Yearly Archives: 2011

StopBSL Recap 2011

Happy New Year! Here are some of the stories and alerts StopBSL covered in 2011. It was a busy year. Many thanks to all of you who have participated in public dialogue, communicated with elected officials, spread the word about breed-specific proposals, and worked diligently to stop BSL! With your help and support, we’re looking forward to a successful 2012.

Rough count / overview:

  • BSL Repealed = 6
  • BSL Rejected = 34
  • BSL Proposals that Died Quietly = 17
  • Repeal Proposals that Did Not Pass = 8
  • New BSL Passed = 12
  • BSL Revised Slightly = 15

BSL Repealed

  1. Bay County, MI
  2. Overland, MO
  3. Cleveland, OH (although breed-specific state law still applies)
  4. Moses Lake, WA
  5. Vienna, WV
  6. Canada, BC, Cumberland

BSL Proposals Rejected

  1. Montgomery, AL – this news media-driven push for BSL ended with breed-neutral revisions to the dog ordinance
  2. Jasper, AL – the mayor requested a breed ban and a committee recommended BSL, but city council rejected the proposal and asked for a breed-neutral ordinance instead
  3. Haskell, AR – council proposed a breed ban, but a public hearing generated too much opposition for council to ignore
  4. Santa Clara County, CA – considered breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter. The proposal was officially rejected in May 2011 after the Animal Advisory Committee recommended against it.
  5. Cypress, CA – considered breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter. The council rejected the idea in January 2011.
  6. Petaluma, CA – a committee considered and voted against breed-specific MSN
  7. Sonoma, CA – a councilmember wanted BSL, but the council decided against it
  8. Hayden, CO – a resident requested BSL, but council dropped the idea, probably due to state law prohibiting BSL
  9. Bristol, CT – confusing media coverage and unclear statements from a councilmember led to a massive public outcry against a possible breed ban. Council quickly backed off the idea.
  10. Lisbon, IA – council proposed a breed ban, then tabled it after public opposition
  11. Illinois HB 1080 – this statewide bill would have repealed the state law that prohibits municipalities from passing BSL. It died in committee.
  12. Morton, IL – a resident requested BSL for “dangerous breeds,” but the council introduced a breed-neutral ordinance in January 2011
  13. Gardner, KS – a councilmember asked for a breed ban, but the council voted against it
  14. Terrebonne Parish, LA – a councilmember suggested BSL, but the final revisions to their dog ordinance were breed-neutral
  15. Dartmouth, MA – the select board decided against BSL
  16. Charles County, MD – BSL was proposed, but after a work session and some heavy public outcry, the revised proposal was breed-neutral
  17. Michigan HB 4714 – the committee chair declined to hear a proposed statewide ban on “pit bulls,” so the proposal is basically dead
  18. Buchanan, MI – a resident requested BSL, but the council decided against passing any new laws
  19. Egelston Township, MI – the board proposed and ultimately rejected BSL
  20. Wyoming, MI – after a resident requested BSL, the police chief and city manager publicly stated that the city would not pursue BSL
  21. Fulton, MO – although a resident suggested BSL, the resulting proposed ordinance was breed-neutral
  22. Butte-Silver Bow, MT – a councilmember’s repeated submitted proposals for BSL were voted down by the rest of council
  23. Waxhaw, NC – the media reported a public call for a breed ban, but the ordinance introduced by council was breed-neutral
  24. Smithville, OH – the council dropped a breed ban after public outcry
  25. Oklahoma SB 362 – this statewide bill would have repealed the state law that prohibits municipalities from passing BSL. It died in committee.
  26. Aberdeen, SD – after starting out with a proposal to regulate “pit bulls,” council eventually passed a breed-neutral ordinance, and rejected two breed-specific amendments to that ordinance
  27. Madison, SD – although council initially considered BSL, the revised proposal was breed-neutral
  28. Taylorsville, UT – a very “pit bull”-focused council meeting and work session ended with the city stating publicly that they would not pursue a breed ban
  29. Friday Harbor, WA – after a resident requested BSL, council voted against the proposal in a narrow vote of 3-2
  30. Vancouver, WA – what started as a “pit bull” ban eventually become breed-neutral
  31. West Virginia HB 3080 – this statewide bill was poorly written and would have both prohibited BSL and declared all “pit bulls” to be dangerous dogs. It died in committee.
  32. Marinette, WI – the council proposed a breed ban, did more research, discussed, and ultimately decided against a ban
  33. Canada, BC, Port Moody – the council declined to propose BSL despite resident’s request
  34. Canada, MB, Springfield – ban discussed by residents, but rejected by council

