Breed Specific Legislation and Alternative Solutions

Recently I've been reading several sites and E-list discussions that led to some thoughts I would like to share. While the issues surrounding dangerous dogs are rather complex, many people rely too heavily on questionable statistics and anecdotal evidence IMO. Bottom line (to me) is that every dog and owner is unique. Any law based on breed alone misses important concepts and is setting itself up for failure.

I understand that we rely on our lawmakers to address problems, and dangerous dogs are a problem. In the past I've focused on the need to educate both the public and the lawmakers so everyone understands that each dog needs to be taken on its own merit. But perhaps we should be looking at how we can use LAW to provide effective solutions when faced with dangerous dogs.

One idea that's been the focus of a lot of discussion on one of my trainer's lists this week is that of testing. In a nutshell, rather than using laws to restrict certain breeds, why not use the law to impose testing of individual dogs and owners? Breeds currently deemed vicious by law could be tested, as could any dog exhibiting potential aggressive behavior - or perhaps any dog over a certain size capable of inflicting serious injury.

Now before everyone protests, I understand there would certainly be many issues and potential problems that would need to be ironed out. For example, who will do the testing, what dogs/owners will need to be tested, and what will the test entail? My questions would include whether the test would be straightforward enough that it could be consistently applied, easily repeated, easily taught, and (most importantly) provide some manner of reliable results. I also recognize dogs and owners are a team - so testing may need to be done on a recurring basis to assure desired results (identifying problem dogs and owners as well as maintaining responsible ownership in marginal cases).

Advantages would include identification of problem dogs/owners, and placing responsibility where it belongs. This idea would also decrease prohibitions on responsible owners with amicable dogs (liability insurance, containment restrictions, etc), while generating revenues for municipalities vs. the $$$ currently lost dealing with problem dogs.

While I understand this may still be a form of BSL, I do see potential advantages. Perhaps it's a middle ground that deserves exploration. Anyway, just thinking out loud . . .