American Canine Foundation

The ACF formerly Washington Animal Foundation is a non-profit organization
that advocates responsible dog ownership.  ACF assists with legislation and
education. In 2001 ACF/WAF assisted the state of Louisiana in revising their
dangerous dog law in place of breed specific legislation.  ACF/WAF assisted
seven cities in passing "dangerous dog laws" including Algona, Walla Walla
and Tukwila Washington. ACF/WAF has worked with State Senators and
Representatives in California, Florida, Washington, Washington DC, New
Hampshire, Oregon, Maryland, New Jersey and Europe in stopping breed
specific legislation and drafting dangerous dog laws. In 2002, we drafted a
dangerous dog law for the U.S. Government for use on military installations
in place of breed specific legislation at Ft. Lewis Wa... ACF/WAF won a
decision by the Alabama Supreme Court in August 2002 affirming a trial court
decision proving American Pit Bull Terriers are not genetically dangerous.
ACF/WAF endorsed SB6635 in Washington, which prohibits declaring a dog
dangerous by using its breed. ACF drafted several state level and local
laws dog laws in 2003. ACF teaches responsible dog ownership and dog bite
prevention for the Department of Education in state of Washington.

ORIGINS OF DOG BREEDS

"The first dog breeds originated as the result of selection for certain uses
(Zimen1992).
People first used the instinct of fighting and protection in dogs. Then came
herding dogs that protected the herds against attacks from wolves and
coyotes (Finger1988), the first hunting dogs, that were used among other
things for the hunt of valiant game, the first farm dogs for protection of
human settlements and later war dogs, that were taken into war as living
weapons (Zimen1992) In the beginning, there were no breed standards as we
know them today.  Selection resulted on half natural basis.  Only those dogs
were used for reproduction that were suited the best for a certain purpose. 
Because only large, powerful, and courageous dogs showed the best skills in
the aforementioned utilization there were no significant differences in
reference to their exterior or their character."

"In the course of time nothing substantial changed in the main utilization
of dogs.  Specialized direction in breeds was established in the area of
hunting dogs as well as in special leisure activities that were established
in England toward the end of the 16th century.  Greyhound races and dogs
fighting bulls lead to the breeding of dogs that were especially suited for
this "sport".  Through the use of the fighting dog those qualities were used
that were also evident in the original usage of the dogs for hunting and
guarding.  Originally only reserved for royalty, especially the bullfighting
soon became a national pastime.  Later dogs fought against dogs (because
buying bulls was too expensive) and after dog fighting was forbidden by the
parliament in 1835, they were used against rats (Semencic, 1984)."

"Breeding of pedigree dogs in the modern sense only existed since the middle
of the 19th century.  In 1859 the first dog show was held in England.  With
the establishment of the British Kennel Club in 1873 the framework for
affiliation in breed, breeding and exhibition was laid (Zimen, 1992). In the
mid 1800's the American Kennel Club was established."  (Stur 2001)


IDENTIFICATION OF BREEDS

"Identification of individual dogs is possible on the basis of inherent and
acquired markings; the possibility of error can never be excluded.
Unmistakable identification is possible on the basis of definition of blood
groups respectively polymorphous protein and enzyme systems (Schleger and
Stur 1986), on the basis of DNA- fingerprints (Jeffreys and Morton1987
Georges et al., 1988) as well as with microchip identification (N.N.,1993)

Based on blood groups, polymorphous protein- and enzyme systems as well as
DNA -fingerprints respectively canine micro satellites, the verification of
an indicated lineage of two specific parent dogs is possible in an
individual dog (Morton et al., 1987; Binns et al., 1995; Fredholm and
Wintero, 1996; ZAJC and Sampson, 1996).

Identification of a particular breed affiliation is nevertheless only
possible based on exterior markings which are defined in the breed
standards; however in an individual case the undoubted affiliation of a dog
to a breed is only partially possible.

