BSL SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK
  BREED SPECIFIC Legislation was dealt a savage blow last week in an historic victory for American campaigners when the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed. Around the world, anti-BSL campaigners are rejoicing at the ruling that drew on evidence provided by genuine canine experts, which was favoured by the judges over subjective evidence, put forward by veterinarians and politicians. The court ruling and the evidence used may now be legitimately used to fight BSL in other countries such as Germany and Australia, as well as other US States. In the UK, the Dangerous Dogs Act could possibly be open to a direct legal challenge in the same way. The action in Alabama was brought by the Washington Animal Foundation (WAF) against the city of Huntsville, which had claimed that American Pit Bull Terriers were ‘genetically dangerous’. The case centered on four Pit Bulls held in an animal shelter and adopted by three local women. The dogs were survivors of a group of over 50 Pit Bulls seized in a raid on a dog-fighting ring in April 2000. Half of the dogs died from injuries or disease, whilst the reminder –including four puppies - were held at the City pound and put up for adoption. Shelia Tack, an emergency room nurse at Crestwood Hospital, adopted two of the puppies that she named Justice and Elizabeth. Whilst they remained impounded, she visited them twice a week. The other puppies, David and Nellie, were adopted by Kay Nagel, a military officer’s wife and resident of Redstone Arsenal, and Loyce Fisher, a civil service worker from Cullman. However, the City Council refused to release the dogs, stating that they were a potential danger to human beings, although none had apparently displayed any aggression. The matter was referred to court for a legal decision on the dogs’ fate. During a hearing last year, lawyers representing the city, Michael Fees and Greg Burgess, told Madison County Circuit Judge Joe Battle the animals were vicious and should not be rehomed. The Women, who did not have a lawyer, argued the animals were never trained to fight and conditioning can suppress any vicious tendencies the dogs might have. Judge Battle agreed and on Nov 13 2001, declared the four young Pit Bulls were not dangerous because they were never trained to fight. The court allowed the city to destroy 21 adult Pit Bulls which had been used for fighting. However, the City appealed Battle's ruling to the Alabama Supreme Court and asked the court for an order preventing the women from taking custody of the dogs. At this point, Seattle-based WAF became involved in the case and appointed Huntsville lawyer Mike Seibert to fight their case, based on evidence they gathered to counter the City lawyer’s claims that all Pit Bulls were ‘genetically dangerous’. The foundation hired veterinarian Dr. Alan Jones of Hazel Green to examine the dogs. But the officers at the shelter do not allow anyone to have physical contact with the pit bulls, even vet Jones. "They looked fat and happy," he said. "They seemed starved for attention and not aggressive at all" Glen Bui, spokesman for WAF told a local newspaper that the dogs should be released. "I believe that the City of Huntsville is wasting thousands of taxpayers' dollars attempting to destroy innocent dogs that were already given by the circuit court to the three women,' he said. WAF filed an Amicus (third party) submitting genetic proof that Pit Bulls are not dangerous. The city of Huntsville were backed by the extremist animal rights organisation PETA that Pit Bulls were genetically dangerous, with evidence provided by veterinarians, none of whom was an expert in any specific canine or genetical field. WAF cited case laws under Due Process of the law, and stated that it was unconstitutional to rule a specific breed of dog as ‘dangerous’ in this way. They also claimed it was ‘genocide’ to try to eradicate the Pit Bull breed. WAF submitted evidence to the Supreme Court that they were able to provide: Identification of expert treatises regarding the genetics of the breed in question Testing and studies regarding genetics verses environment as the catalyst for a specific dog breed’s aggression Social contributions made by the American Pit Bull Terrier (i.e. as Assistance Dogs, Search and Rescue Dogs etc.) The associations brief assisted the court as it had substantial knowledge concerning the issue before the court The briefs filed by the City were insufficient to adequately address the far reaching issues involving genetic breed bias The Foundation read all