As you may have read, I’m leaving Arizona for a tremendous job opportunity in Portland, OR. Moving to a new state is a challenge in itself, but moving and trying to find a truely pet friendly apartment is even more of a challenge. Portland is an incredibly pet friendly city, but finding an apartment that accepts all breeds of dogs is surprisingly difficult, which leads me to the topic of my post: Doggie racism.

Is banning a breed of dog based on the assumption that an entire breed poses a greater risk of danger to the community just another form of racism? Many factors play a role in determining whether a dog will exhibit aggressive behavior such as genetics sex, health, environment, abuse, neglect, and most importantly training and socialization. Most dogs are capable of aggressive behavior, regardless of the breed. If any dog is abused, neglected, or trained to be aggressive it can pose a danger to society. So why do dogs such as Pit Bulls, and German Shepherds get such a bad rap?

Efforts to ban specific dog breeds from a community or breed specific legislation should instead be focused on public education about dog safety. Ignorance of proper care and training for specific breeds will only further increase the problem and  by labeling an entire breed as ‘agressive’ or ‘dangerous’ is only perpetuating the problem.

The ASPCA recommends using a breed-neutral scheme to deal with the problems that ALL dangerous dogs present to the community:

• Enhanced enforcement of dog license laws, with adequate fees to augment animal control budgets and surcharges on ownership of unaltered dogs to help fund low-cost pet sterilization programs in the communities in which the fees are collected. To ensure a high licensing rate, Calgary, Canada—its animal control program funded entirely by license fees and fines—imposes a $250 penalty for failure to license a dog over three months old.
• Enhanced enforcement of leash/dog-at-large laws, with adequate penalties to ensure that the laws are taken seriously and to augment animal control funding.
• Dangerous dog laws that are breed-neutral and focus on the behavior of the individual dog, with mandated sterilization and microchipping (or another permanent identification) of dogs deemed dangerous, and options for mandating muzzling, confinement, adult supervision, training, owner education and, in aggravating circumstances—such as when the owners cannot adequately control the dog or where the dog causes unjustified injury—euthanasia. In Multnomah County, Oregon, a breed-neutral ordinance imposing graduated penalties on dogs and owners according to the seriousness of the dogs’ behavior has reduced repeat injurious bites from 25 percent to 7 percent.
• Laws that hold dog owners financially accountable for failure to adhere to animal control laws, as well as civilly and criminally liable for unjustified injuries or damage caused by their dogs. Calgary has reduced reported incidents of aggression by 56 percent, and its bite incidents by 21 percent, by requiring owners of dogs who have displayed dog aggression or human aggression to pay fines ranging from $250 to $1500.
• Laws that prohibit chaining or tethering, coupled with enhanced enforcement of animal cruelty and animal fighting laws. Lawrence, Kansas, has significantly reduced dog fighting and cruelty complaints by enacting an ordinance prohibiting tethering a dog for over one hour.
• Laws that mandate the sterilization of shelter animals and make low-cost sterilization services widely available.

In my opinion, breed specific restrictions are no different than banning children or banning a specific race from a community. Meet the dog, observe the dog in a public situation, or require a certain level of training. Base your restrictions on the animal itself, it’s no different than basing a tenants eligibility on credit score, proper references or income.

A property owner has every right to enforce rules as it choses, but please don’t call yourself “Pet-Friendly” when restrictions on specific breeds is so clearly not.