Of course, based on canine DNA markers one can execute genealogical studies
about the genetic distance between breeds or populations (Fredholm and
Wintero, 1995; Okumara et al., 1996; Pihkanen et al., 1996; ZAJC et al.,
1997) but affiliation of a single dog to a certain breed or the
determination of lineage of a mixed breed dog of certain breeds based on
canine markers is not possible according to current scientific standings
(Templeton, 1990)." (Stur 2001)

FATALITIES BY BREEDS OF DOG

A study at the University of Washington (Bandow, 1966) shows a comparison
between the shares of breeds in bite incidents in comparison with the
recorded numbers. In this study, no statistical insurance regarding the
deviation of breed dispersion resulted. The breed statistic, moreover, is
according to the testimony of the author, to be viewed with reservation.
Breed association is based on testimony of the victim who can not always in
an accident situation correctly identify the breed of attacking dog, or
based on the testimony of the owner who does not always state the correct
breed.

As for statistics used to support the idea that some breeds are more
dangerous, the numbers are misleading, said Anthony Pobderscek of the
University of Cambridge Veterinary School. "There's a problem getting
records," he said. "Golden Retrievers bite, Labrador Retrievers bite, but
don't get reported." Dr Wagner presented the results of a study on the
"dangerous dog" laws of Germany earlier this week at the meeting of the
International Society for Anthrozoology in Davis, Calif.
Although they look different, dog "breeds" have no more scientific basis
than do "races" among humans, said canine researcher James Serpell of the
University of Pennsylvania.
According to RIECK (1977), the biting dog is typically male, younger than
two years, and belongs to a working dog breed (e.g. Shepherd or Rottweiler),
or is for instance a Cocker Spaniel, or a Chow Chow, and originates in mass
breeding in which temperament or other desired qualities of a dog are not
considered in breeding. The author quotes a statistic about deaths through
dog bites. In 34 death cases in 1989 to 1990, 10 cases were caused by Nordic
breeds like the Husky, Samoyed or Malamute, 10 further cases were caused by
Pit Bull type (mix) dogs uncertain of positive identification. Seven deaths
were caused by German Shepherds, 3 by Dobermans, 1 by a Rottweiler, and 4 by
other breeds.

To claim one breed is more responsible for human fatalities is impossible.
Some would chose to single out the Pit Bull , due to the fact there are
estimated statistics and the type of dogs that resemble the Pit Bull are
such a wide variety that we find Amercian Bulldogs, Boxers, and Mastiff's
labeled as Pit Bulls. It is impossible to compare different breeds of dogs
versus human fatalities.

The Washington Animal Foundation did a survey on human fatalities by dogs in
2001 and came up with these figures, Rottweiler (6); Labrador (2);
Pomeranian (1); German Shepherd (2); Chow
(1); Wolf-Hybrid (1); Akita (1); Doberman (1); Beagle (1); Presa Canario
(2); Pit Bull  (1); mixed breeds (6). When comparing these figures with the
human fatalities from 1975-80 by Pickney & Kennedy, Traumatic Deaths from
Dog Attacks in the United States, the report identified the following as
responsible for human fatalities during the study period from May, 1975 to
April, 1980: German Shepherd (16); Husky (9); St. Bernard (8); Bull Terrier
(6); Great Dane (6); Malamute(5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund
(2); Doberman  Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler(1); Basenji (1);
Chow-Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); mixed and
unknown breeds (15). One would question the accuracy of human fatalities by
dogs from current reports and especially the statistics on the Pit Bull. When
looked at from a more realistic point of view one would find Shepherds and
other working dogs rate higher in fatalities. However, given the increasing
population of dog breeds at any given time, it is impossible to compare one
breed to another.

20% of deaths involve unrestrained dogs off the owner’s property, 70% involve
unrestrained dogs on the owner’s property, and 10% involve restrained dogs
on the owner’s property. Unrestrained dogs are responsible for a high number
of dog bite reports and attacks to other animals. Over 30 breeds of dogs
have been involved in 400 human deaths in a 30 year period.