briefs and believed that innocent pet owners and innocent pets were not represented by either brief. WAF co-founder Glen Bui told OUR DOGS this week: “The court granted WAF's petition and allowed us 7 days to file amicus curiae. Myself along with Attorney Mike Seibert worked on the amicus long hours into the night, while WAF members Kay Nagel and Sheila Tack proofread and added input. It was finished with less than one hour before the deadline to file and Shelia raced to the US post office and sent it certified mail. ”Huntsville's entire case rested on affidavits from veterinarians claiming they examined the four Pit Bull pups and that were would pose a danger to the community because Pit Bulls are genetically dangerous. They also claimed the women had no legal right to adopt the pups, this was also addressed in the amicus brief.” On Friday, August 30, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in WAF’s favour and ordered that the dogs should be released for adoption, accepting the evidence put forward by WAF that no breed of dog is genetically dangerous. “This is fantastic news,” said Bui. “The city could appeal against the ruling, but I’d like to think they’ll give way and release the dogs to their new owners so that they can enjoy a good life. Two of them will be trained as Search and Rescue Dogs; the other two will become pets. The Pit Bulls have been evaluated and temperament tested before they are released, they are being spayed and neutered. The city did tell the media that the dogs would be released, so let’s hope they keep their word.” Bui also told OUR DOGS this week: "For years the American Pit Bull Terrier has been alleged to be dangerous because of its genetics. Never has WAF found any genetic research proving that. When we were asked by three Huntsville women for help, they told us nobody else would help them, they had contacted everyone who fights BSL. We knew the women had to face the Supreme Court and this was a very serious case. We knew we had the genetic proof that no breed of dog is dangerous. “We knew we also had statistics which proved the APBT has one of the best temperaments out of 185 dog breeds along with a strong legal defence. Being aware that never in the past had anyone ever argued the point, after contemplating the outcome if the women lost, I decided to bring WAF into the case, on the last day before the deadline for filing briefs in the Supreme Court WAF petitioned for Amicus Curiae. ”This case set a standard for future cases concerning BSL and genetics. We put several years of research into genetics and due process. We will use the statistics in Ohio; we have received assistance from state agencies in Ohio to investigate the Lucas County Dog Warden rulings on BSL in that State, as Ohio is totally BSL-controlled. Dog owners in Ohio really could use support right now. ”It was a long battle and now we have proved the American Pit Bull terrier is not genetically dangerous.” © Nick Mays/Our Dogs Newspaper, 2002.
|
|
|
BSL CASE LAW
American Animal Foundation case law on bsl Zuniga v. San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1521, 267 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to prove Pit Bulls have an inherent nature of being dangerous. Carter v. Metro North Assocs. (1998) 255 A.D. 2d 251; 680 N.Y.S.2d 299 A New York appellate court determined that the alleged propensities of Pit Bull Terriers to behave more viciously than other breeds had not been authoritatively established. ACF litigated the city of Huntsville Alabama in 2002 in a case that was heard by the Alabama Supreme Court. Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull Puppies (Ala. 08-30-02), No. 1010459, unreported. The court determined that American Pit Bull Terriers were not dangerous. In March 2003 ACF sued the city of Ottumwa Iowa for 750,000 for passing a breed ban, the case is in litigation. ACF v Ottumwa EQEQ 103700 On July 16th 2003 ACF brought forth a constitutional challenge against Ohio’s state law that declares the Pit Bull vicious. The case was heard in the Toledo Muni Court and the court found the American Pit Bull Terrier was not dangerous and granted Pit Bull owners due process , the case is in appeal. Tellings v State of Ohio CRB02-15267 In August 2004 a case ACF assisted in was heard by the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Cowan 103 Ohio St. 3d 144 , 2004 – Ohio – 4777 The court found ORC 955: 22 violative of the right to be heard as applied to ORC955:11 which declared the Pit Bull vicious in Ohio. The decision struck down Ohio’s breed specific legislation at the state level.
