Enforcement of the ban on pit bulls has cost taxpayers over $100,000,000 over the last 30 years, but has not resulted in a measurable impact on public safety.
The University of Denver has announced that they have completed research
on the economic impact of Denver’s “pit bull” ban [BSL Breed Specific
Legislation]. The work — a collaboration that includes departments focused
on law, public policy, animal studies, social work, economics, and business
— found that enforcement of the ban has cost taxpayers over $100,000,000
over the last 30 years, but has not resulted in a measurable impact on
public safety.
The research also determined that enforcement is unequal and predominantly
race-based. And it results in Denver being a “bad neighbor.” In other words,
say the authors, “it adds pressure to the state’s sheltering system” because
surrounding communities and rescue groups have to take on the burden for
Denver’s regressive and selfish policies in order to save the lives of these
dogs.
Earlier this year, the City Council passed a bill that would have “phase[d]
in legal pit bull ownership through a breed-specific license program” and
would have allowed them to be adopted from local “shelters.” The bill,
however, was vetoed by the Mayor. Now voters will have a chance to undo the
Mayor’s action and make it law anyway. Measure 2J, which is before the
voters in the November election, would allow the registration and adoption
system.
If passed, it would not be a full repeal of breed discriminatory
legislation, as other cities have done recently — including Prairie Village,
KS, Sioux City, IA, Kennewick, WA, South Point, OH, Cudahy, WI, Kansas City,
KS, Liberty, MO, Eureka, MO, Gardendale, AL, Rocky River, OH, Garfield
Heights, OH, Lakewood, OH, Castle Rock, CO, Eudora, KS, Anamosa, IA, Yakima,
WA, and Marceline City, MO — but it would be a step in that direction.
The University of Denver analysis adds to a growing body of academic and
scientific literature across the globe that has called for the repeal of
such discriminatory laws, finding that they lack scientific basis. One
study, for example, found that 50% of dogs labeled as pit bulls lacked DNA
signatures of breeds commonly classified as pit bulls. Another found that
dogs targeted for breed discriminatory laws are not more likely to bite, do
not bite harder, and such bans do not result in fewer dog bites or
bite-related hospitalization rates.
Moreover, while “public safety” is the excuse, the real motivation appears
to have less to do with dogs and more to do with people: “proxies by which
uneasy majorities can register their suspicions about the race, class and
ethnicity of the people who own those dogs.”
Not surprisingly, vilification of these dogs remains the sole province of
race-baiters, academic imposters and other charlatans, and in the case of
PETA, what is almost certainly a death cult.
Return to Companion Animal Care