BSL Proposals that Fizzled Out

These proposals for BSL lost steam after a while. In most cases, officials just stopped talking about it. We don’t believe any of these proposals passed.

  1. Ventura County, CA – the animal shelter director’s proposal for breed-specific MSN never gained traction with county commissioners
  2. Hamden, CT – after some residents asked for a breed ban, city officials said they would look into it, but the city never discussed it again
  3. Savannah, GA – a resident started a petition for BSL and the news media went crazy, but city council never took up the issue
  4. Elkader, IA – BSL was briefly considered, but the city eventually stopped talking about animal ordinance revisions altogether
  5. Glidden, IA – a resident asked the city to consider BSL
  6. Hopkinton, IA – after a fatal attack by a Rottweiler, the mayor suggested banning Rottweilers (“pit bulls” are already banned, for all the good it did), but in the end, the council decided against it
  7. Marshalltown, IA – a resident asked the city to reinstate a breed ban, but so far it appears the city isn’t interested
  8. Mission Hills, KS – already had BSL for “pit bulls” and intended to add Rottweilers, but later decided against the idea
  9. New Bedford, MA – although a councilmember continues to push for BSL, the proposal seems to be going nowhere
  10. Ecorse, MI – although the city reported having trouble enforcing their “pit bull” ban, and said it was thinking about loosening the ban, nothing seems to have come of the idea
  11. Ellenville, NY – although the council wanted to pass BSL, the city attorney advised that BSL was not allowed in New York
  12. Shelby, NC – a councilmember suggested BSL, but the city did not discuss the issue again
  13. Union County, NC – a county commissioner called for BSL, but no further action seems to have been taken
  14. Bristol Borough, PA – although a councilmember pushed for BSL and council was considering it, the proposal quietly died
  15. Springfield, TN – council intended to add to their current BSL, but later tabled the idea
  16. Cornell, WI – dog ordinance discussions included debate for and against BSL, but in the end, no ordinance was drawn up
  17. Waukesha, WI – an alderman suggested BSL, but the city never moved forward with the idea

BSL Repeals that Failed to Pass

Sadly, these proposals to repeal BSL did not survive.

  1. Idaho S1143 – bill would have made it illegal for municipalities to pass BSL. Made it through the state Senate but missed a deadline in the House and died.
  2. Preston, ID – city council voted against repeal of BSL
  3. Nevada AB324 – this bill would have prohibited muncipalities from passing BSL, but the bill died
  4. Kearney, MO – despite a resident’s request to repeal the city’s breed ban, the city council voted against repeal
  5. Springfield, MO – the city considered a repeal of BSL, but the idea did not gain traction
  6. Ohio HB 25 – an early draft repealed statewide BSL, but a later draft did not (but that’s okay, because HB 14 is still in action)
  7. Oacoma, SD – declined to repeal breed ban
  8. Canada, BC, Castlegar – city briefly considered repeal of BSL

New BSL Passed

  1. Air Force base housing – breed ban passed
  2. Barstow, CA – breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter passed
  3. Fontana, CA – breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter passed
  4. Franklin, KY – breed-specific restrictions passed
  5. Patterson, LA – breed-specific restrictions passed
  6. Lowell, MA – breed-specific restrictions passed
  7. Saginaw, MI – breed-specific restrictions passed
  8. Webb City, MO – breed ban passed
  9. Union, MS – breed ban passed
  10. Kenton, TN – breed-specific restrictions passed
  11. China, Shanghai – long list of breeds banned
  12. Malaysia, Subang Jaya – breed ban passed

