Tag Archives: tosa inu

Norway: Government may be receptive to breed ban repeal

The NKK (Norway’s major kennel club) has recently discussed with some members of Parliament the possibility of repealing section 19 of their Dog Act.  The Dog Act, section 19, allows the King to choose the breeds that will be considered “dangerous,” and to create restrictions to be placed on those breeds. Norway currently bans the ownership of the “pit bull terrier,” American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa Inu, and Dogo Argentino.

The NKK has stated the many difficulties with the law, including significant breed identification issues, no effect on public safety, and the arbitrary selection of breeds to ban.

You may read more from the NKK here (Norwegian), article date March 21, 2011: http://www.nkk.no/nkk/public/openIndex?ARTICLE_ID=11782

Google Translate offers a rough translation in English here: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nkk.no%2Fnkk%2Fpublic%2FopenIndex%3FARTICLE_ID%3D11782

Because I’m not well-versed in Norwegian politics or parliamentary processes, and because it’s difficult to find English-language materials on this topic, if you are interested in assisting the Norwegian effort to repeal the breed-specific portion of the Dog Law, please contact the NKK (www.nkk.no) to find out how you can help.

Thanks to Charlotte for passing the link along.

Aurora, CO: Council to consider breed ban revisions, March 17

On March 17, Aurora city council will consider revisions to their breed ban, which currently bans American Bulldogs, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Fila Brasileiros, Presa Mallorquins, Presa Canarios, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Tosa Inus, and any mixed breed dog resembling one of these. Per city documents, the ban was passed due to public perception and fear of these breeds—not because of any public safety data indicating these breeds were problematic in Aurora.

City council and other officials have touted the “success” of the breed ban by observing that bites from restricted breeds have decreased. It should be noted that bites by non-restricted breeds have NOT decreased. In fact, non-restricted dog bites are above pre-ban levels.

Courtesy of the city, from January/February 2011 council packet:
2003   Total bites: 213     Restricted breed: 28       Non-restricted breed: 185
2004   Total bites: 211     Restricted breed: 33       Non-restricted breed: 178
2005   Total bites: 137     Restricted breed: 27       Non-restricted breed: 110
Breed ban enacted in 2006, dog-on-animal bites now included in data(?)
2006   Total bites: 137     Restricted breed: 8       Non-restricted breed: 129
2007   Total bites: 172     Restricted breed: 15     Non-restricted breed: 157
2008   Total bites: 224    Restricted breed: 8        Non-restricted breed: 216
2009   Total bites: 229    Restricted breed: 9        Non-restricted breed: 220
2010   Total bites: 194    Restricted breed: 6        Non-restricted breed: 188

In 2008 and again in late 2010, council received bite data as well. It should be noted that the numbers provided in 2008 and 2010 do not match the numbers provided in 2011 and in fact paint a less-sunny picture. For instance, the 2008 report provided the following data for 2006 and 2007 (dog-on-animal bites not included, for comparison purposes).

2006   Total bites: 182     Restricted breed: 11     Non-restricted breed: 171
2007   Total bites: 180     Restricted breed: 13    Non-restricted breed: 167

It is not clear why the numbers differ. In 2008, the city acknowledged past record-keeping inaccuracies, but claimed to have corrected both the data and the data collection process at the time of the 2008 report. It stands to reason that if the data was accurate as claimed in 2008, there should be no difference between 2008 and 2011 data. Why, then, do over 40 bites disappear from the 2006 data when reported in 2011?

The city has also continually struggled with a mingling of dog-on-human and dog-on-animal bites and has apparently accounted for these different types of bites inconsistently over the years. The city claims that 2006 through 2010 data includes both dog-on-human and dog-on-animal bites, whereas pre-2006 data was dog-on-human bites only; therefore, the numbers from 2006 through 2010 appear deceptively high when compared to pre-ban numbers. However, Aurora does not provide exact data for dog-on-animal bites, leaving us to make an educated guess. The 2008 bite report does call out dog-on-animal bites for 2006 and 2007; it was 30 and 18 bites, or 14% and 9% of total bites, respectively. Even if we subtract the higher percentage (14%) of dog-on-animal bites from each year starting in 2006, doing so does not reveal a trend of decreasing total dog-on-human bites; post-ban dog bites remain (mostly) higher than pre-ban dog bites.

