs at all times in pubic, forcing them to
purchase specific dog collars (these collars identified these dogs as dangerous),
forcing owners to tattoo their animals, requiring the purchase of fifty thousand dollars
of liability insurance, paying an annual fee, and securing a dog at all times.
To some extent the BSL of Akron does take into consideration that all dogs
are capable of attacking, by adding in a clause defining a dangerous dog. However
much like German legislation, it finds a scapegoat in potentially innocent dogs by
naming specific breeds. The leashing and muzzling restrictions are not unreasonable,
providing that a dog has shown aggression. But, breed alone is not enough to
determine this. Our research found that leashing and muzzling frustrate a normally
docile animal. On the idea of tattooing animals, provided that there is ample evidence
which supports the need to identify an animal, tattooing is a way to do this effectively.
57 However, we do not tattoo even the most heinous of criminals. We find it unjust to subject beloved pets to it on the basis of breed alone. The concept of having a legal basis for liability insurance is excellent provided that all dogs are required to be insured. Mandating that owners of specific breeds pay fees above those of other dog owners amounts to nothing less than discrimination. Finally, forcing owners of some breeds of dogs to confine their animals, even if well trained, is inconceivable. It is essential to allow an animal to occasionally run freely not only because it is a humane thing to do, but in order to have a healthy and happy pet. Legislators in Akron did recognize that often pet behavior is the direct result of owner's treatment, and in some instances is warranted. As a result the BSL excludes dogs that have been teased, tormented, harmed, or have come to the defense of their owner. Further scrutiny into the law reveals that a dangerous dog is any dog that shows aggression to mail carriers, utility workers or any city of Akron worker. Often public workers, because of the nature their work, approach private property. Nevertheless, they are in fact
encroaching on a dog's territory and, because of this, should not be surprised that
animals act aggressively. For this reason, we recognize that this section of the law is
inappropriate.
We believe a good feature of the Akron legislation is the inclusion of criminal
liability if laws are ignored. This does not mean that the laws being enforced are of a
high quality, but the concept of criminal liability for problem owners is necessary.
This is true especially in case of animal neglect and abuse. Finally, the legislation
gives the city the right to destroy or ban dogs from the city. In some cases,
destruction of animals is necessary when they have been raised in a way that they
cannot fit into society. However, banning dogs is, again, ineffective. If an animal
was too big of a problem in one city, then it would be senseless to pass those
problems onto another community.
58 Contrary to the regulation of Akron, Ohio, the state of California's dangerous dog law is an excellent example of non breed-specific legislation. This law targets two groups of dogs. The first group is composed of dogs deemed "potentially dangerous," the second group is defined as "vicious" (CA food and agricultural code,
Division 14, §9, Art. 1, 31602 & 31603). No dog is excluded from these regulations since all decisions are based solely on a close scrutiny of a dog's behavior patterns over time. If a dog has, or has had, two separate incidents within a three-year period, it is identified by a municipal court as belonging to one of the two categories mentioned above. In the municipal hearing, all relevant evidence can be submitted for consideration in deciding the dog's ultimate fate. If it is determined that a dog falls under one of these categories, then it and its owner are subject to stricter regulation.
The California law knowledgeably understands that in some situations dogs cannot be held responsible for human actions. This includes biting as the result of victims trespassing in a dog's territory, teasing, tormenting, or abuse of a dog, or a dog's protection of its owner. It further establishes criminal liability and fines for those who do not follow requirements set forth in the law. Importantly, California law takes measures to make certain owners of "potentially dangerous" or "vicious" dogs understand that their animals are a problem. An additional fee is added on top of registration fees required for all dogs to keep track of problem dogs. If an individual moves to another location, with one of these dogs he or she must notify the animal control department of California. It is not clear what is done with this information, however this is an idea that has merit, and could be used to protect the public. In addition California legislators have realized that it is possible for individuals to misidentify dogs involved in attacks and for human emotion to move action. For
these reasons any dog can remove its label of "potentially dangerous" through good
behavior. Often not considered in dog control law is how to prohibit problem owners
from obtaining additional pets. California law allows the municipal courts to decide if
59 an individual can own, walk, or otherwise control any dog for up to a three-year period. The one place in which this law and other laws are lacking is in requiring mandatory dog insurance.
The dog control law of Zurich, Switzerland is also non-BSL. However, unlike the California legislation, there is not a clear definition of a dangerous dog, nor is a process described by which dog related disputes can be resolved. This could potentially become a problem in a case where a child was severely bitten by an animal as the result of teasing and there was no witness to the event. There are very few individuals who would argue on a dog's behalf. Immediately, there would be a public outcry for action to be taken against an innocent dog, which was the victim of teasing.
Under the law, dogs determined to pose a high risk to the public can be eliminated, after veterinarians have exhausted all possible measures. Similar to the California law, the Zurich law considers a dog's defense of its owner as a natural reaction. The
law wisely states that owners have a responsibility in the case an attack does occur.
Furthermore, it states that an owner must do everything within his or her power to
stop such attacks.
A downfall of the law is that it requires no liability insurance. The law also
forbids individuals from sending their dogs to attack individuals unless in self-
defense. Zurich law also attempts to be proactive about dog control problems,
describing that dogs should be handled so they do not cause disturbance to other
people, prohibits dogs from swimming pools, school play grounds and sports fields.
Currently, because of the lack of well-trained dogs we feel that this is important.
Often times when dogs get excited, their play tends to be more aggressive. This does
not mean that children and dogs should be separated. In fact, dogs are often good
companions for young children, provided that they are well trained, under parental
supervision and that the child is educated about the treatment of a dog. As currently
there are many poorly trained dogs, and children know little about dogs, it is
60 important that children and dogs be separated in locations where dogs can become easily excited. On the idea of prevention, the legislation requires dogs to be leashed in public areas. In areas which are more secluded, such as forests, it is up to the owners' discretion to decide whether their dog needs to be leashed or can be controlled by a concept referred to as a virtual leash. We believe this to be a very important concept since it recognizes that not all dogs and pet owners are the same and, because of this, they should be treated differently.
One of the problems faced by many legislative bodies is the lack of time and funding to conduct their own extensive research. This occurs especially in times of a dog control crisis such as the Hamburg incident. It is well documented that civil servants feel pressure to act in certain situations, and do so without extensive research.
There exists one central organization in the U.S., which can be used as a resource.
Although not all the states in the U.S. have consulted the C.D.C. prior to legislating, it is an excellent centralized resource for information on all matters of public health and safety topics. We have not found any similar clearinghouse for information in
Switzerland and believe that starting such an organization would prove invaluable.
A question which has arisen on numerous occasions in our research has been if state level regulation is a problem in Switzerland or the U.S. Dr. Binder thinks that the cantons differ so greatly in their laws, that the only way to unify them would be through federal codes. He argues that individuals can simply move cantons to avoid strict legislation. Perhaps this is not as big a problem as it seems. It is true that
Switzerland is a small country, and it is very easy to change cantons without drastically altering one's lifestyle (i.e., changing jobs, leaving family). However, those individuals who would do so to avoid legislation, probably would not obey any kind of nation-wide rules. This is a case again of targeting the majority of the population who are law abiding citizens. Further complications of nationwide legislation in Switzerland include an extremely slow political system. It seems that a
61 carefully planned and implemented program in one canton or state could prompt a domino effect among other cantons. This is comparable to the adoption BSL among the states of Germany and some U.S. states. Implementing mandatory licensing and registration on the federal level would also be very difficult not only in Switzerland, but also in the United States. Because mandatory licensing and registration exist on a
cantonal level in Switzerland due to epidemics law requirements, we feel a federal
approach would be unnecessary. For similar reasons, a federal level U.S. approach
would be inefficient. A clearing house for information such as the C.D.C. could be
used to collect information from the cantons and therefore avoid unnecessary federal
legislation.
Although one canton might become a model for others, Dr. Goetschel raised
concerns about Zurich being used as a model. He feels that the canton would be an
excellent model, as it demonstrates forward thinking and open mindedness about
issues such as animal protection and dog control. But he expressed reservations that
often Zurich is viewed with disdain by many of other cantons of Switzerland. As a
result other cantons tend to disregard the ideas of Zurich legislators. This is a very
interesting view for us in the United States as we often seek out wealthier states as
resources for policy guidance. Examples of states leading in such laws include
California and New York.
Insurance is one area in which there seems to be very little in the way of
effective, unified law. Some, such as Mr. Meister, believe mandatory federal level
insurance will be necessary to solve the dog control problem. He argued that the
majority of individuals do not recognize a problem until it affects them financially.
However, even he understands, a federal law however desirable, is not likely in the
near future. We believe mandatory insurance for all pet owners is necessary, but a
state level approach would be more appropriate because of ease and speed of
implementation. Currently there are about 500,000 dogs in Switzerland (Lauper,
62 2000) and nearly 7,263,372 people (Maps.com , 2001 b). This roughly translates to 1 dog for every 14 people. We have no figures on how much Swiss insurance companies have paid for dog bites because our attempts to contact representatives from insurance agencies proved fruitless. We do however have a basic knowledge of how liability insurance works from our interviews with Ms. Horisberger. It is clear that insurers will investigate all claims to ensure that a pet owner has done everything reasonable to prevent an accident. If the owner did not, he or she is fully monetarily liable for an incident. This system does not take into account factors such as human error and only protects the most responsible and thorough of pet owners. One could ask, why purchase such liability insurance if claims are likely to be denied?
In the United States, according to the Insurance Information Institute, 40% of
American households own dogs. From the United States Bureau of the Census (1996) data there are 104,344,445 households. There are 275,562,673 people in the U.S
(Maps.com, 2001 a). If we assume that each household owns one dog, this means there are a minimum of 41,737,778 dogs, or approximately one dog for every 7 people. Currently U.S. insurers institute the one free bite policy. Like the Swiss insurance methods, this is undesirable. U.S. insurance operates on no-fault, that is it covers cases of human accident and carelessness, after one bite, dogs are no longer insured. This is the exact opposite of what should happen. Dogs which have a history of biting, are more likely to bite. As commonly said in the insurance field, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Biting dogs should be insured at higher rates to cover the larger risk they pose to the public. Higher insurance rates would enforce the importance of the dog safety by forcing financial responsibility on problem pet owners. Currently U.S. insurers pay out about a billion dollars a year in
dog claims alone. More specific numbers provided to us by a representative of State
Farm Insurance illustrate the severity of the dog bite situation. The numbers below
are for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999.