BSL Revised (Still BSL)

  1. Lake City, AR – breeds added to breed ban
  2. Trumann, AR – moved from BSL to breed ban
  3. Aurora, CO – repealed BSL for all restricted breeds except “pit bulls”
  4. College Park, GA – revised breed-specific restrictions
  5. Seward County, KS – repealed a breed ban, then passed breed restrictions
  6. Hazel Park, MI – added breed ban on new “pit bulls” to current BSL
  7. Camdenton, MO – city removed the grandfather clause from breed ban
  8. Greenville, MS – passed stricter BSL
  9. New Albany, MS – added breed ban on new “pit bulls” to current BSL
  10. Oakwood, OH – created a new vicious dog ordinance that uses state law to define “vicious dog”
  11. Xenia, OH – breeds added to BSL. Language also appears to create a breed ban.
  12. Australia - several states in Australia have instituted stricter BSL that amounts to a breed ban
  13. Canada, BC, Ladysmith – city added Canine Good Citizen exemption to BSL
  14. Denmark – 12 breeds added to “watchlist” to be potentially added to breed ban
  15. New Zealand – Presa Canario added to import ban list of breeds

Still on the Watchlist

These are some of the issues we will be monitoring into 2012.

  1. Trussville, AL – breed ban proposed
  2. Florida HB 997 / SB 1322 – would repeal BSL in Miami-Dade County (and anywhere else it has been grandfathered in)
  3. Fairburn, GA – council discussion about possible breed ban
  4. Hinesville, GA – council to “look into” BSL after resident request
  5. Donnellson, IA – council considering breed ban
  6. Mason City, IA – suggested breed ban
  7. Hobart, IN – councilwoman suggested fee to own “dangerous breeds”
  8. Waterville, ME – police chief says he will draft BSL (would violate state law)
  9. Lake Saint Louis, MO – ordinance rewording would allow ACO to consider breed when determining dangerous dog
  10. Slater, MO – council considering BSL
  11. Wentzville, MO – resident group requesting repeal of BSL
  12. Tupelo, MS – may add breeds to current “pit bull” BSL
  13. Ohio HB 14 – would repeal state-level BSL
  14. Parma, OH – citizens request repeal of breed ban (but it doesn’t seem to have gained traction in council)
  15. Chippewa Falls, WI – some talk about BSL (though it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere)
  16. Canada, Ontario – bill would repeal breed ban
  17. U.K. – bill would repeal nationwide BSL

Unknown Outcomes

These are open cities, states, or countries that we are unable to monitor or determine what came of the proposal. If you have any updates for these, please send us an email at stopbsl.com@gmail.com.

  1. Porterdale, GA – news reported that council would discuss BSL or a breed ban during a work session
  2. Merrillville, IN – the city was considering adding “Staffordshire Terrier” to definition of “pit bull”
  3. Junction City, KY – the police chief reported that residents were asking for a breed ban
  4. Ridgely, MD – the city was considering adding breeds and restrictions to its current BSL Outcome established (see city link)
  5. Burton, MI – the city was going to consider Saginaw’s BSL as a possible model for their own dog ordinance
  6. Manton, MI – news reported breed ban in the works
  7. Canada, AB, Grande Prairie – news reported possible repeal of BSL
  8. Canada, AB, Wetaskiwin – news reported resident requesting BSL
  9. Canada, MB, Winnipeg – citizen group was working to repeal BSL
  10. Canada, NS, Halifax – councillor called for BSL or breed ban
  11. Canada, NS, Yarmouth – BSL proposed
  12. Canada, QC, Montreal, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve borough – Mayor suggests BSL or breed ban
  13. Canada, QC, Montreal, Rivière-des-Prairies – Pointe-aux-Trembles borough – Borough plans to muzzle “pit bulls”
  14. Lithuania – government drafting breed ban
  15. Norway – Govt officials discuss possible repeal of BSL
  16. Trinidad and Tobago – BSL already in place; govt intends to revise

Plumsted, NJ: Animal control officer calls for BSL

Plumsted animal control officer John Klink (John Bilyk) says he will ask a judge for a court order mandating that “pit bull” owners put muzzles on their dogs. We’re not lawyers, but we’re pretty sure it’s not possible to get a court order that would do this. (Any lawyers out there who can chime in here?)