DOES BSL REDUCE DOG BITES??
Q: Does BSL reduce dog bites? A: No. BSL has not succeeded in reducing dog bite-related injuries wherever in the world it has been enacted. An analysis published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association explains one reason that BSL could not be expected to work even if particular breeds could be identified as high risk. The authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community in order to prevent even one serious dog bite-related injury. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to remove more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted group. To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number.[3] • Denver, CO enacted a breed-specific ban in 1989. Citizens of Denver continue to suffer a higher rate of hospitalization from dog bite-related injuries after the ban, than the citizens of breed-neutral Colorado counties.[4] • A study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior, compared medically treated dog bites in Aragon, Spain for 5 years prior to and following enactment of Spain’s “Law on the legal treatment of the possession of dangerous animals” (sometimes referred to Spain’s Dangerous Animal Act) (2000). The results showed no significant effect in dog bite incidences when comparing before and after enactment of the BSL.[5] • The Netherlands repealed a 15-year-old breed ban in 2008 after commissioning a study of its effectiveness. The study revealed that BSL was not a successful dog-bite mitigation strategy because it had not resulted in a decrease in dog bites. [6] • The Province of Ontario in Canada enacted a breed ban in 2005. In 2010, based on a survey of municipalities across the Province, the Toronto Humane Society reported that, despite five years of BSL and the destruction of "countless" dogs, there had been no significant decrease in the number of dog bites.[7] • Winnipeg, Manitoba enacted a breed ban in 1990. Winnipeg’s rate of dog bite-injury hospitalizations is virtually unchanged from that day to this, and remains significantly higher than the rate in breed-neutral, responsible pet ownership Calgary[8] - See more at: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/#sthash.VC2tNE0z.dpuf 
JAVMA BITE STATS AND THE DOGS INVOLVED
Abstract Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association September 15, 2000, Vol. 217, No. 6, Pages 836-840 doi: 10.2460/javma.2000.217.836 Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 Jeffrey J. Sacks , MD, MPH Leslie Sinclair , DVM Julie Gilchrist , MD Gail C. Golab , PhD, DVM Randall Lockwood , PhD Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, US Department of Health and Human Services, US Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE (MS K-63), Atlanta, GA 30341. (Sacks, Gilchrist); Present address is National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE (MS K-45), Atlanta, GA 30341. (Sacks); The Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037. (Sinclair, Lockwood); Present address is Shelter Veterinary Services, 9320 Jarrett Ct, Montgomery Village, MD 20886. (Sinclair); Division of Education and Research, American Veterinary Medical Association, 931 N Meacham Rd, Ste 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173. (Golab) Objective—To summarize breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks during a 20-year period and to assess policy implications. Animals—Dogs for which breed was reported involved in attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 that resulted in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF). Procedure—Data for human DBRF identified previously for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined with human DBRF newly identified for 1997 and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of the United States' registry databank. Results—During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55 (24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off their owners' property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners' property, 38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners' property, and 1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off its owner's property. Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840) |
|
THE RIGHT WAY
What’s the Alternative to Breed-Specific Laws? In the aforementioned study, the CDC noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. These last two concerns are well-founded, given that: More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog. A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered. 97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered: 78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding. 84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised. Recognizing that the problem of dangerous dogs requires serious attention, the ASPCA seeks effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for the actions of their animals. For help in drafting animal control laws, contact the ASPCA’s Government Relations department at lobby@aspca.org.
BSL IS BEING REPEALED
This kind of legislation has generated a great deal of controversy. Repeated legal challenges in cities as Denver and Toronto, have failed to repeal BSL. On the other hand, BSL has been repealed successfully in The Netherlands and Belgium. Proponents for breed specific legislation believe that eliminating a target breed from the population will ultimately decrease the number of dog bites and severe dog attacks and consequently, reduces the financial and emotional cost to communities associated with dog bite injury. In the United States, those opposed to the restrictions imposed by breed specific legislation challenge the law based on its over-inclusiveness and its failure to allow due to process for the individual dog owner. Is breed specific legislation effective in achieving its stated goals? If one reviews findings in the scientific literature addressing this question, the overwhelming conclusion is that it is not. 