63 Year Amount Paid Total Claims Cost per Claim (in U.S. dollars) (Amount Paid)/(Total Claims) 1997 76,200,779 7,919 9,622 1998 74,918,471 7,397 10,128 1999 73,549,017 6,873 10,701
State Farm alone, makes up only 7% of the claims in dog liability. These numbers can convince most people that dog bites are certainly a serious problem. However, in our contacts with a representative of the insurance industry, it seems that these numbers are not motivating enough. In our correspondence, she mentioned that the property/casualty insurers nationally pay out 250 million dollars in dog bites, in comparison to one billion for frozen pipes. According to representatives from State
Farm Insurance, they have joined the American Veterinary Medicine Association and distributed approximately 7 millions brochures and children's coloring books to combat the problem. They cite this program for the modest decreases since 1997.
However, this is not enough, as it relies on people's own will to educate themselves.
We also recognize that communication between insurers and pet owners is not often
clear. Both in the US and Switzerland, individuals do not know the specifics of what
insurers will and will not pay. We feel that much work needs to be done to convince
insurers that dog bites are a real problem, and that implementing mandatory
insurance, communicating with pet owners, supporting education, and sponsoring
programs such as Certodog® could, over the long run, substantially lower the number
of dog bite claims.
64 Chapter 6. Conclusions.
It is clear to us after 13 weeks of research in this area that a multifaceted approach must be taken to solve the problem of dog bites. Breeding, raising, selling, ownership, governmental involvement and insurance must all be considered. In our view, a holistic approach is necessary to address the dog bite problem and provide society with rational methods to reduce the number of dog bites.
The most logical beginning for dog bite prevention is prior to birth of a litter.
Selective breeding techniques which take into account animal health must be implemented by breeders and private parties. This must be then followed up with thorough training and proper care by breeders prior to the sale of a dog. When a dog is of appropriate selling age, consideration must be taken to seek out responsible owners. To ensure that proper care and training are given, sellers must supply buyers with information about appropriate methods to raise their pet. Breeders should also
establish support networks for buyers, and follow up to ensure new pets are well
established in their new homes. Owners must then continue the training and make use
of the support network when necessary.
We believe that prior to widespread adoption the methods that we suggest
must be tested. A private approach like that of Certodog® is a good example. The
multifaceted collection of lawyers, policy makers, veterinarians and breeders adopts a
holistic approach. The approach taken by the program is not one we have come
across in the United States. Because Certodog® is in its infancy, it has not received
widespread publicity. As a result, we believe that time and marketing are needed to
establish reputation. Public relations could be the focus of further IQPs.
Not all dog owners will take it upon themselves to be responsible for their
pets. We reason that insurance is the most feasible way to address this. Federal level,
mandatory insurance is not likely to happen in the United States or Switzerland. State
65 or cantonal level mandatory insurance for all dogs is more feasible. Much like the adoption of Certodog®, it must be shown that mandatory insurance is effective.
State Farm Insurance company in the United States has been very cooperative with us in our research. It has begun to tackle the dog bite problem by sending out seven million brochures and children's activity books to the public. This demonstrates that State Farm is willing to invest money to address the situation. The lack of current research in this area makes it difficult for insurers such as State Farm to make effective policies regarding dog insurance. We reason that a company such as State Farm could adopt a policy of mandatory insurance for their policy holders. It would be more effective to continue insurance with all dog owners regardless of bite history. For all pet owners, a point system much like that instituted in the United
States for drivers could be implemented. Insurance rates would be determined by point total. A new pet owner would begin with a certain number of points. Based on his or her dog's history, the point total would be subject to an increase or decrease.
For instance, if reports indicate that a dog was provoked, acted to protect its owner, or bit as the result of trespass, then an individual's rates would not rise. However if it is found that an individual neglected the duties of a responsible owner then rates would rise. For owners who have over time proven that they are responsible with their pets, rates of insurance could be lowered.
We understand that U.S. insurers are in an excellent position to gather and
analyze large amounts of information. The current systems could be used to track dog
and owner information. Processed information could then be passed to organizations
responsible for making policy decisions concerning dogs. In this way, progress could
be tracked, and dog control issues could be pursued proactively. Unlike the system in
the United States, little is known about what records exist in the archives of various
companies in Switzerland Recognizing that it is crucial for companies to work
66 together to handle the dog bite problem, we believe that a network for sharing experience by these insurers must be established.
Lines of communication between insurers and pet owners must also be clear.
Both U.S. and Swiss insurers struggle with this. Very often pet owners are simply unaware of exactly what insurers will and will not cover. It is essential that this happens in order to make individuals into responsible owners and to avoid potentially expensive litigation.
For a dog control policy to be effective, we conclude that above all, it should not be breed specific. We encourage legislators to consult either the HSUS guideline or the state of California dangerous dog law in drafting non-BSL, as we found them to be valuable and effective. A dangerous dog should be defined according to its actions and behaviors, rather than its breed.
Legislation should encourage responsible pet ownership while ensuring criminals and negligent owners are held criminally liable. Such measures are outlined in the California dangerous dog law. Similar measures, such as prohibiting pet ownership, fines or jail time also appear in Switzerland's TSchG. However, if an
attack does occur, then an individual is under law liable only for violations of public
safety, even if it is later determined that animal welfare law was violated. Therefore,
we believe the animal welfare laws should be incorporated into cantonal level dog
control laws.
In order to be fair to responsible and conscientious dog owners, who make up
the majority, effective dog control law should outline a judicial process. The HSUS
guideline and California dangerous dog law both serve as excellent examples. We
believe the judicial process is important because rational motives, rather than emotion,
would move policy.
Regarding leashing and muzzling, we understand that it should be used in
appropriate situations. The canton of Zurich already has provisions. We are not in
67 favor of mandatory leashing and muzzling laws already in place in some parts of U.S. and Germany.
Because of the nature of the political system in Switzerland and the United
States, implementing effective and uniform dog control policies would consume too much effort and time. Thus for Switzerland, we recommend that legislators and politicians begin work on cantonal levels. German, U.S. and Swiss legislators and politicians should seek assistance from well informed and open minded organizations.
We recommend governments should support private efforts to educate the public, owners and breeders about dogs. Cantons collect dog taxes through licensing and registration. We reason that because only dog owners pay this tax, that this money should be allocated to funding dog owner education. With more funding education programs could expand and in the long run dog bite accidents could significantly decrease.
On the idea of chipping, we are not convinced that it is more effective and less costly than paper registration. Basic advantages of chipping include quick identification of stray and lost dogs, assistance in tracing pedigree and the reduction of paper work. However, we feel that a thorough cost-benefit analysis must be done before determining that chipping is more effective than traditional paper registration.
Furthermore, we believe chipping is currently being advertised falsely as a solution to the dog bite problem. Lastly, there are the questions of how much information should be put on a chip and who will have access to it. Because many questions remain unanswered, we understand that more research must be conducted to determine its
feasibility.
Other areas in which further research could be conducted in Switzerland are
the need for a centralized data source, the specifics of dog insurance, and how dog
bites are reported.
68 Authorship Statement.
We all share joint responsibility as authors of this project. Everybody contributed to the completion of each section of the report.
69 Glossary of German Terms and Acronyms.
AGGH, Arbeitsgruppe fair gefahrliche Hunde: working party for dangerous dogs.
Arbeitsgruppe Gesetzgebung betr. Gefahrliche Hunde: working party on legislation.
BJ, Bundesamt fur Justiz: Swiss federal justice office.
Bundeslander: German states.
Bundesrat: upper house of parliament.
BVET, Bundesamt fair Veterinarwesen: Swiss federal office of veterinarians.
GST, Gesellschaft Schweizer Tierartze: society of Swiss veterinarians.
IEMT, Institut fir interdisziplinare Erforschung der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung: Institute for interdisciplinary research of human-animal relationship.
Kampfhunde: fighting dogs, aggressive dogs.
Klinik fur Kleintierfortpflanzung, Tierspital Ziirich: small animal clinic, Zurich animal hospital.
NRW: Nordrhine-Westfalen, one of the 16 German states.
SKG, Die Schweizerische Kynologische Gesellschaft: the Swiss kennel club.
Stiftung fur das Tier im Recht: foundation for the animal in the law.
Stiftung far das Wohl des Hundes: foundation for the well-being of the dog.
STS, Schwiezer Tierschutz: Swiss animal protection.
STVV, Schweizerische Tierartzliche Vereinigung ftir Verhaltensmedizin: Swiss veterinary association for behavioral medicine.
SVK, Schweizerischen Vereinigung fur Kleintiermedizin: Swiss association for small-
animal medicine.
Tierseuchengesetz: Swiss animal epidemic law.
TSchG, Tierschutzgesetz: Swiss federal act on animal protection.
TSchV, Tierschutzverordnung: Swiss animal protection ordinance.
Veterinaramt Zilrich: Zurich veterinarian office. 70 VDH, Verbands fiir das Deustche Hundwesen: German kennel club.
VSKT, der Vereinigung der Schweizerischen Kantonstierarztinnen und —tierartze: the association of Swiss cantonal veterinarians.
71 Appendix A: Ordinances.
California Food and Agricultural Code
SECTION 1. Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 31601) is added to Division 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code, to read: CHAPTER 9. POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND VICIOUS DOGS Article 1. Findings, Definitions, and General Provisions 31601. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places. (b) The number and-severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs. (c) The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs. 31602. 'Potentially dangerous dog' means any of the following: (a) Any dog which, when unprovoked, ontwo separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog. (b) Any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing a less severe injury than as defined in Section 31604. Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury attacking a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog. 31603. 'Vicious dog, means any of the following: (a) Any dog seized under Section 599aa of the Penal Code and upon the sustaining of a conviction of the owner or keeper under subdivision (a) of Section 597.5 of the Penal Code. (b) Any dog which, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being.
(c) Any dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog which, after its owner or keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behavior described in Section 31602 or is maintained in violation of Section 31641, 31642, or 31643. 31604. 'Severe injury' means any physical injury to a human being that results in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery.
72 31605. 'Enclosure' means a fence or structure suitable to prevent the entry of young children, and which is suitable to confine a vicious dog in conjunction with other measures which may be taken by the owner or keeper of the dog. The enclosure shall be designed in order to prevent the animal from escaping. The animal shall be housed pursuant to Section 597t of the Penal Code. 31606. 'Animal control department' means the county or city animal control department. If the city or county does not have an animal control department, it means whatever entity performs animal control functions. 31607. 'Impounded' means taken into the custody of the public pound or animal control department or provider of animal control services to the city or county where the potentially dangerous or vicious dog is found. 31608. 'County' includes any city and county. 31609. (a) This chapter does not apply to licensed kennels, humane society shelters, animal control facilities, or veterinarians.