Also, New Jersey municipalities are prohibited from passing breed-specific ordinances—so Plumsted council can’t legally pass an ordinance to this effect either.

Nevertheless, we suggest that some respectful, educational dialogue with officials may be necessary in Plumsted, especially since the animal control officer seems to be ignorant about the state laws he is supposed to be enforcing.

You can reach Plumsted animal control officer John Klink (Bilyk), Mayor Ronald Dancer, and any other township official via the Township main phone number 609-758-2241 or Fax 609-758-0123.
Other contact info: http://www.plumsted.org/directory.html

After attacks, official calls for muzzles for pit bulls in Plumsted

10:02 PM, Dec. 29, 2011
Written by Stephanie Loder | Staff Writer

PLUMSTED — Residents who own pit bulls and let them outside would be forced to muzzle their dogs if the township animal control officer has his way.[...]

“There have been too many bites,” said John Klink, who provides animal-control services for the township.

He said he was going to ask a judge for a court order mandating that residents with pit bulls muzzle the animals when they are outside.

The township has no ordinance regarding the restraining of pit bulls, he said. [...]

Full article retrieved 12/30/11 from http://www.app.com/article/20111229/NJNEWS/312290063/After-attacks-official-calls-muzzles-pit-bulls-Plumsted?odyssey=nav%7Chead

Bermuda: Govt revises prohibited breeds list, creates new “restricted breeds” list

Bermuda has moved some previously prohibited breeds into a new restricted-breed category. (We last told you about this plan in September 2010, but the official breed list is now finalized.)

Prohibited breeds may not be imported or bred. All of the below breeds were also prohibited under the previous prohibited-breed list.

  • American Pit Bull Terrier
  • American Bulldog
  • American Staffordshire Terrier
  • Argentine Mastiff / Dogo Argentino
  • Boerboel
  • Brazilian Mastiff / Fila
  • Cane Corso
  • Presa Canario
  • Neapolitan Mastiff
  • Tosa Inu
  • Wolf / Wolf hybrid
  • Any crossbreed of above

Restricted breeds can be imported or bred, but there are restrictions on ownership, such as special enclosures, property inspections, etc. Some of the below breeds were previously on the prohibited breed list, and some of the below breeds were not previously restricted or prohibited. I have noted the changes. Restricted breeds are as follows:

  • Akita (previously prohibited)
  • Australian Cattle Dog (previously unrestricted)
  • Belgian Malinois (previously unrestricted)
  • Bouvier Des Flandres (previously unrestricted)
  • Bull Terrier (previously prohibited)
  • Bullmastiff (previously prohibited)
  • Chow Chow (previously unrestricted)
  • Doberman Pinscher (previously unrestricted)
  • Dogue De Bordeaux (previously prohibited)
  • German Shepherd (previously unrestricted)
  • English Mastiff (previously prohibited)
  • Rhodesian Ridgeback (previously unrestricted)
  • Rottweiler (previously prohibited)
  • Staffordshire Bull Terrier (previously unrestricted)
  • Any crossbreed of above

News articles with details regarding the new breed lists:
http://bernews.com/2011/12/minister-bean-on-dog-importations/
http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20111229/NEWS01/712299932

All alerts for Bermuda: http://stopbsl.com/?s=bermuda

Aurelia, IA loses court case, “pit bull” service dog returned

Many thanks to Kim for keeping us updated on this case!

