|
|
|
August 29, 2005 Senate Hearing
Sharon Coleman, President
The Animal Council
Sharon Coleman, President of The Animal Council, representing California dog and cat owners and interests. I was a board member of Responsible Dog Owners of the Golden State which lobbied for enactment of the breed specific preemption that this bill would modify. Also here is Judith Brecka who from 1987-89 devoted her heart, soul, career and personal assets to stopping permanently the breed-specific law terror that had begun creeping through California. Each of us has practiced law in California for over 30 years, but our personal community of meaning is within the dog fancy represented by the other dog owners here with us today.
SB 861 ultimately would allow local governments – all 536 (58 counties and 478 municipalities) of them, on a whim, to criminalize and defame dog owners lives, their passion and for some, their reason for getting out of bed in the morning.
Local government already has the power to mandate spay/neuter and regulate breeding, and some do – to the point that serious dog owners do not remain in those communities. Local government already has the power to regulate individual dangerous dogs, subject to owners' due process rights, any way they want including outright prohibition or destruction.
The purpose of the comprehensive preemption is for the state to prevent local government from taking the individual property rights of some dog owners and not others by imposing restrictions, regulations and prohibitions based on an inherently flawed standard – the breed – perceived or real of their dogs. We need the state to protect these individual rights.
The preemption protects statewide interests in avoiding disincentives to identifying dogs by rabies vaccinating and licensing and discouraging insurance companies from rejecting dog owners, whether homeowners or renters. California also enacted the Hayden bill that limits local government authority over shelter operations to protect the rights of dog owners by mandated holding periods and efforts to return dogs to their owners.
The demands of San Francisco show exactly why the preemption was enacted. An unfortunate, poorly understood incident occurred on June 3, the Mayor convened a group of otherwise rational people with little time and less background who gathered the worst laws around the country, labeled them “best practices” and immediately demanded repeal of the state preemption. Just 2-1/2 weeks later, the first version of this bill rolled out. While the expressed intent of this bill is not to take away citizens' dogs – aside from the increasing loss of housing and insurance – this may not be the case for long. Once modified, the law will be easier to amend in the future. More ominous is the urging of the Denver assistant city attorney for California charter cities to enact bans and claim legality as a “municipal affair” under the California Constitution through the courts.
My first personal experience with a local breed specific demand was almost 20 years ago in my hometown of Millbrae in April, 1986. An unleashed “Pit Bull” ran across a street to attack a Great Dane being walked on leash, inflicting fatal injuries on the Dane. The grieving owner demanded a breed specific law. The City Council agreed but recessed for the summer before taking up a specific draft. When they reconvened in the fall, cooler heads prevailed – include the Dane owner – and the whole idea was dropped. This scenario is far more common than enacted breed specific laws.
The state preemption protects individual rights and statewide interests from emotional over-reaction by local government driven by inflammatory publicity and vengeful victims no matter how sympathetic. Our defense of dog owners' rights is a rational response to future unpredictable and uncertain disruption of our lives and communities. These principles never become outdated.
The support for this bill comes from local governments that want whatever control they can get no matter what it means; animal rights organizations that like any kind of regulation more than fairness and probably some who just don't like or fear dogs or people. Consider the opposition.
The lives of the people here with us are invested in purebred dogs. Some of their dogs are lumped into the “Pit Bull” moniker and some have breeds just behind them when the door opens to expand breed specific lists as it often does. We face conflict in our own many local communities, possibly needing to move or relocate dogs just because of their breed. Then there are dog owners outside our little white, English speaking, middle class dog world. Those people disproportionately own whatever “Pit Bulls” are, and they get a double dose of discrimination from breed specific laws of any kind. This is no short cut to good government or public safety.
On behalf of all dog owners, we ask for your help to defeat this bill and preserve the state's interests in protecting the public's rights and interests by maintaining the total, existing preemption of breed specific measures.
T.E. Houston, PHD
SB 861 has been pushed rapidly through the legislative process with out serious consideration to the consequences of the bill. It will destroy a 15-year preemption law and will not solve the issues. The bill is based on emotion, perceptions, and assumptions. The following information on dog bites in the city was received from SF Animal Care & Control on August 26, 2005. Statistical analysis of the reported bites does not support the intent of SB 861 to reduce the incidence of dog bites based on mandating spay/neuter programs for any breed.
A total of 497 records of dog bites for 2003 and 2004 occurred in the city of San Francisco. There were 74 different breeds represented, these were the ones identified as the primary breed. There were 16 different breeds specifically identified as the secondary breed, otherwise the secondary breed was just labeled as “mix”. Based on this data, 72% of all the bites that occurred for the 2 year period were from mixed breeds. Of the 497 bite reports many were dog on dog attacks (12), dog on cat (6) , dog on horse (3) and 1 dog on pig (basenji). Dog on dog attacks it was not always clear who was the victim and who was the perpetrator. A number of breeds were involved: pitbull, beagle, Airedale, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, Dalmatian, bulldog, German Shepherd Dogs. The dog on horse attacked included: pitbull, bulldog, and coonhound. The dog on cat attacks: pitbull, GSD, Akita.
There was only 1 dog specifically identified as an American Pit Bull Terrier (N) and one as an American Staffordshire Terrier (U). Of the 129 dogs labeled generically as the “pitbull” 27% were stated as only primary breed and 73% were “mix”. The accuracy of the identification of the breed should be questioned.
Since the intent of SB 861 is to reduce dog bites by mandating s/n of a particular breed, it is important to evaluate the relative risk of intact dog versus neutered dogs in the bite reports.
Overall dog bites: 149 (M), 57(F), 126 (N), 61(S) and 104 (U). A contingency table analysis of the relative risk showed there is no association with intact and neutering for the reported dog bites. The RR of a bite from an intact male is 1.07 with a p= 0.289.
Pitbulls: 44 (M), 22(F), 19(N), 13(S), 32(U). The RR of a bite from an intact male is 1.12 with p=0.48.
Both of these indicate nonsignificance. Looking at this by breed the data shows that there is no association of risk. That is the data does not support the intent of this bill for mandatory s/n to minimize dog bites.
The majority of dog bites were listed were minor (90%). Moderate dog bites accounted for 31 cases, with 15 different breeds implicated: Akita, bull mastiff, chow, doxie, GSD, great dane, lab, mastiff, newfie, pitbull, pointer, poodle, pug, shepherd. Sib. Severe dog bites were reported in 18 reports and included: rottie, pitbull, newfie, chow, bullmastiff.
The data from the city of San Francisco does not support the necessity of a mandatory s/n to prevent dog bites.
Another problem is that there is no state-wide reporting system for dog bites. The information describing severity is subjective. Consistent and formalized reporting system should be implemented if dog bites are going to be used to establish programs.
SB 861 is based on emotional response to a tragic event. This legislation will do nothing to stop what has happened and will effect a lot of people. Please consider this seriously.
|
|
|