(b) This chapter does not apply to dogs while utilized by any police department or any law enforcement officer in the performance of police work.- Article 2. Judicial Process 31621. If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public pound or animal control department or his or her immediate supervisor or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or his or her designee, shall petition the municipal court within the judicial district wherein the dog is owned or kept, for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog in question should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public pound or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the municipal court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time he or she may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and make other orders authorized by this chapter. 31622. (a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owne'r or keeper shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public pound or animal control department or the head of the 73 local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, he or she may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction to a court authorized to hear the appeal. The fee for filing an appeal shall be twenty dollars ($20.00), payable to the county clerk. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than the municipal court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the municipal court. If the original hearing was held in the municipal court, appeal shall be to the superior court within the judicial district wherein the dog is owned or kept. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.
(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo, without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the court's determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail. 31623. The court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction or the court hearing the appeal may decide all issues for or against the owner or keeper of the dog even if the owner or keeper fails to appear at the hearing. 31624. The determination of the court hearing the appeal shall be final and conclusive upon all parties. 31625. (a) If upon investigation it is determined by the animal control officer or law enforcement officer that probable cause exists to believe the dog in question poses an immediate threat to public safety, then the animal control officer or law enforcement officer may seize and impound the dog pending the hearings to be held pursuant to this article. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable to the city or county where the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of keeping the dog, if the dog is later adjudicated potentially dangerous or vicious.
(b) When a dog has been impounded pursuant to subdivision (a) and it is not contrary to public safety, the chief animal control officer shall permit the animal to be confined at the owner's expen,se in a department approved kennel ,or veterinary facility. 31626. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon, premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a 74 crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.
(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog. Article 3. Disposition of Potentially Dangerous or Vicious Dogs 31641. All potentially dangerous dogs shall be properly licensed and vaccinated. The licensing authority shall include the potentially dangerous designation in the registration records of the dog, either after the owner or keeper of the dog has agreed to the designation or the court or hearing entity has determined the designation applies to the dog. The city or county may charge a potentially dangerous dog fee in addition to the regular licensing fee to provide for the increased costs of maintaining the records of the dog. 31642. A potentially dangerous dog, while on the owner's property, shall, at all times, be kept indoors, or in a securely fenced yard from which the dog cannot escape, and into which children cannot trespass. A potentially dangerous animal may be off the owner's premises only if it is restrained by a substantial leash, of appropriate length, and if it is under the control of a responsible adult. 31643. If the dog in question dies, or is sold, transferred, or permanently removed from the city or county where the owner or keeper resides, the owner of a potentially dangerous dog shall notify the animal control department of the changed condition and new location of the dog in writing within two working days. 31644. If there are no additional instances of the behavior described in Section 31602 within a 36-month period from the date of designation as a potentially dangerous dog, the dog shall be removed from the list of potentially dangerous dogs. The dog may, but is not required to be, removed from the list of potentially dangerous dogs prior to the expiration of the 36-month period if the owner or keeper of the dog demonstrates to the animal control department that changes in circumstances or measures taken by the owner or keeper, such as training of the dog, have mitigated the risk to the public safety. 31645. (a) A dog determined to be a vicious dog may be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621), that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
(b) If it is determined that a dog found to be vicious shall not be destroyed, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that prot ect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605. 31646. The owner of a dog determined to be a vicious dog may be prohibited by the city or county from owning, possessing, controlling, or having custody of any dog for a period of up to three years, when it is found, after proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621), that ownership 75 or possession of a dog by that person would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Article 4. Penalties 31662. Any violation of this chapter involving a potentially dangerous dog shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). Any violation of this chapter involving a vicious dog shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). 31663.- All fines paid pursuant to this article shall be paid to the city or county in which the violation occurred for the purpose of defraying the cost of the implementation of this chapter. Article 5. Miscellaneous 31681. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect othe-r provisions or applications of the chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable. 31682. The Judicial Council shall prepare all forms necessary to give effect to this chapter, including a summons or citation to be used by law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of this chapter. This chapter does not affect or change the existing civil liability or criminal laws regarding dogs. 31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, provided that no program shall regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for those costs which may be incurred by a local agency or school district because this act creates a new crime or infraction, changes the definition of a crime or infraction, changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction. Moreover, no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act. Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution.
76 HE HUMANE SOCIET FACT SHEET
State
VICIOUS DOG LAWS Summary
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia currently have laws regarding vicious dogs: AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, ME, MD, MI, MN, NB, NH, NC, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, and Washington, DC.
In seven of the twenty-nine states, violations of the vicious dog law can be considered a felony offense. CO and UT are felonies only if death occurs; GA and WA are felonies only if there are prior convictions.
Indiana passed a law in 1994, changing the definition of "deadly weapon" to include an animal that is readily capable of causing serious bodily injury and is used in the commission or attempted commission of a crime.
Three state laws (CA, CO, and MN) prohibit enactment by a local community of breed specific bans.
In Ohio, "vicious dog" includes any dog that belongs to the breed that is commonly know as a pit bull.
In eight of the twenty-nine states, there are laws that establish categories such as "potentially dangerous," "dangerous," and "vicious" dogs: CA, IL, GA ,NJ, OH, WA, NC, VA.
Most of the states (with the exception of CO) require the owner appeal the designation within a certain number of days of the impoundment or of the notification of the determination or of the hearing held in regard to the impoundment of the dog.
In eleven states, once a dog has been found to be "dangerous, " "vicious," or "potentially dangerous," the owner must post the property with special warning symbols: AZ, FL, MN, NJ, OK, PA, RI, SC, TX, VA, WA, and Washington, DC.
In seventeen states, there is a special license required for dogs labeled "potentially dangerous," "dangerous," and "vicious:" AZ, CA, FL, GA, KY, MI, MN, NJ, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TX, VA, WA, WV, and Washington, DC.
In nineteen states, there is a requirement that dogs officially designated as vicious be properly restrained and/or muzzled when in public and off the owner's private property: AZ, CA, DE, FL, KY, IL, MD, ME, MN, NC, NJ, NH, OH, PA, RI, SC, TX, VA, WA, and Washington, DC.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
9/99
2100 L STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20037 n 202-452-1100 n www.hsus.org Promoting the protection of all animals
77 GUIDELINES FOR REGULATING DANGEROUS or VICIOUS DOGS
%/AMIE 44 44,
1*(`'t/ivrrto The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L St. N.W., Washington, DC 20037
78 Table of Contents
Introduction 1 Why are New Laws Necessary 1
What Changes are Generally Needed 1 Assessing Your Needs 2 Reviewing Existing Laws 3
Designing or Modifying a Dangerous Dog Law 4 Defining a "Vicious" or "Dangerous" Dog 4 Indications of a Dangerous Animal 5
Indications Following a Hearing 5
Exemptions 7 Breed-Specific Definitions of "Dangerous" 7 Actions to be Taken by Owners of Dangerous Dogs 9
Actions to be Taken against Owners of Dangerous Dogs 13
Animal Fighting Felony Provisions 14
Assessing and Refining Changes to Dangerous Dog Laws 15
79 GUIDELINES FOR REGULATING VICIOUS OR DANGEROUS DOGS
Introduction
Many communities around the country are reassessing their laws relating to vicious or dangerous dogs. In some instances this has been the result of serious dog bite incidents that have focused attention on the inadequacies of existing regulations. In other cases legislators have attempted to address the problem before such an incident takes place. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has been asked to assist many communities in improving their vicious dog laws. We have not produced a "model ordinance" relating to this problem since, in reviewing a variety of existing laws, we have concluded that different areas can have very different types of problems. We feel that each community should carefully assess its problems and the reasons why existing laws may have been ineffective and then take appropriate action to correct these shortcomings.
Why are New Laws Necessary?
Most existing laws relating to the control of dangerous animals are derived from centuries-old English Common Law. This approach has failed to recognize the complex role of dogs in our culture and changing social trends that have resulted in widespread keeping of potentially dangerous animals. Also, most laws fail to take into consideration modern knowledge about animal behavior, animal welfare and the epidemiology of animal bites. Finally, many existing laws place the burden of punishment on the offending animal, when in fact it is an irresponsible owner who is usually the direct or indirect cause of dangerous incidents.
What Changes Are Generally Needed?
Most laws limit dog owners' liability for their dogs' actions to situations in which they have knowledge of the animal's "vicious propensity". Although this is generally intended to mean any knowledge that the animal was likely to commit an injury, this has often been interpreted to mean that the owner must be aware of some prior bite incident. This has popularly been referred to as a "free bite" or "one bite" rule. The existence of a prior attack is often seen as the major indicator that an animal is vicious. This approach has several problems:
1
80 First, the growing popularity of large and/or aggressive dogs makes it a reality that an animal's first bite is likely to be severe or even fatal. Thus many communities want to be able to identify problem situations before they result in injury. Second, the concept of "vicious propensity" implies that all dog bites are the result of a behavior problem of the animal. However, we now know that this is only part of the problem. A dog's tendency to bite is a product of at least five factors:
- the dog's genetic predisposition to be aggressive - the early socialization of the animal to people - its training for obedience or mistraining for fighting - the quality of care and supervision provided by the owner - the behavior of the victim. All of these factors interact, thus an inherently aggressive dog which is well trained and responsibly supervised may present little or no danger, whereas an affectionate animal with little genetic tendency to bite may become dangerous if poorly socialized, unsupervised, mistreated or provoked.
Good regulations should recognize all of these possibilities and provide for appropriate actions. They should be written with the understanding that any dog may become "dangerous" under the wrong circumstances. Another common problem with existing vicious dog statutes is that the animal suffers the consequences of its owner's irrespon- sibility. The animal may face destruction or lengthy impoundment, while the owner may receive little or no punishment. In addition, many irresponsible owners are chronic offenders of animal control laws. Thus ordinances should be constructed that impose serious, escalating fines on owners who are clearly unwilling or unable to adequately control their animals.
Assessing Your Needs
The first step in refining dangerous dog laws is to thoroughly evaluate the special problems and needs of your community. A surprising number of animal control ordinances are introduced without ever consulting with the people most affected by these laws. We suggest that information should be gathered from animal control agencies, local humane societies, veterinarians and/or local veterinary associations, health departments, police, the mayor's office or community boards, kennel or breed clubs, the general dog-owning public, and fish and game or wildlife authorities. Such information can be obtained from records of previous hearings. If no such hearings have been held, then the public hearing process should be a part of your legislative effort.