Animal Farm Foundation is pleased to announce that the Honorable Judge Mark W. Bennett (http://www.iand.uscourts.gov/e-web/home.nsf/0/17a5762715fa4c52862573c90079072c?OpenDocument ) granted the motion for preliminary injunction for Snickers, a service dog, to be returned immediately to James Sak. Snickers will be returned to Officer Sak’s home in Aurelia later this afternoon.

Judge Bennett’s ruling carves an exception to the City of Aurelia’s ordinance banning “pit bull” dogs from city limits. Sak is a disabled Vietnam Veteran and retired Chicago Police Officer who depends on Snickers for his safety, mobility, and independence.

The hearing took more than two hours. Numerous people came out to support Officer Sak and Snickers, including a number of perfect strangers who drove hours to be there.

“Animal Farm Foundation is thrilled that Officer Sak will be reunited with his service dog, Snickers, and his safety will no longer be compromised. This case is a sad example of what happens when cities discriminate against dogs based on breed or appearance. Breed discriminatory legislation does nothing to enhance public safety, but it’s extremely expensive to enforce, it tears apart families, and it divides communities. Hopefully other cities will learn from this and choose alternative approaches to building safe and compassionate communities.” – Kim Wolf, Community Engagement Specialist, Animal Farm Foundation

“Today I got my peace of mind back. I hope that nobody else has to go through what we went through.” – James Sak

Animal Farm Foundation will continue to support Officer Sak with this case if the City if Aurelia appeals the decision in the United States Court of Appeals.

For additional info/interviews, please contact Kim Wolf at (845) 418-0778 or kwolf@animalfarmfoundation.org.

Recent guidance published by the federal Department of Justice regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act states that service dogs are essentially exempt from municipal breed-specific legislation. The judge in this case upheld the DoJ guidance in favor of Sak.

Note that the ADA exemption does not apply to pet dogs, therapy dogs, or any other dogs that are not employed as service dogs as defined by the ADA. However, the DoJ’s reasoning for the exemption is significant because the same reasons (dogs should be assessed as individuals, breed stereotypes are not reality, a dog’s actual behavior is more relevant than appearance, etc.) could also apply to pet dogs. Don’t count on the DoJ or any other federal entity to jump in and help pet dog owners fight BSL, though. Federal government doesn’t have the authority to create dog control laws. For pet dogs, your state and local laws will continue to apply.

Here are a few of the news articles about the outcome:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Judge-Allows-Pit-Bull-Disabled-Man-to-Reunite-136320353.html

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45807018/ns/today-good_news/t/despite-pit-bull-ban-man-be-reunited-service-dog/#.Tvx_etT2ZPJ

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-aurelia-iowa-couple-can-keep-pit-bull/article_60a6a734-5467-5a04-be78-7c5e49993d78.html

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/update-judge-aurelia-iowa-couple-can-keep-pit-bull/article_266b6e60-2d8f-11e1-9c2f-0019bb2963f4.html

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e316dc1565c14603bc6b854db11a443a/IA–Dog-Ordinance-Lawsuit/

Trussville, AL update: Committee to make recommendations (BSL)

The mayor of Trussville says he will form a committee to recommend changes to the town’s animal ordinance. Trussville has been considering a breed ban as a possible solution to recent vicious dog incidents.

Remember, criticizing a proposed breed ban or BSL is only half of the battle. The mayor and city council perceive a problem, and they are trying to generate solutions. Please offer them solutions that are fair, effective, and breed-neutral. Show them how to solve their problem without the hassle, expense, and injustice of BSL.

Contact information for Trussville city officials
City Hall, 131 Main Street, P. O. Box 159, Trussville, Alabama 35173
Tel (205) 655-7478
Fax (205) 655-7487
Mayor Eugene (Gene) A. Melton, Mayor@trussville.org
Council members have not made public their email addresses (if they have one). Phone contact info can be found here: http://www.trussville.org/content.asp?ID=89212

Trussville reconsiders possible pit bull ban

Updated: Dec 28, 2011 4:22 PM CST
By Alan Collins

TRUSSVILLE, AL (WBRC) – Trussville wants more time to consider a ban on pit bulls. The city was considering an amendment to its animal control ordinance to ban pit bulls from locating in the future to the city.

