Lincolnwood, IL (a Chicago suburb) enacted breed specific restriction, despite a last ditch effort from Jeff Armstrong of Parents Against Irresponsible Dog Owners; veterinarian Dr. Elizabeth Robertson and Jamie Damato and Wendy DeCarlo of the Chicago Pet Trainer's Association. Here's Steve's testimony.

Where we agree, all of us in this room, is that we all want to do the best we can to enhance public safety, lessening the chances of any dog attack, especially a serious attack. 

First a brief word on how often dogs do attack – more people are treated in emergency rooms for falling out of bed than for being bitten by dogs. (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2003). As for seriousness of dog bites, hospital emergency rooms report over 92 per cent to be “no injury,” and less than one percent “moderate to critical” (according to WISQARS/The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control).

But I am certainly not discounting the seriousness of this issue – My goal is to put this in perspective…The danger of a poorly timed intersection we cross every day is more real than a dog biting, or even rolling over in an SUV – and how many of us have SUV’s? (according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

The CDC no longer tracks the breed responsible for fatal dog attacks because too often the breed is misidentified, but mostly because breed is considered “irrelevant.” It’s what prompts any dog of any breed or mix to attack that should be considered (the American Veterinary Medical Association, Centers for Disease Control and Humane Society of the United States, et al).

      These are (in no particular order):

• Dogs involved in crime or used as accessories to crime.
• Dogs involved in the particular crime of dog fighting.
• Dogs purchased for the sole purpose of ‘protection.’
• Dogs that are tethered – they break through from tethers and create havoc in the neighborhood; and tethered dogs’ entire disposition often changes as a result of being tethered.
• Unaltered male dogs – not because they are more aggressive – but because they want to meet, well, a hot looking babe – and they find ways over or under fences and roam neighborhoods, sometimes threatening people in the process.
• Public complaints about individual dogs not being acted upon by officials.

Sadly as I understand this ordinance – it will apply to all pit bull-looking dogs. . . well, that would mean as David Frei, the voice of Westminster travels around the country showing off the winner,  appearing everywhere from The Tonight Show to Ellen,  Here in Lincolnwood, this delightful dog would require a muzzle. You see, Rufus, the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show winner, is a colored bull terrier…Hardly a threat, but now profiled to be bad – just because of a general look. I thought as a society we were over that.  

Of course, a pit bull-looking dog may be bad…I mean really bred to be aggressive and encouraged to be that way…but that’s not usually the case.  No one’s counting the pit bull-type dogs, but there are a lot of them - some say approaching as many as Golden Retrievers, which according to the American Kennel Club is the second most popular breed.  

Truth is a dog you think is a pit bull - might be second generation, when mom and dog were other kinds of terrier mixes. What you think you see isn’t necessarily what you’ve got. ,But because an individual dog fits some sort of stereotyped profile – apparently that suggests – even without evidence – that dog is inherently bad. What if that dog is an animal assisted therapy dog which makes lives better? Or what if that dog is a service or assistance animal? I’m talking about a dog that legally you can’t deny. Or what if simply it’s an American Staffordshire, a breed I’d stack up any day – if it’s well bred and well socialized – with the Golden Retriever.  

Where bans exist, they haven’t worked. . . Some cities have backed off because of lawsuits…but mostly, just because there’s no indication that dog bites, attacks or serious crimes related to dogs lessen.  

What we’re doing in Chicago is to at least attempt addressing public safety and dogs by looking at what prompts dogs to attack.  

I realize your suggestion, here, today isn’t to ban a breed…Or at least you maintain it isn’t. Maybe that’s what you really think. But by automatically deeming a dog as dangerous, purchasing the insurance you’ve mandated would be unaffordable for most. In this sense the restrictions you’ve suggested are a de facto ban.  

A few maintain what I’ve laid out so far is like the gun control argument. Well, I don’t quite get the analogy. Guns kill so many people – maybe more people in a single day than dogs do all year. Besides most guns are dangerous. Most dogs are not. 

Others maintain, we all know pit bull-types are bad…sure there’s no science – but who needs science when it’s common knowledge we read about in the papers. I have a very recent story here about pit bulls saving an owners’ life from fire in Mundelein, IL (Metro News). I worked in the media my entire life. I can say, just because it’s on the wires – it doesn’t mean it will make the papers.  

Last week, we had a bathroom drain that wouldn’t drain…the water just wouldn’t go down. I tried to fix it myself…and I made matters worse. Eventually, I listened to my wife and called in an expert, the plumber. He fixed it. I’m not sure experts can fix or prevent all dog aggression issues all together. I mean a great deal of the problem here has to do with socio-economics. But even all of you - the most well intentioned politicians can’t know everything about every topic. Even if you’ve had dogs your entire lives, it’s not what you do for a living, not what you have degrees in.  

Everyone talks about what an emotional and controversial topic this is. Well, sort of not. There isn’t a single dog or humane or children’s welfare organization I know of that is for breed specific restrictions or legislation…There’s not even a loosely held group - I mean, there’s no group called ‘Mothers Against Pit Bulls.’. For the sake of brevity, I will only mention a few opposed to even breed specific restrictions – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Illinois State and Chicago Veterinary Medical Associations, the Humane Society of the States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)…and these are only a few.  

I call for reasonable thought before passing anything – and consult with experts, which to my knowledge, has not happened. Perhaps Mr. Mayor, you can name a Task Force which would include veterinarians, dog trainers, breeders and behavior consultants…and then craft what will work best to address the needs and issues you feel are applicable to this wonderful community.  I believe seeking expert advice and input is a fair and rational request which could only benefit the residents of Lincolnwood.  Maybe just maybe there’s a better way to achieve the same goal.