In researching dog bite incident reports for the year 2000 in Pontiac
Michigan, our Foundation found a high number of mixed breeds biting but no
human fatalities. Chow Chows were the dogs biting unprovoked more than other
breeds. We found a high percentage of teasing or tormenting of dogs which in
turn caused them to bite. We found Sight Hounds responsible for deaths to
other animals, yet the breeds you hear about in the media did not rate high.
We find, because of the media attention focused on specific breeds such as
the Pit Bull, that the real statistics are never brought to the attention of
the general public or the politicians, which in turn does nothing to protect
the safety of the public. This misinformation affects the political pressure
concerning the passing of breed bans instead of focusing on passing strong
dangerous dog laws that target the irresponsible owners of all breeds of
dog. (ACF2003)


COST OF BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

In England, legislation was passed banning specific breeds of dogs in 1991.
The legislation has not worked and cost millions of dollars to impound and
remove only a small number of dogs banned:
Costs to police forces in England and Wales of operating the 1991 Act
(first three years following introduction);
1992-93 = £1,605,137
1993-94 = £1,195,421
1994-95=£825,257
'The costs incurred by the MPS in administering the Act in respect of
kenneling, transport and veterinary fees have been considered and are
as follows:'
Kenneling;
1992-93 - £1,263,763
1993-94 - £773,469
1994-95 - £443,646
1995-96 - £368,000
Vet/Transport;
1992-93 - £66,075
1993-94 - £77,418
1994-95 - £57,829
1995-96 - £47,000
Totals:
1992-93 - £1329,838
1993-94 - 0.85 million
1994-95 - 0.5 million
1995-96 - £415,000 projected (actual £0.7 million)
3) Baroness Blatch 1994
In response to a question in the House, admitted that in the Met. Police
area alone costs had reached £2.8 Million.
1992-1993 - 1.3 million
1993-1994 - 0.85 million
1994-1995 - 0.7 million
4) Mr. Nicholas Baker
In response to Mr. Gale MP, March 1995, confirmed there were 133 dogs
held in police custody in England & Wales.
31 - held for more than 3 months
73 - held for more than 6 months
The daily cost of keeping dogs in custody ranged between £1.76 to £9
per day Hansard 2/3/95 Col.657.658
(Poul Poulsen ACF2003)


In the United States, cities have spent millions of dollars attempting to
enforce breed bans and all efforts have failed. In Dade County Florida, a
breed ban was passed on Pit Bull type dogs in 1988, yet as of 2002 an
estimated fifty thousand Pit Bull type dogs populate Dade County.
In Saginaw Michigan, a breed ban was repealed several years ago because of
the cost of impounding dogs and the legal cost to the city for its defense
against dog owners who filed civil action.

In Saginaw, City Attorney Catherine R. Ginster stated "aside how the
ordinance was adopted and its enforcement, a major problem exists as to the
adequacy in terms of the number of available pens within the Animal Shelter
to hold animals for protracted periods. The county does not have the
capacity to hold "vicious dogs" for periods beyond which the State law
specifies."

In 2001, Baltimore, Maryland projected it would cost over 750,000 dollars a
year to attempt to enforce legislation directed at specific breeds and voted
against breed specific legislation.
In Pontiac, Michigan, WAF had filed a lawsuit against the city on December
13, 2001 for passing breed specific legislation without giving public
notice, it was repealed. In all reality, breed specific legislation cannot
be enforced; and where it has been enacted, it has been proven it could not
be enforced.

In 2002 Huntsville Alabama spent over 70,000 dollars declaring American Pit
Bull Terriers dangerous and appealed a case (Shelia Tack v Huntsville) to
the Supreme Court. A decision came back ruling in favor of the trial court
upholding American Pit Bull Terriers as not genetically dangerous.  
(ACF2003)



IS BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION CONSTITUTIONAL?

Banning a specific breed of dog could only be declared constitutional if
there were scientific genetic proof that a specific breed of dog is
dangerous. The breed bans placed on the Pit Bulls and other breeds are
clearly unconstitutional, which is why we find 11 states in the United
States that have passed laws making it illegal to declare a dog dangerous by
breed. The Pit Bull is not dangerous, it is a "Terrier" and all terriers
have animal prey drive, this does not make them dangerous or vicious. The
human fatalities by dogs from our research show that one breed of dog cannot
be singled out. "The Pit Bull has to be trained to fight." (HSUS 2002).

