Reading's Dangerous Dog Ordinance
 False choices/Real solutions

A message from HSBC Executive Director, Karel Minor

As you may know, dog bites in Reading have been getting a great deal of attention recently. A warm winter with more than the usual number of bites combined with several particularly nasty, high-profile bites to create a whirlwind of fear, hysteria, and a sense that something must be done.

One result of this panic has been the latching on by some to the possibility of enacting Reading's dangerous breed ordinance. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that this ordinance, which is triggered when there are 30 or more reported bites, with 40% or more of the bites by a single breed, in one calendar year, should be implemented early. They say that this is the fastest way, perhaps the only way, to protect children from savage attacks in the street and dismiss the concerns of pit bull owners as unfounded or irrelevant.

On the other side of the argument, vehement pit bull proponents decry any sort of regulation that might impact their preferred breed. They rightly point out that bites are actually quite low compared to the highs of the 90's, that the number of bites went up in the first year the ordinance was in effect, and that bites by all breeds, including pit bulls, have drastically decreased in the past few months. They also feel it is as unfair to enact this ordinance early to get the desired result of a few as it would be to stop counting votes when your candidate is winning. Unfortunately, they overshadow these important points with a complete denial that the "other side" has any reasonable argument for public safety and imply that they and their dogs are subject a vast, anti-pit bull conspiracy.

In reality, both sides are partly right and both sides are also profoundly wrong. Each offers us a false choice. One side offers a choice between scrapping the ordinance entirely or admitting a hatred of dogs. The other side offers the choice of instituting the ordinance, as is (if not early), or of condoning innocent children being mauled in the streets. I reject both of these false choices.

Anyone who knows me knows that first and foremost, I am a father, with three daughters aged seven, five, and three. As such, I am offended at the suggestion that simply finding fault with technical and practical aspects of a law will lead to more injured children. I am not a rosy-lensed animal advocate. The safety of my family is as important to me as it is to anyone. But pretending that this problem can be solved by throwing a law at it, without a proper evaluation of its effectiveness or even the facts, is just wrong.

Of course, anyone who knows me knows that I am also a person who has dedicated nearly my entire professional life to animals and animal welfare. As such, I know that smartly crafted, strongly enforced animal control legislation can and does make a very real, positive difference in the lives of people and animals. I will not accept the charge that I don't care about dogs because I won't repudiate or refuse to even investigate legislative tools to combat animal related public safety issues. Blindly ignoring the reality that, for whatever the reason, pit bulls are disproportionately involved in reported serious bite cases in Reading is equally wrong.

That is why I am asking you to join me in leaving the extremists behind and finding a new path to protecting our families- the children and the dogs in our families.

The Humane Society of Berks County has developed a Four Point Plan to improve Reading's animal control ordinance and to help change it from a well intentioned ordinance into truly effective ordinance. The HSBC has forwarded a copy of this plan to Reading's Mayor and City Council. The plan asks for the following:

1. Removal of the ineffective and inhumane muzzling requirement
2. Providing an exemption for Canine Good Citizens of any breed through verified behavior testing
3. Taking the sterilization status of biting dogs into account
4. Taking demographic changes in dog numbers and breed percentages into account

Click on the link on the left to read the complete letter and plan.

These four simple changes would help protect the public from badly behaved and poorly cared for dogs, the dogs most likely to bite. They would also protect our dogs from heavy handed, Draconian enforcement that has not been shown to work. The HSBC isn't asking that the current ordinance be entirely scrapped. We are asking that it be fixed.

You can help us get that done. Right now, please use the Quicklink to the left to email Reading's City Council and Mayor and politely tell them that you support the HSBC's Four Point Plan and you want them to implement it. Tell them that you love dogs, love kids, love the great City of Reading and that this plan is the way to make all of them safer and more secure. Also tell them that animal welfare issues inform your vote in elections. With your help we can make a difference. With your help we can avoid a 2008 with the unnecessary euthanasia of many, many good dogs due to an well-meaning but ineffective ordinance that will not make anyone any safer. On behalf of the dogs you can help save, thank you.