Some dog advocates have a problem with a new city law targeting pit bulls: They want it to apply to all breeds

By Tali Woodward

Five months after 12-year-old Nicholas Faibish was killed by his family's two dogs, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a local ordinance requiring pit bulls – the type of dog involved in the attack – to be spayed or neutered.

Carl Friedman, who has headed the city's Animal Care and Control department since its inception, told the Bay Guardian the new ordinance could go a long way toward stemming dog aggression: "I'm optimistic." Sterilizing a dog almost always makes it calmer and more manageable, and pit bulls, rightly or wrongly, have taken center stage in the debate over how best to prevent dog attacks.

Some people despise the new pit bull law because they worry it will strengthen existing prejudices against the much-maligned breed and make it even harder for responsible owners to have pits in the city.

But other self-described "dog people" are unhappy with San Francisco's new law not out of pit loyalty but because they think preventing maulings will require a broader effort. The first step, they say, should be compelling nearly all city dog owners (or, in San Francisco's legal parlance, dog guardians) to have their pets spayed or neutered, whether their animals are pit bulls or Pomeranians.

Proponents of a more sweeping sterilization law also point out that having fewer intact dogs would reduce the number of unwanted dogs stuck in shelters and improve the behavior of local pets. Dogs that have been fixed tend to be more obedient, less likely to roam, and healthier.

Ancillary benefits

Any frequent visitor to a dog park knows that when an unaltered dog of any breed arrives, tensions rise. The other dogs could be lounging in the sun or romping casually, but when an intact dog – particularly a male – shows up, everything shifts a bit. The romping is no longer casual; the usual tussles over a ball or stick gain urgency. The possibility of a dogfight hangs in the air – sometimes, it's realized.

"They smell different," said Sally Stephens, the chair of SF DOG (San Francisco Dog Owners Group). "No matter how responsible you are with your un-neutered dog in dog parks, it can be a problem. And it reflects poorly on the [dog-owning] community at large when you have scuffles."

It's easy to see why dog advocates would want to take the tension down a notch – particularly given the long-running and acrimonious debate over off-leash policies in city parks. But that's not the only reason they're pushing for a broader sterilization law. Their main argument is that legislation that targets only pit bulls won't prevent all dog maulings – after all, other breeds can be aggressive.

Although the data on what breeds are most likely to harm humans is muddled, it's very clear that almost all feisty dogs have functioning reproductive organs. When researchers reviewed information on 200 dogs involved in fatal attacks, they found that all but two were un-neutered.

Stephens says she'd rather see a more comprehensive approach to reining in aggression, including neutering for nearly all adult dogs and low-cost dog-training classes.

The city's Animal Control and Welfare Commission agrees – last August it recommended that the city adopt an all-breed sterilization law. "To have it be just one breed is a bit shortsighted," vice-chair Sherri Franklin told us. "We have a dog aggression problem. We don't just have a pit bull aggression problem."

Kasie Maxwell, the founder and president of D5 DOG, the dog owners' alliance in the Haight, told us that every one of the group's board members supports a mandatory sterilization law. "We have the health, the aggression, and the overpopulation issues – it's like, wow, it's a slam-dunk," she said.

Among the places that actively encourage sterilization is Los Angeles, which penalizes owners of intact dogs by requiring them to pay much higher annual licensing fees. Stephens and others would like to see the LA program copied – with exemptions for dogs that are going to be bred or featured in dog shows, or that have health issues that make sterilization risky.

But not everyone welcomes the move. Some don't like the idea of the government telling people they can't have unaltered dogs on principle; others rely on arguments about canine health.

We stopped Poe Asher to ask her what she would think of an all-breed law when she was exercising her three vizslas – two of them un-neutered males – at Chrissy Field. Asher, who is a dog trainer and former breeder, thinks most city dog owners should probably get their dogs fixed. "Most pet owners can't deal with the behavior issues, often that males in particular have," she offered.

But she also expressed reservations about mandatory sterilization, saying that early neutering interferes with hormones that are necessary for proper physical development, and that sloppy spay jobs can easily leave female dogs incontinent.

Most veterinarians, however, say the benefits of fixing your dog – including a reduced chance of cancer – far outweigh the risks. The American Veterinary Medical Association even voted in 1993 to support neutering puppies when they are just eight weeks old.

Friedman said he's not opposed to extending the ordinance to cover all breeds – "To some extent, I'd like to see it happen," he said. But he's not convinced such a measure will fly with the public.

Besides, he told us, "We have a problem with pit bulls." Friedman has data to back up his position: More than half of the dogs involved in dangerous-dog hearings are pits.

"We're not trying to vilify a breed," he said. "We're just trying to respond to a problem."

Pit prejudice?

Pit bull defenders, of course, say that regardless of intentions, the new law will further sully the breed's reputation. They also predict a range of legal problems that a more comprehensive law could sidestep.

Donna Reynolds took in a pit bull named Sally as a foster dog in the late 1990s. Sally is one of those dogs whose tail never stops wagging, but when Reynolds tried to find a home for her, she ran up against pretty substantial fears and biases. So she held on to Sally and started the Oakland group BAD RAP (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls) to try to educate people about the breed.

Reynolds thinks that there is a tragic overabundance of pit bulls – and that far too many are in the control of irresponsible people. But she says breed-specific laws, which are opposed by all the most reputable animal groups in the nation, won't fix that. Instead, she says, they just further marginalize the breed: "It supports misperception." She worries that, in San Francisco, pit bulls and their owners will face increased hostility and even eviction from their homes.

In Reynolds's opinion, laws that encourage dogs of all breeds to be fixed are "the wave of the future. For such a progressive city as San Francisco to assume they couldn't get something like that is a disappointment – and a lost opportunity."

Stephens predicts that "in another five years, it'll be another type of dog" that's seen as the problem. In fact, San Francisco's last high-profile dog mauling – the 2001 death of Diane Whipple – involved not pit bulls, but presa canarios.

In the meantime, many suspect the San Francisco ordinance will be tested in court. Opponents have already said they will sue to stop the state law, Sen. Jackie Spiers's Senate Bill 681, which allows California counties to enact breed-specific legislation. And a local attorney has publicly announced his willingness to take on the first challenge to the San Francisco law.

Conflicts are likely to arise over which dogs are or are not pit bulls. The local ordinance leaves such determinations up to Animal Care and Control, but pit bull is a slippery catchall term for three distinct breeds, and even Reynolds says she sometimes has difficulty determining if a dog meets the breed description.

With the possible legal issues, Reynolds told us, "I believe it's going to cost the city more money than an all-breed law."

So why didn't the Board of Supervisors look at enacting more sweeping, all-breed legislation?

Stephens says her group wasn't notified when the local ordinance, sponsored by Sup. Bevan Dufty, was considered in committee, and therefore didn't get a chance to lobby the board for a broader law.

Dufty told us that he's been in contact with proponents of all-breed sterilization but that "I just think the city and the city's dog owners aren't open to it right now." He said that while he is focused on implementing the pit bull law, "I'm open to other possibilities down the road."

Stephens added that "it's not over, and I think to some extent this may be a wake-up call." E-mail Tali Woodward, the proud owner of a spayed mutt, at tali@sfbg.com.