To be declared a danger to the public to the extent of taking away the
constitutional rights of dog owners, the breed of dog in question would need
to be proven dangerous with scientific evidence. This is something WAF has
found to never have been addressed to the extent it should be.


1. There is no scientific proof that any one breed of dog is more or less
dangerous than another.

2. There is no positive way to identify a dog breed with genetics.

3. There are no accurate dog bite statistics.

4. The dog breeds listed as the cause of human fatalities are estimated and
not accurate.

5. According to the most recent survey taken, the breeds mentioned in
various reports and so often broadcast by the media are in fact not where
the problem exists.

6. The so called fighting breeds, which some would classify as "Terriers"
have to be trained to fight, therefore it is only constitutional to prohibit
illegal dog fighting and training dogs to fight.

7. All breeds of dogs have animal prey drive and are able to fight with
other dogs or animals.


Breed specific legislation is not constitutional and when realistically
looked upon, it does nothing but enhance illegal activity to the point of
taking the responsible owners away from owning dogs and leaving the
criminals to illegally obtain dogs banned. It turns responsible dog owners
into criminals. Breed specific legislation endangers the general public by
banning specific breeds of dogs, when scientific proof states that the
environment and training of a dog is the outcome of its temperament and not
genetics, if one breed is taken from an irresponsible owner, then all that
will happen is that individual will obtain another breed to train and abuse
in the same manner as the previous breed. (ACF2003)

If the legislation's intent is to ban breeds because of dog fighting,  then
why is there no legislation in place to ban Shar-Pei's, Mastiff's of all
varieties including English, Neapolitan, Pyrenean, Spanish, Tibetan and Bull
Mastiff's, Akita's, Tosa's, Presa's, Boston Terriers, and other breeds that
were supposedly bred for fighting?

If the breed bans are being passed to target breeds that kill humans, then
why are not all the breeds listed banned?
German Shepherd
Husky
Doberman
Chow
Great Dane
Saint Bernard
Golden Retriever
Malamute
Bull Terrier
Pit Bull
Collie
Labrador Retriever
Yorkshire Terrier
Basenji
Dachshund
Boxer
Bull Mastiff
Neo Mastiff
Old English Mastiff
Beagle
Wolf Hybrid
Pomeranian
Akita
Presa
Rottweiler
Cocker Spaniels
Springer Spaniels
Irish Wolfhound
Irish Setter
Poodle

The intent of the animal rights movement that supports breed bans is to take
away pet ownership. This information can be found on websites of the well
known animal rights organizations. They are targeting two breeds at this
time, Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.   (ACF2003)


IS THERE SCIENTIFIC GENETIC PROOF DOGS ARE DANGEROUS?

There is no scientific proof that Pit Bulls, or any other breed of dog is
dangerous. The Foundation's collective experience and research has found the
American Pit Bull Terrier is a "terrier." All terriers have animal prey
drive, but this does not make them dangerous or vicious. The Pit Bull type
dog has to be trained to fight. Although in some cases the Pit Bull is known
to be a fighting dog, it was not bred for fighting, but for bull baiting.
The Pit Bull type dog comes from Europe and evolved from some Mastiff based
breed such as with some Bulldog blood either in a pure form or to a
variation of any of the many terrier and hound groups beginning with the now
extinct Black and Tans Terriers and Olde English White Terriers. English and
Irish immigrants imported the dogs. Unfortunately, it was discovered in the
late 1800's that if trained, the dogs could be used in the inhumane sport of
dog fighting. Due to federal laws passed in the 1970's prohibiting dog
fighting fewer dogs are now trained for the illegal sport.

