Guest Blog: How Californians Have Leapt to the Aid of Their Insurance Companies by Giving Up Their Pets and Their Civil Rights ![Rated Excellent [5 out of 5].](/dogblog/Themes/default/images/Star5.gif)
by Jacquelline Marshall
Last week at rush hour, I found in my headlights a beautiful and sound German shepherd bitch, probably a year and a half old, running in Elkhorn Boulevard, which is a very busy four-lane Sacramento thoroughfare. I caught her and shoved her into into the back seat of my Camry without incident, so she has to have a pretty good temperament. I checked her ears for tattoo (none), looked for tags (none), and had her scanned for microchips (none). Then I posted her in seven different locations, including animal shelters, a nearby veterinary office, the local feed store, craigslist, the newspaper, rescues, etc. No calls. (Well, I did get one call from a local law enforcement agency that is interested in acquiring a new narcotics dog if I can't find her owner.) Nobody came forward to claim her, which at first seemed odd as I knew she had to cost a pretty penny originally.
I rattled off a long list of common names to her, and when I said Heidi she cocked her head, so Heidi it is. Why would anybody give up such a loving, beautiful, healthy, personable, well-bred young dog as Heidi? Perhaps the answer is SB 861.
On 7 October 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly signed California State Bill 861, which allows cities and counties in California to enact Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) as they see most appropriate for their individual communities. SB 861 does not, however, allow all-out breed bans, or so it portends; it is meant to encourage spaying and neutering of specific breeds (as opposed to all of them, I guess). Its greatest problem is that it introduces breed-specific language to California, and it may leave some insurance companies painfully liable if they insure households containing breeds a community regards as dangerous or vicious (1). Senator Jackie Speier, the writer of California's bill, was elected largely on insurance company and insurance lawyer campaign contributions, so the connection cannot rationally be ignored (2).
SB 861 goes into effect on 5 January 2006, in anticipation of which insurance companies all over the state are scrambling to cancel homeowners' and renters' insurance policies that include dogs who are members of breeds not even named yet by communities, and they are doing it on the strength of dubious statistics. These statistics condemn the following breeds of dogs, which means every single member of the breed whether purebred or mixed, whether owned by gang members, deaf families, or movie stars, and whether vicious or docile or obedience champions: Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherd Dogs, Doberman Pinschers, Chows, Akitas, Huskies, and Great Danes will all be among the first to go, although some insurance companies have issues with Pugs, Border Collies, and Jack Russell Terriers. It seems to depend on the company, but that is a different statistical problem.
The problem here is that one must inquire about the scientific validity of the statistics that justify the lists, given the CDC research project "Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998," published by the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA). This study comments that "all types of dogs may inflict injury to people and property....From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or non-fatal dog bites" (3). The CDC's dog bite data, including what types of dogs have bitten whom, how seriously, and under what circumstances, oddly enough comprise the study that most insurance companies cite to justify their bans. But the study admits to having data weaknesses and seems to show that, in fact, breed is one of the least useful predictors of dog bites, even though on the surface it appears to be key information. Serious doubts about the validity of BSL are echoed by the American Kennel Club (4) , the Humane Society of the United States (5), the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (6), the National Animal Information Alliance (7), Petfinders (8), and practically every other credible animal group. Only PETA endorses BSL (9), which is an odd pat on the back.
Then why do insurance companies and politicians rely so heavily on dog breed as an indicator? Probably because the belief is that certain types of people are generally attracted to certain breeds of dogs (3,14)...not because those certain breeds do in fact bite proportionately more than other breeds. This must, therefore, be more about making life difficult for certain types of people than for certain types of dogs. Unfortunately, many, many dogs will die to enable insurance companies to exclude those people from their rosters and help politicans pretend to remove those same people from California streets.
If the AVMA study pointedly rejects the idea that breed predicts propensity for biting, and the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) writes that "breed-specific legislation is not the solution" (10), rejecting the idea that dog breed genetics can be responsible for or predict the actions of certain individuals, then politicians and the insurance lobby surely can provide information that supports their idea that entire breeds can indeed be held responsible for the actions of the few. If they cannot provide that data, one must soon gravitate towards wondering what their motivation is. And as insurance companies have one goal, to make money (not to be there in dire circumstances, like our best friends), SB 861 must in some way make money for insurance companies. Money is, after all, the insurance lobby's only motivation for doing anything, as a group, including support politicians. They have no biases except being for anything that makes, or against anything that loses, a buck. That's their job--their raison d'etre.
Consider Ed Nelson, who lives in Sacramento. He has a two and a half year-old purebred German Shepherd Dog that is his companion twenty four hours a day. Last week his homeowner's insurance company notified him that his policy would not be renewed in January when it comes due because his dog is a German shepherd. They did not offer him a more expensive policy, they did not offer to write an exclusion, they did not ask him whether the dog had ever hurt anyone, they did not ask him whether the dog had been to obedience school, and most importantly, they did not ask him whether he had a medical condition that required the presence of the dog. Those were not factors that interested them. They simply wished to have the dog removed. Off-camera, Nelson told the reporter, "Then I guess Ace and I will have to live in the motorhome." Of course, it may also be more convenient and/or profitable for the homeowner's insurance company not to have a disabled man to worry about, and as SB 861 does not mandate exceptions, the company doesn't have to make one if it doesn't want to. Luckily, after a TV news reporter made Nelson's insurance company look mean in public, the company retracted its threat (11). The Pit Bull and the Rottweiler did not fare so well and were, according to Nelson, "gotten rid of."