2
81 Be sure to request information from the appropriate experts as well as from the general public. The information that should be gathered when assessing problems related to dangerous dogs should include:
- Estimates of the number of dogs in the area and, if possible, some idea of the types of dogs owned and the reasons for ownership (companion, guard, working, etc.) - Estimates of the percentage of dogs that are presently licensed (this ranges from less than 10% to about 80%) - Reports on the incidence of dog attacks and, if known, a breakdown of the breeds, license status and other information about these incidents - Reports from law enforcement and/or animal control officers on difficulties they have encountered in enforcing existing ordinances - Reports on the number of citations, impoundments and quarantines - Police reports on incidnce of animal cruelty, organized dog fighting and "street" dog fighting in the area - Testimony from public hearings on the nature of common animal problems in the area, including comments on the responsiveness of law enforcement and/or animal control to these complaints - Reports from agriculture or fish and wildlife authorities on problems related to dog attacks on livestock or wildlife - Testimony from kennel clubs, breed clubs, veterinarians and local humane organizations on the nature of dog ownership in the community and their perceptions of existing problems - Reports from postal authorities, utilities and other public services that might be having a problem with dangerous dogs
Reviewing Existing Laws
The evaluation process described above should enable a community to characterize the major dog problems. In some areas the problem may be a large number of animals at large. Other areas may have a high number of "bad" dogs kept for protection. Possession of trained fighting dogs may be a common problem in other regions. Once the problems have been identified more clearly, the community should evaluate existing laws. The following questions should be asked:
- Do current laws address each of the problem areas? - Are they being enforced? - Is there a problem with repeat offenders?
If existing laws do not seem to be working, the community should look for the source of the problems. Common shortcomings of animal control laws include: - Inadequate budget or manpower to enforce the laws - Inadequate training to effectively deal with problem animals in a humane way - Low priority given to animal control issues
3
82 - Poor community education about existing animal laws and the importance of compliance with these laws - Community opposition to some provision(s) of existing laws - Lack of judicial support in upholding effective penalties
Designing or Modifying a Basic Dangerous Dog Law
Once you have identified the problems posed by dangerous dogs and the shortcomings of existing codes, it may be necessary to create new ordinances or rewrite existing ones. A workable dangerous dog law should address the problem in the following way:
1. Define what is meant by a "vicious" or "dangerous" dog 2. Establish the procedures by which a dog comes to be considered vicious or dangerous 3. Establish the actions that may be taken.if an owner contests the designation of his or her dog as dangerous 4. Establish the actions that must be taken by the owner of a dog considered to be dangerous 5. Describe the penalties that will be assessed if the dog owner does not comply with the above requirements
Defining a "Vicious" or "Dangerous" Dog
As we noted above, one of the most common problems with existing laws is that they do not identify a potentially dangerous animal until after someone has been injured, rather than attempting to prevent injuries. In reality, most bite instances have been preceded by circumstances that should have given warning that a potentially dangerous situation existed. In some cases there is no question that a problem exists. For example, the traditional criterion of a prior unprovoked bite is sufficient for considering an animal dangerous. Other circumstances might be subject to dispute. For example, witnesses may disagree on whether or not a particular incident might have been provoked. For this reason, some judgements should be made following a hearing.
Effective dangerous dog ordinances require a good reporting and recording system for keeping track of injuries caused by animals. If your laws do not already provide for mandatory reporting of dog bites to the health department, animal control or some other agency, then such a provision should be instituted. The revision of dangerous dog laws also provides a good opportunity to update licensing and rabies vaccination regulations.
The procedures outlined below should enable a community to identify animals and their owners who are causing problems, while still protecting the rights of responsible dog owners.
4
83 Indications of a Dangerous Animal
The following characteristics should automatically characterize an animal as dangerous. That is, no hearing should be required. However, a provision must be included that would enable an owner to request a hearing if he or she disagrees with the facts used to designate the animal as dangerous.
"Dangerous Dog" means: (1) Any dog which, according to the records of the appropriate authority, has inflicted severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property or (2) Any dog which, according to the records of the appropriate authority, has killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property or (3) Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting or any dog trained for dog fighting
(Optional)
(4) Any dog not owned by a governmental or law enforcement unit used primarily to guard public or private property
Note that in the above definitions, one prior serious bite is considered sufficient to define a dog as dangerous. Several existing laws allow a dog two or even three prior bites. We feel that this is inconsistent with basic principles of responsible pet ownership. The owner of any dog that has caused injury should be prepared to take immediate action to prevent further problems. If the circumstances surrounding this single instance are in dispute, then the owner has the option of a hearing and possible appeal, as described below.
Indications of a Dangerous Animal Following a Hearing
Many circumstances could be used to identify a potentially dangerous animal. A hearing could then be held to make a final determination. The format of the hearing, the composition of the panel, and the appeal process will vary depending om whether this law is enacted at the city, county or state level. One possible format for this provision follows:
A Determination Hearing shall be conducted by
" Pending the outcome of such a hearing, the dog must be securely confined in a humane manner either on the premises .of the owner or with a licensed veterinarian.
5
84 11 The
The
The folloWing criteria are among those that could be used to define an animal as "potentially dangerous" and thus prompt a hearing according to the procedures described above:
(1) Any dog which, when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack
This provision would cover animals that have threatened people, but which have not caused injuries. Our analysis of dog bite cases suggests that many serious incidents are preceded by a history of such "close calls".
(2) Any dog with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to otherwise threaten the safety of human beings or domestic animals
This is the general wording used by many existing ordinances. It is a "catch all" category that could be used to institute a hearing if neighbors, postal workers, utility workers or otherS feel that there is cause. Since pets are often the focus of neighborhood disputes, this provision should be made formal enough to avoid "nuisance" complaints against a pet owner, but at the same time it should provide citizens with legitimate complaints an opportunity to initiate appropriate action against an irresponsible owner of an animal that is likely to cause harm.
One approach to achieving this balance is to require an investigation if a sworn complaint is received from one or more residents of the community. This could be worded as follows:
Upon receipt of an "Affidavit of Complaint" signed by one or more residents of
6
85 (3) Any dog which, on three separate occasions within a twelve month period has been observed being unrestrained or uncontrolled off its owner's premises by
Animals that are repeatedly loose, even if not vicious, constitute a public nuisance and a potential threat to public health. In addition, many animals that later do cause injury have a history of running at large. Even well-behaved animals can become a serious threat in a pack situation. This provision addresses all of these problems. It is recognized thgt any dog might slip out on one or two occasions. The actual number to be used can be modified in accordance with the particular problems that exist in the community.
Exemptions for Animals that are Provoked
A sound dangerous dog ordinance should recognize that some bite situations are not precipitated by the dangerous nature of the animal but are brought on by the actions of the victim. Some allowance should be made to deal with situations in which the attack was provoked. Such provisions could be worded as follows:
" No dog may be declared dangerous if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or has, in the past, been observed or reported to have teased tormented, abused or assaulted the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. "
Other Exemptions
Existing ordinances often make specific exemptions for dogs used in law enforcement. Some additional exemptions may need to be spelled out relating to dogs used in hunting, since these might be used to chase wild animals.
Breed-Specific Definitions of "Dangerous"
One of the most controversial subjects in animal control legislation is the use of breed descriptions to automatically characterize a dog as vicious or dangerous or in some other way restrict or regulate ownership of the breed. Thus far, such breed-specific regulations have been specifically aimed at "pit bulls", although breed clubs and other groups have expressed fears that such restrictions might be extended to other breeds in the future.
7
86 There are many problems associated with breed-specific ordinances. (See "Vicious Dogs", Humane Society News, Winter 1986). Briefly, such laws fail to address the fact that most problems with dangerous dogs are due to irresponsible ownership, which can be compounded by the popularity of owning aggressive animals. In addition, many local humane organizations have reported that the media attention given to controversies over breed-specific legislation has actually increased the demand for pit-bulls.
Most breed-specific laws have faced court challenges from local or national breed organizations. These laws have generally been challenged on the basis of overinclusiveness, underinclusiveness, vagueness and violation of fourteenth amendment protection. Although several pit-bull specific laws have been struck down, others have been unopposed or have survived court - challenges in areas where unique circumstances seem to warrant them.
- An ordinance banning American Pit Bull Terriers in Tijeras, New Mexico was upheld at the trial level in March of 1986.
- A 1985 Shawnee, Kansas ordinance requiring pit bull owners to confine their animals and carry liability insurance and banning any new acquisitions of pit bulls was upheld, citing "dangerous conditions in the city."
- In May of 1986 Cincinnati, Ohio enacted an ordinance prohibiting the sale or purchase of pit bulls within the city limits which was amended to provide for confinement of these animals. An attempt to receive an injunction to prohibit enforcement of the law was thrown out on procedural grounds. Recently new court actions have been filed.
- Since April of 1984 Cambridge, Massachusetts has required the muzzling of pit bulls when off the owner's property. That law has not been challenged.
- In 1986 Chester, Pennsylvania required that owners of pit bulls must purchase special permits at $500 per year per dog for the first three dogs and $3,000 per year for each additional dog. Owners must post a $20,000 bond and confine animals in a secure place. A request for an injuction against enforcement was not granted at the District Court _level. The defense of breed-specific laws may be costly to a municipality in both time and money. The question remains whether such a law is any more effective in protecting the public than a general, comprehensive dangerous dog law such as that outlined here. Several new non-breed-specific laws, on which we have based many of our suggestions, have been effective in controlling problems related to all types of dangerous dogs, including pit bulls.
8
87 In the communities where it can be documented that specific breeds (and their owners) create special problems, breed-specific regulations that impose the least possible infringements on responsible owners of the breed seem to have a better chance of receiving public and/or judicial support. In any case, hastily constructed rules that concentrate on only one issue should not be seen as a complete solution to problems posed by dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners.
Actions to be Taken By Owners of Dangerous Dogs
Dogs Involved in Unprovoked Fatal or Severe Attacks Although there is often an outpouring of public sentiment in support of animals that have inflicted fatal or severe injuries, The HSUS believes that it is usually in the best interest of the public and responsible dog owners that a dog responsible for an unprovoked severe or fatal attack be humanely euthanized following a hearing to clarify the circumstances of the incident. The definition of "serious" or "severe" attack may vary. It is suggested that this be based on the extent of injuries as indicated by the type of medical intervention necessary, duration of hospitalization and projected length of recovery of the victim. The 1987 vicious dog law for the state of Washington offers the following definition: 'Severe injury' means any physical injury that results in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery. "
Dogs Involved in Provoked Fatal or Severe Attacks A dog that has inflicted fatal or severe injuries under circumstances which indicate that the animal was provoked is still a potential hazard. The owner of such an animal should be required to take the actions outlined below for dangerous dogs.
Dogs Defined as Dangerous as a Result of a Hearing or Automatic Definitions Outlined Above Dogs involved in non-fatal or non-severe bites should be quarantined and/or impounded for observation in accordance with existing rabies control ordinances for the area. This period of quarantine must meet the requirements of applicable rabies control laws, but should not exceed 14 days.