Additionally, while the city currently puts forth the idea that restricted breeds “tend to” inflict more-severe bites than non-restricted breeds, the city has not provided data to prove this assertion—and the city’s 2008 report actually disproved this mantra. The 2008 report broke bites down by severity for 2006 and 2007. Over 90% of severe (AND over 90% of moderate) bites were inflicted by non-restricted breeds in 2006 and 2007. The breed ban did not appear to reduce severe dog bites—in fact, severe bites increased from 2006 to 2007, and non-restricted breeds were the ones implicated (restricted breed severe bites remained steady at one per year). No more recent data regarding bite severity has been made available, making it difficult to challenge the city’s current claim.

You can view the 2008 data here: https://stopbsl.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/june-27-aurora-city-council-meeting-dog-bite-stats.doc

It is not clear how the city can declare the ordinance a public safety “success” when they don’t have any numbers to prove it. I would also think last year’s 188 victims of non-restricted breeds’ bites would have something to say about the purported success (namely, “What about us?”).

Aurora city officials have nevertheless staunchly recommended that the ban remain in place. The proposal to “loosen the ban” or eliminate it altogether has been met with much skepticism from city officials and councilmembers.

Please provide intelligent, polite public input to encourage Aurora city council to do away with their breed-specific law, for the sake of public safety.

Aurora Mayor and City Council, 15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Fifth Floor, Aurora, CO 80012

Aurora will reconsider ban on pit bulls

By Carlos Illescas, The Denver Post
Posted: 03/14/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT

AURORA — The city is considering loosening its ban on pit bulls, just as a new federal ruling kicks in Tuesday stating that any breed of dog can be used as a service dog.[…]

On Thursday, an Aurora committee will discuss several options to the current ban. Those include doing away with the ban and keeping the ban but allowing pit bulls as service dogs.[…]

After Thursday’s meeting, the Neighborhood Services Policy Committee will forward a handful of proposed ordinances to the City Council for consideration.[…]

Full article retrieved 3/14/11 from http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17608120

Denmark: Ban on 13 breeds passes

Denmark has passed a ban on 13 breeds of dogs: Pitbull Terrier, Tosa Inu, American Staffordshire, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Boerbel, Kangal, Central Asian Ovtcharka, Caucasian Ovtcharka, Southern Russian Ovtcharka, Tornjak and Sarplaninac.

Previous alerts for Denmark: http://stopbsl.com/?s=denmark

From the Denmark Folketinget website, via Google Translate:

Made 17-03-2010
referred to the committee 15-04-2010
Report submitted 01-06-2010
referred to the committee 03-06-2010
Addendum Report delivered 03-06-2010
processed, approved 04-06-2010

Ministers Zone

With the bill introducing a ban on hold and grow 13 listed breeds and their crosses in which these breeds included. The bill becomes effective on 1 July 2010. Establish a transition, so people who know Bill submission holds dogs covered by the ban may still possess them. The dogs may not be transferable and must be on sites where there is public access, always kept in tape and wear proper closed muzzled. Moreover, established a phasing scheme for persons who at the time of submitting the bill has established breeding with dogs covered by the ban. These individuals could continue their activities until 30 June 2015, but will after the Act shall not dispose of the prohibited dogs to buyers in Denmark. Moreover, the bill include band duty and publishers that labeling and registration age for dogs is reduced from four months to eight weeks.

The bill adopted by 56 votes (V, DF and CF, Pia Christmas-Møller (UFG)) v 4 (EL and LA, Christian H. Hansen (UFG)), 48 (S, SF and RV) voted either for or against.

Denmark: Breed-specific legislation proposed by committee

Denmark has been tossing around various breed-specific proposals for almost a year.

Previous alerts for Denmark: http://stopbsl.com/?s=denmark

Dangerous dog ban mooted

Wednesday, 20 January 2010 10:53 KR News

Vicious dog breeds could be subject to an import ban and neutering policy in order to wipe them out in Denmark

Fourteen breeds of dog considered dangerous could be banned in Denmark on the recommendation of a parliamentary committee.[…]

Full article retrieved 1/20/10 from http://www.cphpost.dk/component/content/48013.html?task=view