Category Archives: BSL

Springville Alabama is considering a multi-breed discriminatory law

Posted on May 19, 2013 by | 2 Comments

On May 6th the Springville City Council tabled an ordinance that would redefine what a dangerous dog is.  The current suggestions include breed discriminatory language that would target “any pit bull terrier which is defined as any Cane Corso breed of dog, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Bull Mastiff breed of dog.” 

This is by far the strangest inclusion of breeds in a definition of a “pit bull terrier” that I have seen so far. The very fact that the American Pit Bull Terrier is not the first on the definition, but Cane Corso is, is extremely telling about how much the officials understand about the topic.

The ordinance would require owners of targeted dogs to get a special registration, confine the dog according to the law, muzzle. Initially the idea of insurance was brought up but was rejected.

The director of public works has stated that they were “mirroring” other towns ordinances and that the changes are a cross-section of the laws of neighboring towns.

Mayor William Isely is showing some hesitation. He has said that he does not want to be premature in enacting this ordinance and thought that it needs more looking into.

The next work session was supposed to be on May 22 but needed to be cancelled because one of the members could not attend.  There is currently no date for the session, though it should come up soon.

Because they are still in the work session stage, it is extremely import to reach out and offer opposition to this ordinance. Politely ask that they institute a strong breed neutral ordinance instead and reject breed discrimination.  Showing that a breed discriminatory law would open them up legally and would not help the community, and then offering alternatives will go a long way. The Mayor and Council are putting work into this, let’s help them out to avoid the trap BDL creates.

Mayor William Isely: wisley@springvillealabama.org

Councilman Hugh Marlin: hmarlin@springvillealabama.org

Councilman Wayne Tucker: wtucker@springvillealabama.org

Councilwoman Katrina Hennings: khennings@springvillealabama.org

Councilman Chip Martin: cmartin@springvillealabama.org

Councilman David Jones: djones@springvillealabama.org

Councilman Larry Jones: larryjones@springvillealabama.org

→ 2 Comments

Posted in BSL Proposed

Tagged , , , , ,

Great Bend KS to discuss ban

Posted on May 19, 2013 by | Leave a comment

The Great Bend City Council will discuss a possible breed ban during their next meeting.

The meeting will be held on Monday May 20th.

There is limited information at this time about what positions the council takes and this appears to be a residents request that is being considered. The Council will consider a ban on “pit bulls and other vicious dogs.“

The Great Bend City Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. Monday at the City Office, 1209 Williams, Great Bend, Kansas.

Residents and locals: Please attend the meeting to respectfully and factually support breed neutral laws. Alternatives to breed discrimination can be found here. Tips for contacting legislators can be found here.

If you cannot attend the meeting please write with your opposition to a ban.

The Great Bend staff directory can be found on the cities website.

There are no e-mail addresses available for the individual council members but you may write to the City Administrator City Howard Partington at
hdpart@greatbend.com with a note that the correspondence is for the council.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in BSL Proposed

Tagged , , , , , ,

Darlington WI repeals breed discriminatory ordinance

Posted on May 16, 2013 by | Leave a comment

At the May 7th meeting of the Darlington Common Council, officials heard a motion to repeal the breed discriminatory portion of the city code.

The change was requested by a resident, Jeanne Bailey, who had moved to town and was denied registration for her dog.  Though she had the dog for years without incident because the law in Darlington focuses on the appearance of the dog and not its behavior, this dog would have been classified as vicious. The dog was considered a pit bull and under the law at the time pit bulls were declared vicious by default.  The old code defined vicious dogs, in part, as:

“4. Any pit bull dog.
 
(b) Pit Bull Dog.
 
1. The pit bull terrier breed of dog.
 
2. The Staffordshire bull terrier breed of dog.
 
3. The American pit bull terrier breed of dog.
 
4. The American Staffordshire terrier breed of dog.
5. Dogs of mixed breed or of other breeds than
listed under subpars. 1. to 4. above whose breed or mixed breed is commonly known as pit bull, pit bull dog or pit bull terrier.”
A recent article outlines the repeal very briefly. Bailey approached the chief of police, Jason King, who advised her to bring the matter to the Common Council. King stated he had been approached several times in the recent years requesting a change to the law but no one had ever followed through with bringing the matter before the Common Council until now.  The most city officials seem to have a keen understanding of what the problems were with the old ordinance.  Alderman Jon Sonsalla was quoted, at the meeting, saying, “You want to go after the behavior, not the breed.”
The repeal was passed, making Darlington officially a breed neutral community.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in BSL Repealed

Tagged , , , ,

Flemingsburg Kentucky City Council passes first reading of breed ban

Posted on May 16, 2013 by | Leave a comment

At Monday nights meeting, Flemingsburg Kentucky City Council voted unanimously to alter their current breed discriminatory ordinance, which regulates pit bulls, to a complete ban.