The following actions should be required of owners of animals that have been designated as "dangerous" by the procedures described above:
9
88 1. Licensing, Registration and Rabies Inoculation
The ordinance should note that all requirements for keeping any dog must be met by the owner of a "dangerous" dog. The community may wish to add a designation of "dangerous" to the registration records of such an animal, or may elect to require a special registration.
2. Positive Identification of the Animal
It is essential to be able to positively identify any dog that has been designated as dangerous. Presently, the most effective way of permanently and positively identifying dogs is by tattooing. Rhode Island state law words this as follows: The owner or keeper shall, at his own expense, have the licensing number assigned to such dog, or other such number as the city or town clerk or other licensing authority shall determine, tattooed upon such vicious dog by a licensed veterinarian or person trained as a tattooist and authorized as such by any state, city or town police department... The dog officer may, in his discretion, designate the particular location of said tattoo. "
In addition, the law should specify that the animal wear a conspicuously colored collar that would identify it as a dangerous dog.
3. Notification of Change of Status
It is also essential that the appropriate authorities be informed of any change in the status of a dangerous dog that might affect public health and safety. This provision may be worded as follows:
The owner or keeper shall notify the
Animals that have been declared dangerous should immediately be kept in a humane way that also protects the public. It is not enough to simply attach the dog to a heavy chain. Many severe attacks have been attributed to animals that either were chained, or who broke their restraints. This provision could be worded:
- 10 -
89 " While on the owners' property, a dangerous dog must be securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the animal from escaping. Such pen or structure must have minimum dimensions of five feet by ten feet and must have secure sides and a secure top. If it has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than two feet. The enclosure must also provide protection from the elements for the dog. "
In addition, owners of dogs that have been designated as dangerous should be required to post, signs notifying the public of the presence of such an animal:
" The owner or keeper shall display a sign on his or her premises warning that there is a dangerous dog on the property. This sign shall be visible and capable of being read from the public highway or thoroughfare. In addition, the owner shall conspicuously display a sign with a symbol warning children of the presence of a dangerous dog. "
5. Control and/or Muzzling while Off Owner's Property
A good ordinance must recognize that humane care may require that the animal be taken off the owners' property for exercise, veterinary care or other needs. The law should insure that the dangerous dog will be under close supervision and control at these times. This may be worded as follows:
" A dangerous dog may be off the owner's premises if it is muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash not exceeding six feet in length and under the control of a responsible person. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will not cause injury-to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration but must prevent it from biting any person or animal.
Optional Provisions
Municipalities around the country have added other provisions to their dangerous dog ordinances designed to further reduce the problems caused by irresponsible ownership of aggressive dogs. These provisions may or may not be appropriate for your community and some need not be applied to animals that are considered potentially dangerous, but which have not caused injuries.
6. Spay/Neuter Requirement for Animals Designated "Dangerous"
Although spaying or neutering may not reduce the probability that an animal will act aggressively, such a requirement may help reduce the number of animals with a. genetic tendency to bite and will also prevent owners of dangerous dogs from profiting from the sale of offspring of these animals, a major factor in the rapid growth of this problem.
90 7. Insurance Requirements or Bond
Many victims of dog attack are unable to recover medical expenses because the dog owner is uninsured or underinsured. Some municipalities require that the owners of dangerous dogs show proof of liability insurance or post bond. The amount specified should be reasonable and obtainable. Suggested wording for such a provision is:
The owner or keeper of a dangerous dog shall present to the
8. Owner Education/ Community Service
Since many of the problems posed by dangerous dogs are directly related to irresponsible pet ownership, some communities are beginning to require that violators of animal control laws attend mandatory classes on responsible care. These classes are modelled after those required for violators of traffic regulations. Such a provision will depend upon the resources available from animal control agencies and local humane societies.
9. Provisions for Inspection
To be effective, a dangerous dog ordinance should empower the appropriate authorities to make whatever inquiry is deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions. These measures will be more effective if such inspections occur on a regular basis (at least twice a year).
10. Euthanasia Option
If the owner or keeper of a dog that has been designated dangerous is unwilling or unable to comply with the above regulations for keeping such an animal then he or she should have the animal humanely euthanized by an animal shelter, animal control agency or licensed veterinarian, after a 14 day holding period. Any dog that has been designated as dangerous under these laws may not be offered for adoption.
11. Banishment of Dangerous Dogs
Some communities have passed ordinances that simply require that the animal be removed from the community's boundaries. Obviously this does not address the cause of these problems and only serves to move them into another jurisdiction.
- 12 -
91 12. Authorization of Funding for A Licensing Drive
Several communities have used the occasion of the passage of more stringent animal control laws to enact legislation that specifically provides for funding for a campaign to educate the public about the requirements for licensing animals and about the new provisions relating to dangerous dogs.
13. Injuries to Seeing-Eye Dogs or Blind Persons
Some communities have instituted special regulations requiring that the owner of any dog that, while off the owner's property, assaults, bites or otherwise injures a blind person or guide dog, shall be liable to the blind person for double all damages sustained. Such damages are to be recovered in a civil action.
14. Liability of Parents for Damages Caused by Dog Owned by Minor
Recent reports have indicated that a significant number of potentially dangerous dogs are owned by adolescents or other minors. Regulations should stipulate that if the owner or keeper of a dangerous dog is a minor, the parent or guardian of that minor shall be responsible for compliance with the specifications of the ordinance for the care and housing of the animal and shall also be liable for all injuries and property damage sustained by any person or domestic animal caused by an unprovoked attack by the dog.
Actions to be Taken Against Owners of Dangerous Dogs Many existing animal control ordinances consider aggressive dogs to be a trivial problem and apply correspondingly small penalties, yet the many injuries and deaths attributed to such dogs demonstrate the urgency of this issue and the need for more effective penalties.
The HSUS recommends that this issue is best addressed by passing strong state laws, since such laws can specify heavier penalties for offenders. This does not preclude working for local ordinances as well. Local level governments tend to meet more frequently and can respond more quickly to emergency situations. In some cases state legislatures meet only at the beginning of the year, or even every other year. It is never too early to begin to work with your state legislators to draft more effective dangerous dog legislation.
Specific penalties will depend on the level at which vicious dog ordinances are drafted (i.e. city, county, state). Check your local ordinances and state laws to determine how penalties should be structured to conform to applicable criminal codes.
- 13 -
92 The HSUS strongly recommends that felony level penalties be applied in cases of fatal or severe attacks or non-compliance with requirements for actions to be taken by the owners of animals that have been designated vicious or dangerous. Failure to comply with rules relating to the keeping of dangerous dogs should result in a fine of no less than $500, with a second failure resulting in felony penalties and possible confiscation of the animal(s) in question. Washington state's 1987 law provides for some of the strongest penalties for the owners of vicious dogs:
(1) Any dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority if the: (a) Dog is not validly registered...; (b) owner does not secure the liability insurance coverage required...; (c) dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure; (d) dog is outside of the dwelling of the owner , or outside of the proper enclosure and not under the physical restraint of the owner. In addition, the owner shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021. "
(2) If a dangerous dog of an owner with a prior conviction... attacks or bites a person or another domestic animal, the dog owner is guilty of a class C felony... In addition, the dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, placed in quarantine for the proper length of time, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner. "
(3) The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human, whether the dog has previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall be guilty of a class C felony ... In addition, the dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, placed in quarantine for the proper length of time, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner. "
Appending Animal Fighting Felony Provisions to Laws Dealing with Vicious or Dangerous Dogs
Many of the problems related to dangerous dogs are directly and indirectly linked to the continuing practice of dog fighting. Several states have appended felony level dog fighting or animal fighting laws to legislation aimed at controlling vicious or dangerous dogs. The HSUS endorses this strategy in dealing with this serious issue. A model state animal fighting law is available on request.
- 14 -
93 Assessing and Refining Changes to Dangerous Dog Laws
It is likely that any law or ordinance relating to dangerous dogs will need to undergo some "fine-tuning". Some provisions may prove difficult to enforce with the resources that are available. Others might generate an unexpected amount of local controversy. Some communities have recognized this and have instituted new provisions on a temporary basis. For example, it may be stipulated that the new regulations will expire after a period of three years unless retained by appropriate vote. This is called a "sunset provision." In any case, the impact of any new ordinances should be thoroughly assessed on a regular basis; at least yearly. The information to be gathered should be the same as that recommended for the original evaluation of the problem, including information on bites, animal complaints, citations and licensing trends. We hope that with careful attention to the issues outlined in these guidelines, communities will be able to establish laws that protect the public and, at the same time, do not place unnecessary burdens on responsible owners of well-behaved animal or cause undue hardship for a dog who is the innocent victim of an irresponsible owner.
