2012/07/25 Council Agenda Packet

Mid Atlantic Animal Law Fiscal Bite& Breed Discrimination: Utilizing Scientific Advances & Economic Tools in Lobbying By Ledy VanKavage and John Dunham Panic policymaking is defined as the speedy creation of new laws and regulations or new duties for governmental and private institutions in a situation of sudden, unreasoning, and excessive fear and anger.'The majority of breed-discriminatory laws stem from just such a situation: A dog bite or attack, usually with high media visibility. According to Cass Sunstein, "Elmn the aftermath of a highly publicized event people are more fearful than they ought to be —the phenomenon of `availability bias.' An available incident can lead to excessive fixation on worst- case scenarios."2 Since the 1980s, in reaction to these worst-case scenarios, dozens of municipalities or counties have adopted breed-discriminatory laws.3 There are three political preconditions that result in panic policymaking and influence the adoption of breed bans: "First, the supporters of the legislation adopt the traditional legal definition of animals as property. Second, the breed ban is a form of policymaking that is often more a symbolic reaction —a palliative rather than a cure—for an emotional fear or anxiety.4 It deals with the potential of catastrophic injuries and promises to provide reassurance of safety and security.' However, despite the symbolism of breed bans, they add a new element to animal law. They shift the costs of injury from the owner to the dog. Traditional cruelty laws result in fines or incarceration of owners. Breed bans cause the owner's loss of the dog, but the dog or dog breed faces extermination. Finally, and central to this paper, the adoption of breed bans occurs in a relatively unusual political context. Unlike adoption of some palliatives for risk, breed bans appear in circumstances marked by great emotionalism and limited inquiry into 1 Susan Hunter and Richard A.Brisbin,Jr.,Panic Policy Making:Canine Breed Bans in Canada and the United States,1,Prepared for delivery at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association(2007). 2 Cass Sunstein,Worst-Case Scenarios,(Boston:Harvard University Press,2009),p.6. 3 Devin Burstein,Breed Specific Legislation:Unfair Prejudice and Ineffective Policy,10 Animal L.313-361(2004). 4 Murray Edelman,The Symbolic Uses of Politics,(Urbana:University of Illinois Press,1964),pp. 22-29. 5 Kevin D.Haggerty,From Risk to Precaution:The Rationalities of Person Crime Prevention,In Risk and Morality,eds.Richard V.Ericson and Aaron Doyle,(University of Toronto Press,2003),pp.193-214.