A Message from HSBC Executive Director, Karel Minor
After nearly ten years, several court challenges, and an overwhelming amount of hard evidence showing that Reading's Aggressive Breed Ordinance was targeting the wrong population of dogs, a Pennsylvania appeals court has thrown out the aggressive breed provisions of Reading's Animal Control Ordinance. In a very narrow ruling, a majority of the three judge panel decided that a portion of the Pennsylvania Dog Law trumped the local ordinance. No other issues brought by the plaintiffs in the case were addressed. The City must now decide if it will appeal the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The Humane Society of Berks County urges the City of Reading not to pursue this case and this well intentioned but seriously flawed ordinance any further. We have no doubt that a competent attorney will be able to bring a compelling case before the PA Supreme Court that will result on this ordinance being struck down for a broader variety of reasons. While the Humane Society understands the natural desire to want to do something in the face of a rash of dog bites, this ordinance was the wrong tool.
It targeted an entire population based on the actions of only a few. It had no requirements for determining if the criteria used was or remained valid over time. It started and has remained clearly intended by many as a means of controlling one particular breed, pit bulls, not any random "aggressive breed". Ultimately, it's extremely punitive licensing fees (fees that were outside the ability of many working families to pay)were required only of those owning a particular breed, resulting in a defacto and illegal breed ban.
All this aside, we don't need it to get bites down. Despite a major upturn in bites in the first part of 2007, increased enforcement of existing State and local dog control laws drastically reduced bites, not just by the pit bulls who would have been impacted but by all dogs of any breed. In the first seven weeks of 2008, even with the prospect of the ordinance completely off the radar until 2009, bites are still down 20% over last year and pitbull bites are down 66%. With good enforcement of existing laws, bites can be curbed without the threat of a Draconian breed ordinance.
It has been widely reported that the Humane Society of Berks County has called for a huge license fee for unsterilized dogs in Reading. As is often the case with positions of subtlety, this is accurate in the most selective of contexts. What the Humane Society has said is that IF the City insisted on keeping its ordinance, we believe that the restrictions should be targeted at the populations of dogs that are statistically vastly more likely to bite than any individual breed, even those scary pit bulls. These include (in order of percentage of total bites in Reading in 2007): unsterilized dogs of any sex (at least 71% of bites), any male dog of any breed (at least 67% of bites), unlicensed dogs of any breed or sex (at least 61% of bites), or unsterilized male dogs of any breed (at least 58% of bites). You would need to go through all these populations before you get down to a breed group like pit bulls (39% of bites). We believe that there is no reason to jump over these demonstrably more "aggressive" populations in order to target a breed-- unless the whole point is simply to target the breed.
So, pit bull owners, take this opportunity to prove the proponents of this ordinance wrong. If you haven't already, get your dog sterilized, always walk it on a leash, don't leave it outside unsupervised, keep it licensed, take your dog to a qualified obedience program, make sure that your dog is a model canine good citizen, and help the Humane Society and the City of Reading aggressively target the bad owners of dogs they have made bad- whatever their breed.
If you don't, you'll probably see some clever, new version of the ordinance rear its head soon.
Your partner in animal welfare,
Karel I. Minor
Executive Director