The American Pit Bull Terrier is shown in the American Kennel Club
(AmStaff), United Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association, Canadian
Kennel Club, and the American Rare Breed Association . The American Pit Bull
Terrier is shown in the conformation and obedience ring. This breed competes
in weight pull events in the ADBA, UKC and International Weight Pulling
Association. The American Temperament Test Society (POBox 4093, St Louis,
and MO 63136 Phone 314-869-6103, in the 24 years of testing over 185 breeds
of dog, rates the Pit Bull at 83.1%. This is higher than the national
average for all other breeds of dog. This means the Pit Bull has the best
overall temperament. The American Pit Bull Terrier also rates high in the
Canine Good Citizens Test. The Pit Bull is used for Search and Rescue and as
a Therapy dog. Our Foundation uses them along with other breeds for bite
prevention and responsible ownership classes in the Washington School
Districts.  Two US Presidents owned Pit Bulls and countless famous people
own them. In our country more families own the Pit Bull than any other dog
breed in existence. (WAFAmicus Alabama 2002)

From American Canine Foundation:

There is an estimated 4.8 million registered American Pit Bull Terriers that
have been selective bred for companionship and conformation dog shows. These dogs are not bred for dog fighting and HSUS estimates 200,000 thousands Pit Bulls are used for illegal activity. There is no proof that the 4.8 million
APBT's are included in this figure, because the registries AKC/UKC/ADBA that
register these dogs prohibit illegal dog fighting. If it could be proved that
any of the registered APBT's were involved in illegal activity, it would be
less than 4 percent out of 4.8 million. There is an estimated 52 million
dogs in the United States and the American Pit Bull Terrier takes up 9.6
percent of the dog population and that does not count unregistered ones. 
There is no such dog called a Pit Bull Type Dog, it would be a mix breed.
(ACF2003)


Dr. Cornelia Wagner DVM, an expert on canine behavior from the University of
Wisconsin, states:

BLAMING THE GENETIC MAKEUP OF THE DOG IS WRONG. (Fedderson-Peterson,
D.U.(2001)  Zur Biologie des aggression des Hundes, Disch Tierarzil, Wschr
108 (3),94-101, environmental and learning effects are always stronger than
genetic influence. Although certain dog breeds such as the Rottweiler and
American Pit Bull Terrier have the reputation of having stronger jaws than
other breeds, valuable scientific studies showing significant differences in
jaw strength among breeds does not exist. In summary, the classification of
dog breeds with respect to their relative danger to humans makes no sense,
as both the complex antecedent conditions in which aggressive behavior
occurs, and its ramifying consequences in the individual dog's ecological
and social environment are not considered."

The American Canine Foundation states:

"According to the current scientific research there is no proof that the Pit
Bull can bite harder than any other breed. There is no proof that the Pit
Bull is genetically vicious and statistics have been greatly manipulated.
Environment, training and socialization play a much greater part in the
temperament of an individual dog than genetic traits."
(ACF2003)


CITIES AND STATES CONCERNING BSL

In the year 2001 and 2002 the Washington Animal Foundation has stopped and
repealed BSL or worked with other organizations and responsible dog owners
to reach that goal. Below is a list:


STATES:

State of Louisiana
State of New Hampshire
State of Florida
State of Maryland
State of Delaware
State of California
State of Washington
Washington DC


CITIES:
Pontiac, Michigan
Walla Walla, Washington
Tukwila, Washington
Acadia Parish, Louisiana
Canton, Ohio
Lorain, Ohio
Broward County, Florida
Saginaw, Michigan
Ft. Lewis, Washington
Cheney, Kansas
Los Angeles, California
Santa Cruz, California
Huntsville, Alabama
Sacramento, California

To view legislative information go to http://legislation2002.tripod.com/ or
www.waf-legislation.org

In 2002 to very important cases regarding breed specific legislation
prevailed.
August 2002 (WAF/Shelia Tack v Huntsville Alabama) the Alabama Supreme
Court affirmed a trial court decision that American Pit Bull Terriers are not
genetically dangerous.

In November 2002 in Acadia Parish, La. (EBA v Acadia Parish) The 6th
District Court ruled
American Pit Bull Terriers are not dangerous and BSL unconstitutional.


CONCLUSION
There is no scientific proof that genetics cause a breed of dog to be
aggressive, vicious or dangerous. Irresponsible owners are to blame for the
behavior of dogs that are aggressive, vicious or dangerous. Breed specific
legislation is an injustice, as is genocide of a specific breed of dog.