Current dog owners would be grandfathered in under the proposal. But there are some complaints.[...]

Jacqueline Meyer, executive director of the Greater Birmingham Humane Society disagrees with the proposed ban.[...]

Mayor Melton says he plans to appoint a committee to come with recommendations in about 30 days.[...]

Article retrieved 12/29/11 from http://www.myfoxal.com/story/16406950/trussville-takes

All alerts for Trussville: http://stopbsl.com/?s=trussville

Auburn, KY: City may lower insurance requirement (BSL)

Auburn, KY, has BSL that includes a requirement for “pit bull” owners to have $300,000 in liability insurance. This is one of the highest liability insurance requirements in the nation and has proven impossible for people to obtain. Consequently, Auburn is considering lowering the liability insurance requirement to $100,000.

Why not encourage Auburn to repeal its breed-specific law altogether?

Contact info for Auburn, KY
103 East Main Street, P.O. Box 465, Auburn, KY 42206
PH: (270) 542-4149
FX: (270) 542-4143
E-Mail: auburnky@logantele.com
Auburn City Council meetings are held at Auburn City Hall on the 2nd Monday of every month at 6:00PM.

Auburn looks at lowering required insurance coverage for vicious dogs

by Chris Cooper Managing Editor

Owners of vicious dog breeds in the city of Auburn may have easier access to purchasing the required insurance coverage as specified in the city’s ordinance under registration of vicious dogs.

The city council entertained a request Monday, Dec. 12 by city police chief Ron Mills to amend the city’s current animal ordinance concerning vicious dogs. Mills asked to lower the requiring $300,000 worth of coverage down to $100,000 because it is impossible for dog owners to adhere to that request as there is no one who will supply that coverage. [...]

Mills will bring the amendment to the city council in January and then it will have to have two readings before passage.

Full article retrieved 12/29/11 from http://www.newsdemocratleader.com/view/full_story/16874393/article-Auburn-looks-at-lowering-required-insurance-coverage-for-vicious-dogs

Florida HB 997 / SB 1322 would repeal Miami-Dade County BSL

NOTE: This is an OLD post. This bill is now DEAD.


Florida state law prohibits muncipalities from passing BSL, but allows BSL that was in place prior to October 1, 1990. The most famous of these grandfathered laws is the breed ban in Miami-Dade County.

Just-filed Florida House Bill 997 and its companion Senate Bill 1322 are very simple bills that remove the grandfather clause. If these bills pass, Miami-Dade County (and any other municipality with grandfathered BSL) will be forced to repeal.

HB 997 has just been assigned to the Agriculture & Natural Resources Subcommittee. No hearing has been scheduled yet. Please contact the following members and urge them to pass HB 997. (Email block for cut-and-paste.)
Steve.Crisafulli@myfloridahouse.gov; Rachel.Burgin@myfloridahouse.gov; Michelle.Rehwinkel@myfloridahouse.gov; jim.boyd@myfloridahouse.gov; jason.brodeur@myfloridahouse.gov; dwight.bullard@myfloridahouse.gov; matt.caldwell@myfloridahouse.gov; luis.garcia@myfloridahouse.gov; richard.glorioso@myfloridahouse.gov; tom.goodson@myfloridahouse.gov; steve.perman@myfloridahouse.gov; ray.pilon@myfloridahouse.gov; elizabeth.porter@myfloridahouse.gov; franklin.sands@myfloridahouse.gov; jimmie.smith@myfloridahouse.gov

You can also contact your Florida legislators and ask them to support this bill.

You can also write to the bill sponsors and thank them for filing this important bill.
HB 997 filed by Rep Carlos Trujillo, carlos.trujillo@myfloridahouse.gov
SB 1322 filed by Senator Jim Norman, norman.jim.web@flsenate.gov

Status page for HB 997: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=48233

Read the text of the proposed bill: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0997__.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0997&Session=2012