The former executive director of the City of Los Angeles’ shelter system and current director of the Yavapai Humane Society, Ed Boks, has been recently blogging about breed-specific legislation in the form of mandatory spay and neuter for Pit Bulls. As far as I can tell, he has not given a statement in regards to where he personally stands, but the implication in his writing is thick and he continues to source the types of things that are par for the course when making the argument.

Of most peculiar note is his sourcing of anti-Pit Bull bigot Merritt Clifton of “Animal People.” Sigh. Never fear… Brent Toellner of the KC Dog Blog breaks Cliffton’s nonsense down nicely. And again.

The below quote blocks are taken from Boks’ back-to-back posts on the subject…

Nation-wide, pit-bulls represent 60 percent of all dogs euthanized; 22 percent of all dogs abused or neglected; 46 percent of all dogs that injure humans; 51 percent of all dogs that attack other animals; and virtually all dogs impounded in dog-fighting cases.

^Where in the world are these figures coming from? There is no count whatsoever in the form of a breed-tallied breakdown of the dogs “that injure humans.” That doesn’t exist. We do know that there are roughly 4.5 million dog bites reported per year, according to the CDC, 20% of which result in the need for medical attention. Yet none of these tallies are done by breed or type. No one can claim that they are, because they aren’t. Those reports do not exist. So not sure where Ed Boks is pulling that figure from. And how exactly is he determining that 51% of all dogs that “attack other animals” are Pit Bulls? Again, no tally of that exists and no genuine ability to tally such a thing exists. That’s not even acknowledging the mess that you step in when you try to say “what is” and “what isn’t” a Pit Bull. But yet he has all of these fancy numbers to splash around.

These facts are all the more startling when you consider pit-bulls and all pit-bull mixes combined represent only about 4 percent of the total dog population.

…According to Merritt Clifton.

Although pit bulls account for only 3.3 percent of the U.S. dog population, according to a 2011 Animal People survey, they represent 29 percent of all dogs surrendered nationally to shelters or impounded by animal control.

…Again, according to Merritt Clifton.

I very much disagree that only 3.3-4% of the United States dog population is considered to be Pit Bulls. I’d have a sneaking suspicion that that number is a tad, if not much, higher.

Also, as loosely as this notion that any “attacking” dog is considered to be a Pit Bull by media, or by exploitative hatemongers on the internet, that “loose” attempt at defining them clinches right up when they need to have it the other way. When they need to make graphs comparing yearly deaths “caused by Pit Bulls” to the “percent of the dog population that Pit Bulls make up,” then that population number is promoted as being as low as possible. But as soon as there is another “attack” that they can exploit, they immediately call every linked dog under the sun a “Pit Bull.” It’s clear that their philosophy doesn’t stay consistent when tallying the total number of Pit Bulls. They thrive on having it both ways. If you are hypothetically going to call 3 “attacking” Boxers “Pit Bulls” then you best include all Boxers under the category of “Pit Bull” during your bogus study. I’m just pointing out the inconsistency of message. It’s dishonorable and pathetic, not to mention unscientific, at its core.

Further, whether ultimately 3% or 5% or 10% of the overall dog population, the clear and obvious truth is that 99.9% of all existing Pit Bulls (no matter the population claim) haven’t ever been involved in any sensationalistic version of the stories that you randomly see on television used to perpetuate their negative stigma. I don’t see any news organizations banging down my doors to come cover the dispositions of my 3 Pit Bull-type dogs. Please let me know if they’d ever want to. Yet Merritt Clifton, the creature that Boks chose to source, routinely exploits Pit Bulls as being programmed killers that exist everywhere with the intentions of eventually murdering your mother.

Three U.S. communities have tried two different solutions. San Francisco, Denver and Miami each enacted breed-specific legislation. San Francisco requires pit bulls to be sterilized; Denver and Miami prohibit pit bulls within city limits. The latter seems onerous, if not unconstitutional; the former, however, may be a humane solution worthy of consideration.

Cumulatively, San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 40 percent fewer dogs of any breed than the U.S. national average. A comparison of San Francisco and Ontario, Canada is especially interesting. Ontario banned all pit bulls at the same time San Francisco mandated sterilization. Seven years later, the reduction in pit bulls is almost identical.

So in 1 paragraph he can say that the banning of Pit Bulls seems “onerous, if not unconstitutional,” and then in the very next paragraph he can acknowledge that the banning vs. mandated sterilization amounted to the exact same results. All this at the behest of promoting the latter, and criticizing the former. As if they aren’t meant to achieve the same goal, even though he admits that they achieve the same goal.

I’ve been saying for as long as this website has existed that mandating Pit Bull sterilization is a coward’s ban, a politician’s ban… They are being disingenuous with the public, using language that’s meant to take advantage of the many people that genuinely want to help, and twisting it to not only achieve their bans but to also cover their graveyard of prior failures. Education be damned, following the numerous already existing laws be damned. It’s an epic failure all around.

Boks also tries to make the case that “San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 40 percent fewer dogs than the U.S. national average.” Well, no kidding. Because they’ve eliminated Pit Bulls. And the ones that do continue to come in, they are now being hidden from their “official” numbers because they are ALL (due to the bans) deemed “unadoptable” and thus able to be disassociated from the released kill numbers. This is a shell game and these cities are untransparent frauds that, oh by the way, are being “onerous” and “unconstitutional.”

Further reading on this issue…
KC Dog Blog: Understanding cause and effect when it comes to mandatory spay/neuter laws
Nathan Winograd: Ed Boks’ e-mails reveal mandatory spay/neuter law failures, which includes this doozy…

During his tenure as General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS), Ed Boks made headlines in his support of a failed California mandatory sterilization law, Assembly Bill 1634. During legislative hearings, Boks admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals when a Senator asked: “Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?” To which Boks responded: “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.” The bill was defeated.