It's been well established dogs are personal property Brown v. Muhlenberg
Township, 269 F. 3d 205, 209-10(3d Cir.2001) , Fuller v. Vines, 36 F. 3d 65,
68 (9th Cir.1994) , Lesher v. Reed, 12 F . 3d 148, 150-51 (8th Cir. 1994) 
and in a recent a recent case Altamn v. High Point No. 02-1178 4d ( 4th Cir.
2003). The Federal 4th Circuit Court ruled " we conclude that the dogs in
this case do qualify as property protected by the Fourth Amendment".
Therefore they should be protected property under the 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Breed specific laws criminalize United States citizens. Responsible dog
owners fall victim to these types of laws, responsible dog owners greatly
outweigh irresponsible dog owners. Dog owners who violate are subject to
criminal charges which include a criminal record. In People v Al Munin A.
Jabaar, 163 Misc. 2d 1045; 623 N.Y.S. 2d500; 1994 N.Y.Misc. LEXIS 643,
November 1, 1994 the case addressed selective laws, the court found
selective laws violate equal protection. German Shepherds are responsible
for more reported dog bites and fatal attacks yet there are no laws
restricting or prohibiting ownership. The Amercian Canine Foundation has
researched fatal dog attacks since 1970, in some journals published the
claim is Pit Bulls are responsible for the majority of fatal attacks.
Accurate statistics show mixed breeds are responsible for the majority of
fatal attacks, some journals list Pit Bull type dogs for fatal attacks,
there is no scientific evidence to verify a dog's content therefore the
foundation classifies those dogs as (mixed breed) because it looks like a
Pit Bull does not mean it has Pit Bull in its breeding, there are over 25
dog breeds that resemble the American Pit Bull Terrier. When reviewing fatal
dog attacks since 1970 the foundation finds over 280 mixed breed dogs
responsible for fatal attacks. The majority of these fatal attacks were to
children left unattended with dogs by irresponsible parents. Based on fatal
dog attacks alone there is no rational basis to ban any specific breed of
dog when research reveals it's the irresponsible owners and negligent
parents.

In Sentel v. New Orleans & Carrallton Railroad (1896) 166 US 698 nothing was
stated to allow selective laws against specific breeds of dog, it was stated
that it is “practically impossible by statute to distinguish between the
different dog breeds". Id. at 701.  49 states afford U.S. citizens due
process rights for dog ownership under state dangerous dog statutes,  ten
states prohibit selective dog laws at the state and local level.

In Akron v. Tipton (1989) 53 Ohio Misc. 2d18. It was claimed that Pit Bulls
have extreme aggression towards other animals and humans and can attack
without warning. It was also stated that Pit Bulls have extremely strong jaw
pressure. Current scientific evidence proves none of these finding to be
accurate.
Dr. Irene Stur from the Genetics Department of the University of
Veterinarian Medicene, Vienna provides research that proves within 3
generations of selective breeding a dog’s bloodline temperament can be
changed. American Canine Foundation whose members have testified in Supreme
Court cases on canine genetics agree with this evidence. The American
Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier have been selective
bred for companionship and conformation dog shows since 1936 and if a dog
owner is charged with illegal dog fighting they will be barred from the
American Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club which register the American
Pit Bull and Staffordshire Terrier. The AKC registers the Amstaff and the
breed is no longer bred for animal prey drive and never has the dog been
bred for human aggression.


There have been statements that laws have become common in the United States
constraining Pit Bulls, this is not accurate. In the years 2001-2003
attempted specific breed legislation has been stopped at the state level in,
Louisiana, New Hampshire, Florida, Maryland, Delaware, California,
Washington and Washington DC, all the legislators in these states found this
type of legislation to be ineffective and refused to pass it. Cities in the
past 3 years have also repealed or refused this type of legislation, Pontiac
Mi., Walla Walla, Wa. Tukwila, Wa., Acadia Parish La., Canton Oh., Lorain
Oh., Broward County Fl., Saginaw Mi., Ft. Lewis Wa., Cheney Ks., Los Angeles
Ca., Santa Cruz., Huntsville Al., Sacramento Ca., and Algona Wa. This year
in New Jersey which has a state law prohibiting selective breed legislation,
Assemblyman Burzichelli attempted to pass A2906 to repeal the existing state
law to be able to restrict Pit Bulls and Rottweilers, in the end the
Assemblyman withdrew from A2906 and the bill did not pass.

