Proactive Dog Policy: Why Seattle Needs It

Seattle, WA - On March 4th, 2008, the founder of DogsBite.org, Colleen Lynn, submitted a white paper to Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess. The paper examines the nationwide pit bull problem, Seattle's pit bull problem and the pit bull breed itself. It also offers solutions that other U.S. cities have found effective in preventing future victims, while simultaneously protecting pit bull dogs.

View full paper:
Proactive Dog Policy: Why Seattle Needs It

Highlights of the document include recognizing that the pit bull problem is over 20 years old. In this time, many policymakers have failed to take action. As a result, the pit bull population has exploded; euthanization rates have soared; dog fighting has escalated; animal shelter insurance has spiked and victim medical costs have flown out the window.

The document reveals Seattle's pit bull problem. Between 2002 and mid-September 2007, city shelters had to euthanize 3,407 dogs, 48% percent were pit bulls. Though 128 different biting breeds were recorded in Seattle, pit bulls were responsible for 24% and only make up 2.6% of the registered dogs. Before diving deeper into Seattle bite statistics, the document discusses, What constitutes a bite?

In the national section of the document, the paper shows the results of two widely known studies regarding breeds of dogs and fatal attacks. It reminds readers that in 2007, 35 fatal dog attacks occurred. Pit bull type dogs were responsible for 60%. A third study mentions the frequency of dog bite injury in U.S. emergency care centers. On a daily bases, about 1,000 Americans require emergency care treatment due to serious dog bites.

On several occasions, the paper asks a pointed question, "The argument that lies before the City of Seattle is not the "demonization" of pit bulls, it is instead: What steps can we take to prevent future attacks? And who pays when they do attack?" The question is underscored by the fact that many pit bull owners in Seattle are renters and cannot provide medical payment after an attack.

The paper also explores the genetic history of the pit bull and the opinions of leading researchers. Experts agree that pit bulls display unique traits when they attack. In a police officer training video, Randall Lockwood, the Senior Vice President to the ASPCA, specifies the unique dangers posed by pit bulls that non-fighting breeds do not pose:

"The main impediment to reading a dog's communication is when the dog is a fighting breed. The best strategy for a fighting breed is to not communicate your intention. This is why we hear about so many fighting breeds attacking without warning. Meaning there was no growl, there was no bark, there was no direct stare, the dog just went from point a to point b and did what he wanted to do. Likewise, they are disrespectful of the traditional signs of submission and appeasement."

Alan Beck, a world-renowned dog ecologist, educator and author, was also quoted in the paper. In written testimony to the Province of Ontario -- a Canadian province that was in the stages of enacting a pit bull ban -- Mr. Beck writes:

"While all breeds of dogs can and do bite on occasion, pit bulls (due to their inherent fighting nature, strength and high pain threshold) have a much higher potential of being involved in a serious attack than most, if not all, breeds. There is no doubt that the fear of pit bull dogs is reasonable and social tension about them should also be considered when a community is developing policy."

Three pages of the report are dedicated to the physical and psychological injury that victims suffer after an attack. Incorporated were topics such as, "sustained attacks," which is an attack that lasts 15 minutes or longer, and "massive soft tissue lost," both of which are unique to the pit bull breed. The paper also discussed the rising number of victims that require one million dollars in medical care after a pit bull attack.

The last portion of the paper provides recommendations to the City of Seattle to help prevent future victims and protect pit bull dogs. The items include: mandatory microchipping for identification purposes; liability insurance of $250,000 for victim medical recourse; and mandatory spay/neuter to reduce pit bull bites and euthanizations. The paper adds that under Washington state law, such policies are constitutionally sound.

View full paper:
Proactive Dog Policy: Why Seattle Needs It

Labels: dog law, seattle