- 15 -
94 152 Hamburgisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt 2000 Nr. 25
Verordnung zum Schutz vor gefahrlichen Hunden und iiber das Halten von Hunden (Hundeverordnung) Vom 18. Juli 2000
Auf Grund von § la des Gesetzes zum Schutz der offent- lichen Sicherheit und Ordnung vom 14. Marz 1966 (Hambur- gisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt Seite 77), zuletzt gean- den am 14. Juli 2000 (Hamburgisches Gesetz- und Verord- nungsblatt Seite 146) wird verordnet:
§1 geeigneten Sachverstandigen und durch den Besuch einer Gefahrliche Hunde geeigneten Hundeschule. Geeignet ist eine Hundeschule, der Einrichtungen und ausgebildetes Personal fur die Sachkunde- (1) Bei den folgenden Rassen und Gruppen von Hunden vermittlung und Erziehung zur Verfilgung stehen. Weitere sowie deren Kreuzungen untereinander oder mit anderen Voraussetzungen fur die Erteilung der Erlaubnis ist der Nach- Hunden wird die Eigenschaft als gefahrliche Hunde stets weis des Bestehens einer besonderen Haftpflichtversicherung, vermutet: der Nachweis der erfolgten Sterilisation oder Kastration des 1. Pit-Bull, Hundes sowie seine falschungssichere Kennzeichnung. Die Erlaubnis ist mit der Auflage zu verbinden, die zustandige 2. American Staffordshire Terrier, Behorde schriftlich oder zur Niederschrift fiber den Tod und 3. Staffordshire Bullterrier. die Abgabe des Hundes (Todes- oder Abgabetag, Name und (2) Bei den folgenden Rassen von Hunden wird die Gefahr- Anschrift der neuen Halterin oder des neuen Halters) zu unter- lichkeit vermutet, solange nicht der zustandigen Beh6rde richten. fiir den einzelnen Hund nachgewiesen wird, dass dieser (3) Kann durch das Gutachten einer geeigneten Tierarztin keine gesteigerte Aggressivitat und Gefahrlichkeit gegenuber oder eines geeigneten Tierarztes oder einer geeigneten Sach- Menschen oder Tieren aufweist: verstandigen oder eines geeigneten Sachverstandigen nachge- 1. Bullmastiff, wiesen werden, dass ein Hund im Sinne von § 1 Absatz 2 nicht 2. Bullterrier, gefahrlich ist (Negativzeugnis), so kann die Halterin oder der Halter von der Erlaubnispflicht fur diesen Hund freigestellt 3. Dogo Argentino, werden. 4. Dogue de Bordeaux, § 3 5. Fila Brasileiro, Zuverlassigkeit 6. Mastiff, 7. Masten Espanol, Die erforderliche Zuverlassigkeit im Sinne des § 2 Absatz 1 fiir den Umgang mit gefahrlichen Hunden besitzen Personen 8. Mastin Napoletano, nicht, die insbesondere 9. Kangal, 1. a) wegen vorsatzlichen Angriffs auf das Leben oder die 10. Kaukasischer Owtscharka, Gesundheit, Vergewaltigung, Zuhalterei, Menschen- 11. Tosa Inu. handels, Land- oder Hausfriedensbruchs, Widerstandes gegen die Staatsgewalt, einer gemeingefahrlichen Dies gilt auch ftir Kreuzungen dieser Rassen untereinander Straftat oder einer Straftat gegen das Eigentum oder das oder mit anderen als den von Absatz 1 erfassten Hunden. Vermogen, (3) Unabhangig hiervon kann sich die Eigenschaft eines b) wegen einer im Zustand der Trunkenheit begangenen Hundes als gefahrlicher Hund im Einzelfall daraus ergeben, Straftat oder dass er ein der Situation nicht angemessenes oder ausgepragtes c) wegen einer Straftat nach dem Tierschutzgesetz, dem Aggressionsverhalten gegen Menschen oder Tiere zeigt. Bundesjagdgesetz, dem Waffengesetz, dem Gesetz nber die Kontrolle von Kriegswaffen, dem Sprengstoffgesetz §2 oder dem Betaubungsmittelgesetz Haltungsverbot, Erlaubnispflicht rechtskraftig verurteilt worden sind, wenn seit dem Eintritt (1) Das Halten gefahrlicher Hunde ist grundsatzlich verbo- der Rechtskraft der letzten Verurteilung flinf Jahre noch ten. Wer einen gefahrlichen Hund im Sinne von § 1 halten will, nicht verstrichen sind, bedarf der Erlaubnis der zustandigen Behorde. Die Erlaubnis 2. wiederholt oder groblich gegen die Vorschriften eines der in darf auf Antrag nur erteilt werden, wenn die Antragstellerin Nummer 1 Buchstabe c genannten Gesetze oder der Gebote oder der Antragsteller ein berechtigtes Interesse an der Hal- der §§ 4 bis 6 verstofien haben, tung nachweist und gegen ihre oder seine Zuverlassigkeit keine Bedenken bestehen. Es diirfen keine Gefahren fur 3. minderjahrig sind oder Leben, Gesundheit oder Eigentum Dritter entgegenstehen. 4. an einer psychischen Krankheit oder einer geistigen oder (2) Die Erlaubnis ist vom Nachweis der Sachkunde der seelischen Behinderung leiden oder alkohol-, arzneimittel- Hundehalterin oder des Hundehalters und der Erziehung des oder drogenabhangig sind. Hundes abhangig zu machen. Der Nachweis erfolgt durch In die Frist nach Satz 1 Nummer 1 wird die Zeit nicht einge- Gutachten einer geeigneten Tierarztin oder eines geeigneten rechnet, in welcher die Personen auf behordliche Anordnung Tierarztes oder einer geeigneten Sachverstandigen oder eines in einer Anstalt verwahrt worden sind.
95 Nr. 25 Hamburgisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt 2000 153
54 liegt oder die Hundehalterin oder der Hundehalter gegen die Halten gefahrlicher Hunde Vorschriften des 54 verstoBt. (1) Gefahrliche Hunde sind so zu halten, dass Menschen, (2) Die zustandige Behorde kann das Halten eines Hundes Tiere oder Sachen nicht gefahrdet werden. Sie sind insbeson- untersagen, wenn gegen die Vorschriften des §6 verstoBen dere ausbruchssicher unterzubringen. AuBerhalb eingefriede- wird. ten Besitztums sowie in Treppenhausern, in Fluren und auf (3) Die zustandige Behorde kann im Zusammenhang mit Zuwegen von Mehrfamilienhausern sind sie anzuleinen und der Untersagung der Haltung eines Hundes dessen Einziehung miissen einen Maulkorb tragen, der ein BeiBen verhindert. anordnen. Eine Aufsichtsperson muss korperlich und geistig in der Lage sein, den Hund sicher an der Leine zu halten. Sie muss zuver- (4) Die zustandige Behorde kann die Tatung eines Hundes lassig im Sinne des §3 sein. Sie darf nicht mehrere gefahrliche anordnen, wenn Tatsachen die Annahme rechtfertigen, dass Hunde gleichzeitig fuhren. Eine Hundehalterin oder ein der Hund auch in Zukunft eine Gefahr fur Leben und Hundehalter darf einen gefahrlichen Hund nur solchen Gesundheit von Mensch oder Tier darstellt. Personen 0berlassen, die die Gewahr (lat .& bieten, dass sie als Aufsichtspersonen geeignet sind. §8 (2) Wer einen gefahrlichen Hund halt, hat dies an jedem Weitere Bestimmungen fur Hunde Zugang des eingefriedeten Besitztums oder seiner Wohnung auBerhalb eingefriedeten Besitztums durch ein Warnschild mit der deutlich lesbaren Aufschrift ,Vorsicht, gefahrlicher Hund !" kenntlich zu machen. (1) AuBerhalb eingefriedeten Besitztums miissen frei laufende Hunde ein Halsband tragen, auf dem der Name und § 5 die Anschrift der Halterin oder des Halters angebracht sind. Verbot der Zucht, der Ausbildung und des Handels (2) Beim Ausfiihren von Hunden im Sinne des §1 ist die (1) Hunde diirfen nicht mit dem Ziel einer gesteigerten Erlaubnis oder der Bescheid fiber die Freistellung von der Aggressivitat und Gefahrlichkeit gegeniiber Menschen oder Erlaubnispflicht nach §2 Absatz 3 stets mitzuflihren. Tieren geziichtet oder ausgebildet werden. Mit gefahrlichen (3) Gefahrliche Hunde, die nicht in der Freien und Hanse- Hunden nach Si darf nicht geztichtet werden. Sie diirfen nicht stadt Hamburg gehalten werden, sind auBerhalb eingefriede- mit dem Ziel einer weiteren Steigerung ihrer Aggressivitat und ten Besitztums sowie in Treppenhausern, Fluren und auf Gefahrlichkeit ausgebildet werden. Zuwegen von Mehrfamilienhausern anzuleinen und miissen (2) Der gewerbsmaBige Handel mit gefahrlichen Hunden einen Maulkorb tragen. ist verboten. §9 §6 Ausnahmen Halten anderer Hunde Diese Verordnung gilt nicht fur (1) AuBerhalb des eingefriedeten Besitztums sowie in Treppenhausern, in Fluren und auf Zuwegen von Mehr- 1. Diensthunde der Bundes- und Landesbeh6rden und familienhausern sind frei laufende Hunde so zu beaufsich- Herdengebrauchshunde, soweit diese im Rahmen ihrer tigen, dass sie Menschen, Tiere oder Sachen nicht gefahrden. jeweiligen Zweckbestimmung eingesetzt werden, (2) An einer hochstens 2 m langen Leine zu flihren sind 2. Jagdhunde im Rahmen weidgerechter Jagdausubung. 1. Hunde, die nicht zuverlassig gehorchen, §10 2. Hunde, die bereits mehrfach Menschen oder Tiere verfolgt, anhaltend angebellt oder sie sonst erheblich belastigt Ordnungswidrigkeiten haben, (1) Ordnungswidrig handelt, wer vorsatzlich oder fahrlassig 3. laufige Hiindinnen, 1. a) entgegen 52 Absatz 1 Satz 2 einen gefahrlichen Hund 4. Hunde, die in Einkaufszentren, FuBgangerzonen, Haupt- ohne Erlaubnis halt, einkaufsbereichen und bei Veranstaltungen mit groBen b) entgegen 52 Absatz 2 Satz 5 einer Auflage fiber die Menschenansammlungen mitgefiihrt werden. Unterrichtung fiber den Tod oder die Abgabe eines §4 Absatz 1 Satze 4 und 7 gilt entsprechend. Weitergehende gefahrlichen Hundes zuwiderhandelt, Regelungen, insbesondere fiber Anleinpflichten und Mit- c) entgegen § 4 Absatz 1 Satz 2 einen gefahrlichen Hund nahmeverbote, die sich aus anderen Gesetzen und Verord- nicht ausbruchssicher unterbringt, entgegen §4 Absatz 1 nungen ergeben, bleiben unberiihrt. Satz 3 nicht anleint oder keinen Maulkorb tragen lasst, (3) Die zustandige Beh6rde kann das Halten eines Hundes entgegen §4 Absatz 1 Satz 6 mehrere gefahrliche Hunde insbesondere durch Anordnung eines Leinen- oder Maulkorb- gleichzeitig fiihrt oder entgegen §4 Absatz 1 Satz 7 als zwangs oder einer ausbruchssicheren Haltung beschranken, Hundehalterin oder Hundehalter einen Hund einer wenn der Hund ein Verhalten aufweist, durch das Menschen ungeeigneten Aufsichtsperson itherlasst, oder Tiere gefahrdet werden. d) entgegen 54 Absatz 2 nicht durch ein Warnschild auf das Halten eines gefahrlichen Hundes hinweist, §7 Untersagung des Haltens, 2. a) entgegen §5 Absatz 1 Satz 1 Hunde mit dem Ziel einer Einziehung und Totung von Hunden gesteigerten Aggressivitat und Gefahrlichkeit gegentiber Menschen oder Tieren ziichtet oder ausbildet, entgegen (1) Die zustandige Behorde untersagt das Halten eines 55 Absatz 1 Satz 2 mit gefahrlichen Hunden nach §1 Hundes, wenn die nach §2 erforderliche Erlaubnis nicht vor- ztichtet oder entgegen § 5 Absatz 1 Satz 3 solche Hunde
96 154 Hamburgisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt 2000 Nr. 25
mit dem Ziel einer weiteren Steigerung ihrer Aggressi- §11 vitat und Gefahrlichkeit ausbildet, b) entgegen § 5 Absatz 2 mit gefahrlichen Hunden gewerbs- Ubergangsbestimmungen maBig handelt, (1) 3. a) entgegen § 6 Absatz 1 einen Hund ohne Aufsicht frei Mit dem In-Kraft-Treten dieser Verordnung tritt die umherlaufen lasst, so dass Menschen, Tiere oder Sachen Hundeverordnung vom 28. Juni 2000 (Hamburgisches Gesetz- gefahrdet werden, und Verordnungsblatt Seite 111) auger Kraft. b) entgegen § 6 Absatz 2 Satz 1 einen Hund nicht an einer hochstens 2 m langen Leine fiihrt, (2) Wer zum Zeitpunkt des In-Kraft-Tretens dieser Verord- nung einen gefahrlichen Hund im Sinne des § 1 halt, hat bis c) entgegen § 6 Absatz 2 Satz 2 in Verbindung mit § 4 zum 28. November 2000 die Erlaubnis nach § 2 zu beantragen Absatz 1 Satz 7 als Hundehalterin oder Hundehalter und die Voraussetzungen fur die Erteilung dieser Erlaubnis einen Hund einer ungeeigneten Aufsichtsperson tiber- nachzuweisen. lasst, d) entgegen § 6 Absatz 3 der Anordnung eines Leinen- oder (3) Mit In-Kraft-Treten dieser Verordnung unterliegen alle Maulkorbzwangs oder einer ausbruchssicheren Haltung Hunde der in § 1 Absatze 1 und 2 genannten Rassen, Kreuzun- zuwiderh an delt, gen und sonstigen Gruppen bis zur endgilltigen Entscheidung 4. a) entgegen § 8 Absatz 1 seinen Hund nicht mit einem fiber den Antrag nach Absatz 2 einem Leinen- und Maulkorb- dieser Vorschrift entsprechenden Halsband versieht, zwang im Sinne des § 4. b) entgegen § 8 Absatz 2 nicht die Erlaubnis oder den Freistellungsbescheid mitfiihrt, (4) Bei Verstolien gegen Absatze 2 und 3 findet § 7 ent- sprechende Anwendung. c) entgegen § 8 Absatz 3 einen gefahrlichen Hund nicht anleint oder keinen Maulkorb tragen lasst. (5) Ordnungswidrig handelt auch, wer vorsatzlich oder (2) Die Ordnungswidrigkeit kann mit einer GeldbuBe bis fahrlassig entgegen Absatz 3 einen gefahrlichen Hund nicht zu einhunderttausend Deutsche Mark geahndet werden. anleint oder keinen Maulkorb tragen 'Asst.
