This piece is a response to an editorial written by Rochelle Riley and published by the Free Press today titled, “Detroit should adopt pit bull ban it didn’t 9 years ago” . This article is sensational, shortsighted, and unsubstantiated. Her response to my critique via Twitter was also not particularly enlightening.

Her argument is as follows; Detroit has recently had several pit bull attacks, one resulting in the death of a 4 year-old boy. Therefore, Detroit should adopt a pit bull ban that, according to the author, is long overdue. However, this piece fails to cite any evidence supporting the claim that breed-selective legislation actually does anything to promote public safety. In fact, while arguing for this specific type of legislation the author completely overlooks the fact that many places that have implemented such policies have already seen them fail, and are now looking at better alternatives.

This is the website I attempted to show the author, but she didn’t believe it was worth her time to read it. It is from a group whose goal is to stop breed-selective legislation. They clearly have an agenda, but I do not think it affects the integrity of their work. All of their claims are substantiated by reputable news organizations such as the Associated Press and the BBC. The group also cites the Arizona Daily Star, a city council meeting in Aurora, Colorado that discussed this type of ban, and a few scholarly journals like the Journal of Veterinary Behavior.

Please, make your own decisions as to whether this information is credible.

I completely agree with the author that something should be done to protect people from dangerous dogs. I love dogs and people. I also agree with her that the owner of the four dogs who mauled a young boy to death should face criminal charges. She thinks he should face murder charges. I’d say at least manslaughter. However, when she shifts blame from the owners to a specific breed of dog, she weakens her own case for charging the owners.

The article against breed-selective that I consulted gives 6 examples of cases where such policies failed. In 2008, the Dutch government considered repealing a 15 year ban on pit bulls because the number of dog bites actually increased under the ban.

After a dog attack in 2013, a group of members of the British Parliament investigated the United Kingdom’s policies regarding banning certain breeds of dogs. They concluded these policies were a complete failure at reducing the amount of bites from banned and non-banned breeds alike.

In 2000, Spain introduced a ban for nine breeds of dogs. There was no difference in the amount of dog bites in the five years preceding the ban when compared to the five years after the ban. Here, it is also noted that the most popular breeds of dogs are responsible for the most bites. Dogs considered dangerous often make up a smaller portion of the overall dog population, thus are responsible for less bites overall.

The anti-breed-selective legislation article also cites cases from the US.

In 1996, Prince George’s County, Maryland enacted a ban on dog breeds that are perceived as dangerous. In 2003, a task force determined the ban’s effect on public safety was “immeasurable”, and expressed concerns that the ban actually caused negative effects on public safety and animal control.

Aurora, Colorado also implemented a similar ban and saw no decrease in the amount of dog bites.

The policies of Denver, Colorado were the only ones directly recommended by Rochelle Riley. However, she does not note that Denver has six times the dog bites per person than Boulder, Colorado, a city without breed-selective legislation. USA Today also notes many cities have been repealing breed bans, and that 17 states have actually banned breed-selective legislation.

In light of this evidence, it is obvious that Detroit should not ban pit bulls. However, because the Detroit Free Press fails to critically examine this issue, readers may not be given the whole story.

One alternative recommended by veterinary societies and professionals is the possibility of behavior-based policies, as opposed to breed-based ones.