• 06
  • August
    2010

A ban on Pit Bulls and Rottweilers was repealed last week in Rockville Center on Long Island. As Brad Shear, Executive Director, Mohawk & Hudson River Humane Society, pointed out, the law was already more or less unenforceable. New York State's Agriculture and Markets Law currently prohibits bans on notoriously dangerous dog breeds.

Do dog bans fix problems stemming from vicious dogs and prevent dog attacks?

More to the point, maybe - is there even a problem that needs fixing?

Shear looks to Denver, Colorado, which has one of the longest running dog bans in the country. Even the friendliest Pit Bull in the world could be impounded there and, potentially, be put down.

"Denver Colorado enacted a ban on Pit Bulls in 1989 and today the Mayor and Director of Animal Control both, while supporting the ban, say there is no evidence that it actually works to make the city safer."

Dog attacks happen, and can happen no matter the dog breed. If banning Pit Bulls has not made Denver safer, is it because illegal Pit Bulls are still attacking people? Or, is it because most dog bites don't involve the breed?

As discussed in previous posts, studies have not shown Pit Bulls or Rottweillers to be any more dangerous than any other dog breed. However, their size and strength mean that, when they do bite, the results are often tragic.

Is that a reason to ban the breed?

The best defense against dog bites and animal attacks has been and remains caution and care. Still, animal attacks do occur and when they do, if someone is at fault, then they should be held accountable for it.

Perhaps a ban on dangerous owners should be considered?

Related Resource