BSL HOW DO WE STOP IT?
The good news is, many organizations are working to strike down these antiquated laws, and you can help. Here’s how Join a group that’s working for anti-BSL and pit bull advocacy. A few include Hershey Anti-BSL Group, Stop BSL, Love-A-Bull and the Miami Coalition Against Breed-Specific Legislation. If you live in an area with BSL, contact your elected representatives and express your opinion on the issue. Spay/neuter your pets, and encourage others to do the same. According to the ASPCA, more than 70 percent of dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. Educate everyone you talk to. Many animal-lovers are still unaware of the unjust nature of these laws. Spread the word and the facts. Adopt (or foster) a pibble! Their shelter death rates are dismal, and every home helps. Any other suggestions, Green Monsters? Share them in the comments!
WHY BSL DOESN'T WORK
Why Breed-Specific Legislation Doesn’t Work Targeting types or breeds of dogs won't stop dog bites or protect people Laws restricting certain breeds may break up families, but they definitely won't make a community safer. Lisa J. Godfrey/For The HSUS The HSUS opposes laws and ordinances aimed at forbidding or regulating dog ownership based solely on breed or type of dog. Breed-specific legislation (BSL) does not enhance public safety or reduce dog bite incidents. Rather, such laws, regulations, and ordinances are costly to enforce and harm families, dogs, and communities. The HSUS supports finding real and effective strategies for safe, humane community dog management and believes BSL is a distraction from that goal—it wastes valuable resources and charges a moral cost in the process. 
OVER 80% OF PITBULLS PASS TEMP TEST
According to statistics posted online in February, 2013 by the American Temperament Test Society, 86.8 percent of American Pit Bull Terriers successfully pass their temperament evaluations—a higher passing rate than many other popular breeds such as Golden Retrievers, Cocker Spaniels, Collies, Boston Terriers and Dachshunds. Out of 32,438 dogs tested since the organization was founded in 1977, the average passing rate for all breeds is 83 percent. (http://atts.org/breed-statistics/) *Luntz Global conducted 850 interviews with men and women between the ages of 18 and 65+. The results of the survey have a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percent. About Best Friends Animal Society® Best Friends Animal Society is the only national animal welfare organization focused exclusively on ending the killing of dogs and cats in America's shelters. An authority and leader in the no-kill movement since its founding in 1984, Best Friends runs the nation's largest no-kill sanctuary for companion animals, as well as life-saving programs in partnership with rescue groups and shelters across the country. Since its founding, Best Friends has helped reduce the number of animals killed in shelters from 17 million per year to about 4 million. Best Friends has the knowledge, technical expertise and on-the-ground network to end the killing and Save Them All®. To like Best Friends Animal Society on Facebook go to: http://www.facebook.com/bestfriendsanimalsociety |
|
STUDIES CONFIRM BSL IS NOT WORKING
New Study Confirms Preventable Factors in Dog Bites, Breed Not Relevant As advocates, we are all too familiar with the dog bite fatality report that was published in 2000 titled “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.” This data set has been used incessantly to support breed discriminatory laws, even though the authors of this report themselves have made several statements explaining why the report does NOT support these ineffective and costly laws. This data set was based mostly on unreliable media reports and its authors concluded that their research did not support the idea that one kind of dog was more likely to bite someone than another kind of dog. Nevertheless, proponents of discriminatory laws have pointed to this data set to support their positions. This was the only study of its kind, until earlier this month when the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) published the “Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009).” The objective of the study was to “examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies.” Instead of relying on news accounts like in the previous study, the researchers used reports by homicide detectives and animal control agencies, and interviews with investigators. The study found that the major factors in the fatalities studied include: the absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (87.1%), incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (85.2%), owner