Gegeben in der Versammlung des Senats, Hamburg, den 18. Juli 2000.
Herausgegeben von der Justizbeh6rde der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg. Druck, Verlag und Ausgabestelle Liitcke & Wulff, Heidenkampsweg 76B, 20097 Hamburg, — Telefon: 23 5129-0 — Telefax: 23 27 86. Bestellungen nimmt der Verlag entgegen. Bezugspreis far Teil I und II zusammen jahrlich 132,- DM. Einzelstlicke je angefangene vier Seiten 0,45 DM (Preise einschlieBlich 7% Mehrwertsteuer). — Beim Postbezug wird der Teil I des Hamburgischen Gesetz- und Verordnungsblattes im Bedarfsfall dem Amtlichen Anzeiger als Nebenblatt im Sinne von §8 der Postzeitungsordnung beigefiigt.
97 Appendix B: Email Correspondence.
The following is an email from Ms. Zoe Younker of State Farm Insurance.
Forwarded message Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:22:06 -0600
Please include the following line in any e-mail correspondence regarding this issue: Contact number: Insur<<000000000051814>>
Ondrej Cistecky,
Thank you for contacting us through statefarm.com (tm).
Your research is correct. The insurance industry spends about a billion dollars a year on dog bite claims. But besides the costs involved with dog bites, there are also the health risks.
* More than 4.7 million people each year are bitten by dogs. Dog bite requiring medical attention in the United States number 500,000 to 1 million annually.
* On average about 20 people each year die from dog bites. * * As you may know, State Farm Insurance, is the largest auto and home insurer in the country and therefore we are faced with a serious number of dog bite claims. In 1997 we paid out $73,549,017, in 1998 $74,918,471, in 1999 $73,549,017. Although we don't have the 2000 numbers available, we are hoping to have another slight decrease. * * State Farm does not refuse insurance or charge a higher premium to applicants based on the breed of dog they own. We believe there are good dogs and bad dogs within every breed, just as there can be responsible and irresponsible owners of each breed. * * That is why we stress responsible pet ownership as well as responsible behavior around dogs. Because children account for more than 60 percent of all dog bite victims, parents and caregivers should: * * NEVER leave a baby or small child alone with a dog. * Be on the lookout for potentially dangerous situations. * Start teaching young children -- including toddlers -- to be careful around pets. Children must be taught NOT to approach strange dogs. Children should ask permission from a dog's owner before petting any dog.
To spread this message of dog bite prevention, State Farm created a dog bite prevention campaign targeting not only owners but also children. State Farm and the AVMA have distributed almost seven million brochures and children's activity books in English and Spanish free to the public. Since this campaign began we have seen small decreases in our claims data, which seems to make a case for education.
Many cities and counties have tried to pass laws labeling certain breeds of 98 dogs a "vicious." For example, the state of Ohio has determined that the pit bull meets the definition of a "vicious dog." (Ohio Revised Code 955.11) As a result, the owners of pit bulls are subject to specific requirements to protect the public from injury by these animals. Insurance is regulated at the state-level, and in this case we believe it is in the best interest of our policyholders to not provide coverage under its homeowner's policy in the state for this breed of dog.
But I go back to my point about responsible ownership. Owners need to know how to socialize their dogs so their don't bite and the public needs to be aware of how to behave around dogs so they don't bite.
We the dog bite prevention material online
Zoe Younker State Farm Insurance Companies
The following is an email from the Insurance Information Institute.
Forwarded message Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:38:22 -0400 Subject: RE: Dog Bites
DOG BITE LIABILITY
4.5 million dog bites every year (according to the CDC. However, this number can't be substantiated as sometimes people don't report bites) 1986 - 585,000 bites requiring medical treatment
1994 - 800,00 bites requiring medical treatment
Between 1979 and 1994 there were 279 deaths attributed to dog bites.
There is a one in five chance of getting bitten by a dog. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, 50 percent of all kids will be bitten before they reach the age of 12. $1 billion in insurance claims on dog bites -- $250 million from the homeowners liability and medical portion (property/casualty pay outs). As a comparison, the property/casualty industry spent $1 billion in claims for frozen pipes. There are no states that mandate that an insurance company must insure a homeowner who has a dog. However, most insurance companies do insure homeowners with dogs, unless there has been an incident where the dog was aggressive, resulting in a large claim. In that instance, the insurance company will suggest the homeowner give the dog away. If the homeowner does not wish to do that, it may result in either higher premiums, non-renewing the homeowner's insurance policy or exclusion for the dog. 70% of dog bites occur on the property of the dog owners, which is an indicator that there is a greater need for training by dog owners. More and more people are using dogs as a security device, thinking they will get a discount from their insurer if they have a dog for the purposes of 99 protection, rather than as a pet. But in reality, it's more like having a loaded shotgun and the homeowner may be charged more if it is an aggressive dog. Until recently, an owner could be found liable for a dog bite only if the victim could prove that the owner knew the dog was dangerous. If the dog had never bitten anyone before, the owner usually was not held liable at all. Now, in most states, the victim need prove only that the dog caused the injury; the owner is liable and consequently, so is the insurer. One insurance company provided the information that during the five year period 1983-1988 in the state of Louisiana, it processed 1,225 dog bite claims. The total claim payout for these bites was more than $3 million, an average of $2,600 per claim. The largest four payments were $100,000, $94,488, $72,238 and $60,588. Most insurance companies will ask the breed of dog for identification purposes. The breed of dog is asked and used only in cases of dog bite claims. There are of course certain breeds that seem to stand out as the most vicious or have the most dog bite claims such as the Pit Bull Terrier, Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Boxer, German Shepherd, Great Dane, Rottweiler and Siberian Husky. There are certain breeds that Metropolitan denies coverage for, however, that is because they have had large claims made on those breeds. You can speak to Rich Berstein on this subject at 401-827-2660. One thing to keep in mind the situation is controversial because dog owners have an emotional interest in their animals - each owner feels the breed he or she owns is not a problem. Insurance companies believe that the ownership, rather than the breed, per se, is the problem. Any breed of dog can be mishandled, which would create a condition favorable for the dog to respond to provocation. To different breeds of dogs, different things are a provocation, including making direct eye contact, hitting against the fence that the dog is behind, entering the dog's space, getting too close to the dog, and or pulling on or hitting the dog. How a dog responds to any of these will be a reflection of its past experiences and training. The use of fences and training are the best preventative measures. Other possible courses of action are neutering the dog, leashes, posting warning signs and isolation of the dog.
OUTSIDE SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 404.639.3311 - general info. number
INSURANCE INFORMATION INSTITUTE 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-669-9200 Fax: 212-791-1807 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Release Contact: Press Office 212-669-9200 100 DON'T GET CAUGHT BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE WHEN IT COMES TO DOG LIABILITY, WARNS I.I.I.
NEW YORK -- Dog Bites Man. Man bites back with a lawsuit. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are approximately 4.7 million dog bites per year. These bites cost over $1 billion with the property/casualty insurance industry paying roughly $250 million of that in liability and medical payments, according to the Insurance Information Institute. If a dog bites, the victim may want the dog owner to pay for any medical expenses and pain and suffering, says the I.I.I. Proving liability for a dog bite is easy under strict liability laws in 31 states. The victim only needs to prove that the dog was the perpetrator. Other states require the victim to prove the owner had prior knowledge of the dog's propensity to bite. The National Dog Bite Prevention Week which begins on May 21st is aimed at educating people about dog bites and their prevention. According to the homeowners and renters insurance policies typically cover dog bite liability, provided the dog owner informs the insurance company of a pet when buying a policy. (more)
-2 To reduce the chances of your dog biting, the I.I.I. recommends the following steps: a Have your dog spayed or neutered. Studies show that unsterilized dogs are three times more likely to bite than sterilized dogs. a Socialize your dog so that it knows how to act with other people and animals. a Play non-aggressive games with your dog such as "go fetch." Playing aggressive games like "tug of war" can encourage inappropriate behavior. a Avoid exposing your dog to situations in which you are unsure what the dog's response will be. The I.I.I. also warns against getting a dog for the purpose of guarding your home. Alarm systems prove to be more reliable theft deterrents, says the I.I.I. The responsibility for a dog becoming either a menace to society or a loving member of the family rests with the owner, says the I.I.I. The I.I.I. is a non-profit communications organization sponsored by the property/casualty insurance industry. I.I.I.'s goal is to educate consumers about what insurance is and how it works. -0-
101 English References
Associated Press. (1980, Jan. 16). Hollywood, Fla. approved new pit bull dog ordinance. A.P. Wire Service.