Evidence used in previous cases where breed specific laws were upheld under
constitutional challenges was not accurate, scientific evidence was not
present in the findings. Statistics had been manipulated and only partial
facts were presented. There is no rational basis to pass selective laws that
discriminate and criminalize responsible dog owners and there is no
compensation for the taking of property of US citizens.

There are over 30 breeds of dogs listed responsible for human fatalities.
Banning one or two breeds, declaring them to be dangerous, or placing
restrictions on them does nothing to insure the safety of the public. Breeds
from the Pomeranian to the Bull Mastiff have killed humans, and in most
cases they were provoked. To understand the support of breed bans, one would
have to view the movement directed at extermination of specific breeds by
certain animal rights groups. It is their intent to stop domestic pet
ownership. It is a known fact there is an ongoing federal investigation
taking place into the animal rights movement. There has been evidence
released showing minimal funding has gone to Humane Shelters or Animal
Control for enforcing existing dangerous dog laws by this movement.
However, there is heavy support by certain animal rights groups directed at
the extermination of specific breeds, and this can be found on their
websites. It is unconstitutional to victimize responsible owners and turn
them into criminals and cruel to punish specific breeds of dogs. (ACF2003)

On August 30, 2002 the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a Trial Court decision
that American Pit Bull Terriers are not vicious. The American Pit Bull
Terriers were born at the Huntsville Animal Shelter, after more than two
years the Alabama Supreme court gave them their freedom.

Reported by Attorney S. Zendorf

"On August 30, 2002 the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a Circuit Court
Decision that four American Pit Bull Terriers born at the Huntsville Animal
Control Shelter "did not lack any useful purpose" as required by the local
ordinance. Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull Puppies (Ala. 08-30-02), No. 1010459,
unreported. The court determined that the puppies were not trained to fight
and were not vicious. In addition, it held that three women who wanted to
adopt them had a right to intervene. The City of Huntsville claimed the Pit
Bull puppies were genetically dangerous, used expert witness testimony, and
appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court after the lower court rejected its
arguments and evidence.
The Alabama Supreme Court granted the Washington Animal Foundation’s
petition to participate in the proceedings as Amicus Curiae because the
Foundation is an expert on canine genetics. The Foundation provided expert
testimony to prove that Pit Bulls and other breeds are not inherently
genetically dangerous and must be trained to fight”.

S. Zendorf (Attorney at Law)


LEGISLATION

One of the most serious problems with some of the existing "dangerous dog
laws" is that the dog may face destruction or lengthy impoundment, while the
owner receives little or no punishment. Irresponsible owners are chronic
repeat offenders of animal control laws. Thus, the dog suffers the
consequences of its owner's irresponsibility.

1. Do the current laws address each of the problem areas with dogs?

2. Are they being enforced?

3. Is there a problem with repeat offenders?

Problems stem from inadequate budget or manpower to enforce the laws,
inadequate training to effectively deal with the problem dogs in a humane
way and low priority of animal control issues. Poor community education of
existing animal control laws and lack of judicial support in upholding
effective penalties also create serious problems. Strong laws that penalize
the owners, regardless of the breed, are what are needed. These types of laws
are valid, have merit, and are not vague or capricious. Non- breed specific laws
are valid under the Constitution, and are for the protection of the public
welfare and safety with the degree of precision that characterizes effective
legislation.

The only justice for the irresponsible owner are strong penalties such as
the state of Washington RCW16.08.100 penalties for owners of dogs allowed to
cause damage, bite, or perpetrate unprovoked attacks on other animals and
humans.

The American Canine Foundation does not support breed specific legislation
and has drafts of laws available for control of dangerous dogs.

AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION
360 277 DOGS
legislation2002@hotmail.com
http://legislation2002.tripod.com
http://members.tripod.com/waf4/index.htm
Research included:
Dr Stur
Dr. Wagner
Pickney and Kennedy
ACF
WAF
Poul Poulsen