SB 861 causes certain frightened individuals who have been bitten either by dogs or by sensationalism to scream that all "those dogs" deserve to die. It does not, under any circumstances, cause individuals to question the human part in being bitten or in allowing children to be bitten, even though the CDC study noted that "our reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for preemptive action." Perhaps that kind of action would require communities to enforce the laws they already have, which appears to be out of the question, for some reason. At any rate, the circumstances under which a dog bites are relatively few, and if we aren't aware of those factors, then all the black and tan dogs, or all the big-headed muscular dogs, must die. In total, what we have is this: SB 861 makes breed-specific legislation rational, so it's rational to accept that insurance companies will make some of our acquaintances "get rid of" their dogs. And some of us have leapt to comply by turning over our beloved family pets before the law is even valid--so that our insurance companies can keep as much of our money as possible, not because those pets offered to bite anyone.
So California will just kill all "those" dogs, because it's easier and cheaper than dealing with individual people who permit their dogs to injure others, and it'll save on insurance payouts, too. That is what the politicians and insurance companies--as opposed to individual policy writers--hope we will do. Just buckle. Give up Heidi and those other dogs. But owners can't give them up to dog pounds because there they will quickly be destroyed (I found that out when I thought about taking Heidi to the local shelter). If you are a homeowner with bad insurance, or if you are a renter and have an urge to keep renting, you boot your dogs out in a busy area and hope somebody picks them up.
The media, the politicians, and the insurance lobby have infected most California communities with their hysterical language (nobody has defined attack as differentiated from bite) and unsubstantiated sensationalism; even the CDC admits that its data were "identified by searching news accounts," and that, since "attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed." That means that the statistics are skewed to whatever proportion the media view is skewed, and as a result many dogs of certain breeds will die pointlessly in shelters during the next year because somebody they're related to made hot press recently. If a German shepherd bites a kid, it's news. If a Labrador does, it's not.
Hopefully, before too much damage is done, Californians can file injunctions and write better laws, such as the one Oregon just passed (12), a law that does more to protect the public from dangerous dogs than protect insurance companies from harmless dogs or governors/mayors from going out without a legacy. It's sad that Californians (and Coloradans) have let fearmongers destroy pets and civil rights and have done nothing to actually deter any real criminals. "'I, for one, have had enough. I think it's time we get serious about pit bulls in this city, we get serious about pit bulls in this state, get serious about pit bulls across the United States of America,' [San Francisco Mayor Gavin] Newsom said at a news conference held at the city's Animal Care & Control agency in the Mission District to announce the course of action he wants the city to pursue to regulate dogs that pose a potential threat to public safety" (13). But that's just speechifying. With luck Mayor Newsom can get pit bulls to comply, because he's doing nothing to make their owners obedient or their neighbors safe. He's just messing around with symptoms and ignoring the disease, all for the titillation of rich insurance guys or other people's political ascendancy.
In the meantime, I'll be fighting the law and its proponents in whatever little ways I can. For example, I sent Heidi to a new home where she'll get training in scent discrimination. She's the kind of a girl who will thrive with a job to do and lots to think about, so sniffing for bombs will fulfill her. I do hope people will think about how safe they feel on their next plane trip--and remember that somebody like Heidi made that security possible.
Appendix A. SECTION 1. Section 31683 of the Food and Agricultural Code is
amended to read:
31683.
(a) Nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or
enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or
vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this
chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a
misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control
potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in
Section 122330 of the Health and Safety Code, no program shall be
specific as to breed.
(b) Cities and counties may pass breed specific legislation to
address public safety and welfare concerns in their communities,
provided that no program shall institute a ban specific as to breed.
SEC. 2. Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 122330)
is added to Part 6 of Division 105 of the Health and
Safety Code , to read:
CHAPTER 7. SPAY/NEUTER AND BREEDING PROGRAMS FOR ANIMALS
122330.
(a) Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances
pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding
requirements.
(b) Jurisdictions that implement programs described in subdivision
(a) shall measure the effect of those programs by compiling
statistical information on dog bites. The information shall, at a
minimum, identify dog bites by severity, the breed of the dog
involved, whether the dog was altered, and whether the breed of dog
was subject to a program established pursuant to subdivision (a).
These statistics shall be submitted quarterly to the State
Veterinarian.
1. http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/dogbite
2. http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=403766&si=20045
3. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
4. http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2543
5. http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/
insurance_companies_unfairly_target_specific_dog_breeds.html
6. http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_332231858.html
7. http://naiaonline.org/body/pdfs/PetFriendlyGuide.pdf
8. http://www.petfinder.com/journalindex.cgi?path=/public/animalissuesawareness/legalmatterspoliticalissues/1.39.5.txt
9. http://www.peta.org/Automation/AlertItem.asp?id=1516
10. http://www.cvma.net/doc.asp?ID=2539&ptitle=Government+Center&titletype=gvt&title=
11. http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_332231858.html
12. http://www.leg.state.or.us/05orlaws/sess0800.dir/0840ses.pdf
13. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/21/BAGASDBOEN1.DTL
14. http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus11conninslj1.htm