Members of the council cite complaints from their constituents about dogs at large as the reason for the change.  Once again, a municipality has instituted a breed specific ordinance that has failed to increase the overall safety of the community.  Instead of recognizing the ordinances failures and instituting strong breed neutral regulations, they choose instead to continue to waste resources on targeting dogs based on their appearance.

All dogs deemed to be a targeted dog would have to be removed 30 days after the passage of the proposal.  A fine of $250 accompanies the loss of the dog.

All members of the community should be concerned about the current state of animal control. Proper reform will finally begin with officials abandoning the breed discriminatory laws and instituting a strong owner based law that would provide hefty penalties for non-compliance and a more easily enforceable standard.  The community will find much more of the animal control resources available to address problem owners when they stop targeting dogs based on appearance.

Flemingsburg residents and locals: The second reading of the ordinance will be on June 10th.  Reach out, politely, to officials to offer breed neutral alternatives, that would increase public safety and keep animal control funds where they need to be.

Often officials do not know what they are doing in crafting these ordinances. It is up to those of us who are knowledgeable to help point them in the direction of effective laws.

Contact information for the council is spotty.  Some of the Council members have chosen to not provide contact information but others have.

City Clerk Joy Roark: joyroark@altiusbb.com

Council Member Meredith Story: MLSTORY@windstream.ne

Council Member Scott Manning: (606) 845-6301

Council Member Van Alexander: (606) 845-1531

→ Leave a comment

Posted in BSL Proposed

Tagged , , ,

Westwego Louisiana Councilman to propose breed ban

Posted on May 10, 2013 by | Leave a comment

Councilman Glen Green has been talking about a push to increase restrictions on dogs deemed to be pit bulls since a horrific attack on a constituent and friend earlier this year.  He plans to bring these regulations to the City Council on Monday.

The changes to the law, should they pass, would ban any dog deemed to be a “pit bull” that is not registered in the city. Those that are registered would be subject to a list of requirements. Owners would have to be older than 21, unless the dog is being used as a service dog, dogs must be muzzled in public, spayed or neutered and microchipped and the owner must have a homeowner’s or renter’s liability insurance of at least $100,000.  It is interesting that Councilman Green has thought about the service dog issue but not surprising that he would not understand the breadth of the hardship such regulations would impose on a person with disabilities.

Unlicensed animals would be killed if the owner fails to remove the dog from the city immediately and the owners fined $500.

The dogs would be DNA tested to determine if they fall under the restrictions but there is no clarification at this time as to what breeds are going to be included and how much of a percentage is enough to be restricted. Also not specified is what kind of DNA test is acceptable, since saliva is notoriously unreliable and even blood tests do not meet the standards to be admissible in court.

Councilman Green apparently is well aware that this law would be extremely expensive but according to a recent interview he plans on paying for it out of his discretionary fund.  An important question is what happens when the Council either no longer has the funds to pay for it, or is no longer willing to take that money out of the fund?  What happens when that fund is needed for more pressing matters than targeting dogs based on appearance? No doubt they have not thought that far ahead and in the end the tax payers will bear the burden of enforcing a law that Councilman Green wants to be strictly enforced.

Councilman Green acknowledges that the dogs themselves are not the problem. He stated that “The rationale is to control the pet owners, not so much the pets … We’ve got to do something to get their attention.”

What he does not seem to realize, though, is that he is doing exactly the opposite of what he intends. The things that he plans on introducing are targeting the dog, not the owner, and will not help to increase public safety.

Westwego residents and locals: Please reach out to the members of the Westwego City Council and if at all possible attend the meetings to voice opposition to breed discrimination. It is important to remember that the attack that happened was a terrible tragedy. Emotions are bound to run high, but nothing is ever accomplished by reacting emotionally.  Be factual and respectful in all correspondence. Offer strong breed neutral alternatives that would target problem owners instead of dogs. You can find alternatives to breed discrimination here. The Council is not interested in how much people love their dogs, they are interested in real effective ways to help make the community safer. Though the methods they are choosing are not the solution, their hearts are in the right place.