failure to neuter dogs (84.4%), compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (77.4%), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (76.2%), owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs (37.5%), and owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs (21.1%). Four or more of these factors were present in over 80% of the dog bite related deaths. Considering that over 75% of dog bite related deaths were caused by resident dogs (a dog not kept as a family pet, but isolated from positive human interactions and usually kept for protection and/or chained outside), reducing this practice is a huge factor in preventing dog bites, as is neutering male dogs. Most dog bite related fatalities had the above preventable factors in common, but no where was breed found to be a factor. The authors of this new report found that breed could not be reliably identified in over 80% of the cases, as news reports often differed from each other or from animal control reports Dog behavior experts have been recommending prevention techniques based on improved ownership practices, such as learning to read and understand dog behavior signals, teaching children how to safely interact with dogs, and providing dogs with proper socialization and veterinary care, for decades. Now, we have a JAVMA article in support of these practices. We all want to live in safe communities, and focusing our animal control laws on the preventable factors identified, is the road to get there. To read more about this study from the National Canine Research Council, click here. The full citation for the report is: Gary J. Patronek, Jeffrey J. Sacks, Karen M. Delise, Donald V. Cleary, and Amy R. Marder. Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, December 15, 2013, Vol. 243, No. 12 , Pages 1726-1736. (doi: 10.2460/javma.243.12.1726) |
BREED SPECIFIC Legislation was dealt a savage blow last week in an historic victory for American campaigners when the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed. Around the world, anti-BSL campaigners are rejoicing at the ruling that drew on evidence provided by genuine canine experts, which was favoured by the judges over subjective evidence, put forward by veterinarians and politicians. The court ruling and the evidence used may now be legitimately used to fight BSL in other countries such as Germany and Australia, as well as other US States. In the UK, the Dangerous Dogs Act could possibly be open to a direct legal challenge in the same way. The action in Alabama was brought by the Washington Animal Foundation (WAF) against the city of Huntsville, which had claimed that American Pit Bull Terriers were ‘genetically dangerous’. The case centered on four Pit Bulls held in an animal shelter and adopted by three local women. The dogs were survivors of a group of over 50 Pit Bulls seized in a raid on a dog-fighting ring in April 2000. Half of the dogs died from injuries or disease, whilst the reminder –including four puppies - were held at the City pound and put up for adoption. Shelia Tack, an emergency room nurse at Crestwood Hospital, adopted two of the puppies that she named Justice and Elizabeth. Whilst they remained impounded, she visited them twice a week. The other puppies, David and Nellie, were adopted by Kay Nagel, a military officer’s wife and resident of Redstone Arsenal, and Loyce Fisher, a civil service worker from Cullman. However, the City Council refused to release the dogs, stating that they were a potential danger to human beings, although none had apparently displayed any aggression. The matter was referred to court for a legal decision on the dogs’ fate. During a hearing last year, lawyers representing the city, Michael Fees and Greg Burgess, told Madison County Circuit Judge Joe Battle the animals were vicious and should not be rehomed. The Women, who did not have a lawyer, argued the animals were never trained to fight and conditioning can suppress any vicious tendencies the dogs might have. Judge Battle agreed and on Nov 13 2001, declared the four young Pit Bulls were not dangerous because they were never trained to fight. The court allowed the city to destroy 21 adult Pit Bulls which had been used for fighting. However, the City appealed Battle's ruling to the Alabama Supreme Court and asked the court for an order preventing the women from taking custody of the dogs. At this point, Seattle-based WAF became involved in the case and appointed Huntsville lawyer Mike Seibert to fight their case, based on evidence they gathered to counter the City lawyer’s claims that all Pit Bulls were ‘genetically dangerous’. The foundation hired veterinarian Dr. Alan Jones of Hazel