Associated Press. (1998). Insure.com . http://www.insure.com/states/ma/home/dogbite.html (2 Feb. 2001).
Avner, J.R., & Baker, M.D. (1991). Dog bites in urban children. Pediatrics, 88, 55- 57.
Baumgartner, J. K. (1990). A Research guide on the constitutionality of regulating or prohibiting the ownership of pit bull terriers. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 10(4), 37 - 66.
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
BVET. (2000). Aggressive dogs: measures taken after the hearing. Animal and Public Health Reports, 3, 3-4.
Cooper, J. (2000). Breed-Specific Legislation. http://www.rott-n- chatter.com/rottweilers/laws/breedspecific.html (6 Feb. 2001).
C.D.C. (1997). Dog-bite-related fatalities-United States, 1995-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 46(21), 463-467.
Daniels, T.J. (1986). A study of dog bites on the Navajo reservation. Public Health Rep., 101, 50-59
Forefield Inc. (2001). Dog Bites. 1999-2000. Insurance.com . http://www.insurance.com/insurance options/home/home_dog bites.asp (19 Mar. 2001).
Gershman, K.A., Sacks, J.J., & Wright, J.C. (1994). Which dogs bite? A case- control study of risk factors. Pediatrics, 93, 913-917.
Hanna, T.L., & Selby, L.A. (1981). Characteristics of the human and pet populations in animal bite incidents recorded at two Air Force bases. Public Health Rep., 96, 580- 584.
Insure.com . (2001). Breeds that bite and preventative measures. Insure.com . http://www.insure.com/home/dog.html . (13 Feb. 2001).
Kizer, K.W. (1979). Epidemiologic and clinical aspects of animal bite injuries. JACEP, 8, 134-141.
Maps.com. (2001 a). United States. Maps.com . http://www.maps.com/explore/factbook/us.html (12. April 2001).
Maps.com. (2001 b). Switzerland. Maps.com . http://www.maps.com/explore/factbook/switzerland.html (12. April 2001).
102 Marmer, L. (1984). The new breed of municipal dog control laws: Are they constitutional? University of Cincinnati Law Review, 53, 1067 - 1081.
Mays, N. (2000). German fighting dog laws update. DogHolocaust. http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/ourdogs5.html (9. April 2001).
Mays, N. (2001). The lights go out across Europe. DogHolocaust. http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/ourdogs8.html (9. April 2001).
Morton, C. (1973). Dog bites in Norfolk, VA. Health Sery Rep., 88, 59-65.
Ortel, S. (2000). Michigan dog owners defeat breed-specific county proposal. AKC. http://wvvw.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/art082100.cfm (6. Feb. 2001).
Sacks, J.J., Sinclair, L., Gilchrist, J., Golab, G.C., & Lockwood, R. (2000). Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA, 217, 836-840.
Simpson, E.C. (2000). "K-NEIN" law. DogHolocaust. http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/k-nein.html (9. April 2001).
Steffen, E. (2000). Protest / Demonstration in Diisseldorf / Germany July 22, 2000. DogHolocaust. http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/duesseldorfhtml (9. April 2001).
The American Kennel Club. (2001 a). Breed specific legislation overturned in Federalsburg, Maryland. AKC. http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/breed spec leg overturn.cfm (6 Feb. 2001).
The American Kennel Club. (2001 b). Dog owners win breed-specific battle in Florida. http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/florida_5 10.cfm (6 Feb. 2001).
The American Kennel Club. (2001 c). San Diego dog community rallies to pass favorable animal control legislation. http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/sanDiego051100.cfrn (6 Feb. 2001).
Thorne, J. A. (1988). If Spot bites the neighbor, should Dick and Jane go to jail? An Analysis of existing pet control legislation, tort liability, and the trend towards imposing criminal liability on the owners of dangerous and vicious animals. Syracuse Law Review, 39, 1445 - 1483.
Tietjen, S. B. (2001). Banning breeds is not the answer. AKC. http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/banningbreeds.cfrn (6 Feb. 2001).
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1996). TABLE 3. Projections of Households by Type of Household and Age of Householder: 1995 to 2010, Series 1, 2, and 3. U.S. Bureau of the Census. http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/hh-fam/table3n.txt (12 April. 2001).
103 Verbands fur das Deutsche Hundewesen. (2001). http://www.vdh.de/home.html (6 Feb. 2001).
Washington State veterinary Medical Association. (1990). WSVMA position statement dangerous dog legislation. Bellevue, WA: WSVMA.
Wright, J.C. (1985). Severe attacks by dogs: characteristics of the dogs, the victims, and the attack setting. Public Health Rep., 100, 55-61.
104 German References
Bundesamt far Justiz. (2000). Kampfhunde: Rechtsgrundlagen fiir allfallige Regelungen (Publication No. 65.1). Bern; Switzerland: Bundesamt far Justiz.
Dpa / AP. (2000). Hohn: RUckkehr zu sachlicher Diskussion. DUsseldorf Today. http://duesseldorf-today.de/news/2000-0722/hundedemo.shtml (12. April 2001).
Horisberger, U. (2001). Gefahrliche Hunde - Sinnvolle und zielgerichtete Massnahmen. Eine Stellungnahme mit Vorschlagen der Arbeitsgruppe Gefahrliche Hunde AGGH. Gesellschaft Schweizerischer Tierartze. http://www.gstsys.ch/cug/gst_vetlindex.nsf?Open (23. April 2001).
Lauper, P. (Speaker). (2000). ZuchtUberwachung und Wesenstest. (Transcript). Bern, Switzerland: Hearing zum Thema "Kampfhunde."
Neuenschwander, M. (2000, July 27). Kein Leinenobligatorium fur <
Stiftung fur das Wohl des Hundes. (1999 a). Jahresbericht 1999. Widen; Switzerland: Stiftung fiir das Wohl des Hundes.
Stiftung fur das Wohl des Hundes. (1999 b). Richtlinie fur Zuchstatten. Kollektivmarke <
Straub, F. (2000, November 16). Schranken fiir <
Straub, F. (2001, January 26). Acht Rassen auf Basler <
Wichert, A. (2000, August 28). Kampfhunde Frust und Klagen. Focus, 62-64, 35.
105 List of Interviewees
Arnold, S. PD Dr. med. vet. University of Zurich. Personal Interview. Zurich, Switzerland (21 March, 2001).
Binder, H. DMV Ph.D.. Veterinaramt Thrich. Personal Interview. Zurich, Switzerland (4 April, 2001).
Chetsas, P. Insurance Agent. Quincy Mutual Fire. Phone Interview. Boston, MA. (13 February, 2001).
Horisberger, U. med. vet. Personal Interview. Kiissnacht, Switzerland (28 March, 2001).
Insurance Information Institute. Email Interview (5 April, 2001).
Meister, H. Breeder of rottweilers. Personal Interview. Zurich, Switzerland (10 April, 2001).
Younker, Z. Insurance Agent. State Farm Insurance. Email Interview (27 March, 2001).
Milner, M. Dr. med. vet. Stiftung fiir das Wohl des Hundes. Personal Interview. Zurich, Switzerland (3 April, 2001).
106 Legal References
Table 1: U.S. State Codes.
NO. State Code 1 California Food and Agriculture Code: Division 14, § 9, Article 1 — 5. Penal Code: Part 1, Title 10 @399.5. 2 Florida § 767.10 and § 767.14 — 15. 3 Georgia §§ 4-8-7, 4-8-20 to 30 4 Maryland Article 27 § 70E. 5 Ohio § 955.11 and § 955.11 (A)(4)(a)(iii).
Table 2: Local or Municipal Dog Control Ordinances in the U.S.
NO. Town Ordinance Year 1 Akron, Ohio § 92.25 and § 92.99. 1998 2 Botetourt County, Virginia Article 2, Division 1 and 1A. N/A 3 Cincinnati, Ohio § 701-25 and §§ 701-45, -99- 1983 B. 4 De Kalb County, Georgia An ordinance for dogs. 1987 5 New York City, New York Title 17, Chapter 3, Subchapter 1990 6. 6 Hollywood, Florida § 6-25. 1980 7 Tacoma, Washington § 5.26 — 5.27. 1988
Table 3: German Bundeslander Dog Control Ordinances
NO. Bundeslander Ordinance Date 1 Hessen Gefahrenabwehrverordnung Uber das Halten und August 15, FUhren von gefahrlichen Hunden 2000 (Gefahrenabwehrverordnung gefahrliche Hunde) 2 NRW Ordnungsbehordliche Verordnung Uber das June 30, 2000 Halten, die Zucht, die Ausbildung und das Abrichten bestimmter Hunde (Landeshundeverordnung — LHV NRW) 3 City of Verordnung zum Schutz vor gefahrlichen Hunden July 18, 2000 Hamburg und fiber das Halten von Hunden (Hundverordnung)
Table 4: Swiss Laws
NO. Jurisdiction Law Year 1 Canton of Zurich 554.5. Gesetz Uber das Halten von Hunden 1971 2 Switzerland SR 455. Tierschutzgesetz 1978 3 Switzerland SR 455.1. Tierschutzverordnung 1981 107 Table 5: Court Cases
NO. Court Case Case Number Verdict 1 Garcia v. Village of Tijeras 106 N.M.116, 767 Ordinance upheld. P.2d 355, 1988 2 American Dog Owners 728 F. Supp. 1533, Ordinance upheld. Association, Inc. v. Dade County 89-771-Civ., 1989 3 American Dog Owners 113 Wash. 2d 213, Ordinance upheld. Association v. City of Yakima 777 P.2d. 1046, 1989 4 Munn v. State of Florida. 158 Fla. 892, 30 Manslaughter. So. 2d 501, 1947. 5 People of New York v. Sandgren. 302 N.Y. 331, 98 Manslaughter in the N.E. 2d 460, 1951. second degree. 6 State of Kansas v. Reynolds. No. 84-CR-347, no Involuntary official reports. manslaughter. 7 Turnipseed v. State of Georgia. 186 Ga. App. 278, Involuntary 367 S.E. 2d 259, manslaughter. 1988. 8 People of California v. Berry. 208 Cal. App. 3d. Second-degree murder. 783, 256 Cal. Rptr. 344, 1989. 9 Holder v. City of Hollywood No. 81-13968CR, Hollywood, Florida 1982. ordinance overturned.
108