Councilman Glen Green: glenngreen@netzero.com

Councilman Ted Munch: TedMunch@cityofwestwego.com

Councilman Ivy Rogers: ivyrogers@cityofwestwego.com

Councilman Melvin Guidry: melvin.guidry@nov.com

Councilman Larry Warino: LWarino4westwego@aol.com

→ Leave a comment

Posted in BSL Proposed

Tagged , , , ,

South Bend Indiana is drafting changes to animal ordinance

Posted on May 6, 2013 by | 2 Comments

Prompted by high euthanasia rates, City Councilwoman Valerie Schey has formed a committee to re-vamp South Bends laws regarding Animal Care and Control.

A committee has been formed to evaluate and re-draft the section of South bends code of ordinances relating to animals. The purpose of the committee is to create a more animal friendly and enforceable ordinance that would allow officials to better protect all members of the community, two and four-legged. One of the changes on the table is a repeal of the breed discriminatory section of the law. You can read more about the other changes being sought here.

South Bend has had a breed discriminatory law in place since 1987. The law restricts American Pit Bull Terriers and those resembling this breed only.  They are very clear in the definition that American Pit Bull Terrier is defined as the UKC (United Kennel Club) and ADBA (American Dog Breeders Association) standard but does not include the other breeds we usually see in these ordinances. Under section F. of the definitions we can see the breeds excluded from the ordinance:

” American Pit Bull Terrier means the breed of dog registered and described by the United Kennel Club (U.K.C) and the American Dog Breeders Association (A.D.B.A.) as the American Pit Bull Terrier, also known as the pit bull terrier, and any crossbreed of the American Pit Bull Terrier; but does not include the breeds known as the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the English Bulldog, the Bull Terrier, or the Bulldog, all of which are recognized by the American Kennel Club (A.K.C.).”

There really is no better way to convolute the enforcement of a breed discriminatory law than to take two very closely related breeds, so closely related that there is some debate about whether the two are the same breed, and restrict one but not the other.  Breed discriminatory laws are hard enough to enforce.

There is a long list of restrictions that must be met in order to have a targeted dog. An owner must have special registration, 2 photographs of the dog on file, $300,000 in insurance, a tattoo of the license number on the dog or microchip, breeding regulations and confinement regulations. This is just a summation of the restrictions. For a full list you can view the full code, Chapter 5, article 4.5.

The committee has set a schedule that would have the ordinance ready by the end of the month.

At this time the changes are still in their drafting stage, but residents should reach out to express polite and professional support for the changes being sought.

Thank you, Erin, for the information.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Proposal to Repeal

Tagged , ,

Osawtomie Kansas to review breed discriminatory ordinance

Posted on May 1, 2013 by | Leave a comment

At the request of a resident who was targeted as the owner of a banned dog the city council in Osawtomie, Kansas is reviewing their breed discriminatory law.

A boxer mix was recently targeted as a banned dog, after being stopped by a police officer while being walked by it’s owner.  The dog had lived  in the community, without incident, for a year, when the owner was stopped. The owner was told he would have to remove the dog from the city, which he did.  This has brought the issue of the ban and whether or not it has worked for the community to the attention of City Council.

This past Thursday City Councilwoman Tamara Maichels formally raised the issue, along with a panel of dog experts from the community.

The council was presented with information, statistics and testimony that firmly disputes the basis for the ban.

A committee has been appointed to review the information provided and has been charged with the task of making a recommendation to the city council. Maichels plans to bring the committees recommendations to the May 9th council meeting.

Recommendations from experts and advocates in the community are stressing the importance of owner responsibility when addressing dangerous dogs in the community.

Residents only: Councilwoman Maichels has said that they want to hear what their constituents have to say, so it is very important to reach out and express support for putting the responsibility where it belongs, on the owners. Please remember to be factual and unemotional in any correspondences. Community safety is the number one priority for officials and breed neutral laws would go far to creating a safer community by freeing resources to address problem owners and protecting the citizens of Osawtomie from all dangerous dogs, regardless of their appearance.

If you are able to attend the May 9th meeting to show support for a repeal of Osawtomie’s ban please do so.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Proposal to Repeal

Tagged , , , ,