Green to examine the dogs. But the officers at the shelter do not allow anyone to have physical contact with the pit bulls, even vet Jones. "They looked fat and happy," he said. "They seemed starved for attention and not aggressive at all" Glen Bui, spokesman for WAF told a local newspaper that the dogs should be released. "I believe that the City of Huntsville is wasting thousands of taxpayers' dollars attempting to destroy innocent dogs that were already given by the circuit court to the three women,' he said. WAF filed an Amicus (third party) submitting genetic proof that Pit Bulls are not dangerous. The city of Huntsville were backed by the extremist animal rights organisation PETA that Pit Bulls were genetically dangerous, with evidence provided by veterinarians, none of whom was an expert in any specific canine or genetical field. WAF cited case laws under Due Process of the law, and stated that it was unconstitutional to rule a specific breed of dog as ‘dangerous’ in this way. They also claimed it was ‘genocide’ to try to eradicate the Pit Bull breed. WAF submitted evidence to the Supreme Court that they were able to provide: Identification of expert treatises regarding the genetics of the breed in question Testing and studies regarding genetics verses environment as the catalyst for a specific dog breed’s aggression Social contributions made by the American Pit Bull Terrier (i.e. as Assistance Dogs, Search and Rescue Dogs etc.) The associations brief assisted the court as it had substantial knowledge concerning the issue before the court The briefs filed by the City were insufficient to adequately address the far reaching issues involving genetic breed bias The Foundation read all briefs and believed that innocent pet owners and innocent pets were not represented by either brief. WAF co-founder Glen Bui told OUR DOGS this week: “The court granted WAF's petition and allowed us 7 days to file amicus curiae. Myself along with Attorney Mike Seibert worked on the amicus long hours into the night, while WAF members Kay Nagel and Sheila Tack proofread and added input. It was finished with less than one hour before the deadline to file and Shelia raced to the US post office and sent it certified mail. ”Huntsville's entire case rested on affidavits from veterinarians claiming they examined the four Pit Bull pups and that were would pose a danger to the community because Pit Bulls are genetically dangerous. They also claimed the women had no legal right to adopt the pups, this was also addressed in the amicus brief.” On Friday, August 30, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in WAF’s favour and ordered that the dogs should be released for adoption, accepting the evidence put forward by WAF that no breed of dog is genetically dangerous. “This is fantastic news,” said Bui. “The city could appeal against the ruling, but I’d like to think they’ll give way and release the dogs to their new owners so that they can enjoy a good life. Two of them will be trained as Search and Rescue Dogs; the other two will become pets. The Pit Bulls have been evaluated and temperament tested before they are released, they are being spayed and neutered. The city did tell the media that the dogs would be released, so let’s hope they keep their word.” Bui also told OUR DOGS this week: "For years the American Pit Bull Terrier has been alleged to be dangerous because of its genetics. Never has WAF found any genetic research proving that. When we were asked by three Huntsville women for help, they told us nobody else would help them, they had contacted everyone who fights BSL. We knew the women had to face the Supreme Court and this was a very serious case. We knew we had the genetic proof that no breed of dog is dangerous. “We knew we also had statistics which proved the APBT has one of the best temperaments out of 185 dog breeds along with a strong legal defence. Being aware that never in the past had anyone ever argued the point, after contemplating the outcome if the women lost, I decided to bring WAF into the case, on the last day before the deadline for filing briefs in the Supreme Court WAF petitioned for Amicus Curiae. ”This case set a standard for future cases concerning BSL and genetics. We put several years of research into genetics and due process. We will use the statistics in Ohio; we have received assistance from state agencies in Ohio to investigate the Lucas County Dog Warden rulings on BSL in that State, as Ohio is totally BSL-controlled. Dog owners in Ohio really could use support right now. ”It was a long battle and now we have proved the American Pit Bull terrier is not genetically dangerous.” © Nick Mays/Our Dogs Newspaper, 2002.