Category Archives: Results of BSL

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: City committee to discuss possible BSL repeal, March 19

UPDATE:

EDMONTON – An amendment has been passed at City Council which eliminates the contentious Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) from Edmonton’s Animal Control Bylaw. The BSL section outlined that certain dogs were labelled “restricted” solely based on their breed.

Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | Council eliminates Edmonton’s restricted breed legislation

The Community Services Committee is set to discuss the possibility of BSL repeal on March 19 at 9:30 AM. View the agenda and supporting documents. The supporting documents are a particularly interesting read.

Please continue to send RESPECTFUL correspondence that highlights the many problems with BSL, offers effective breed-neutral alternatives, and requests the removal of the breed-discriminatory language in the current ordinance.

City of Edmonton, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 1 Sir Winston Churchill Square, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 2R7
Phone: 780-442-5311
E-mail: 311@edmonton.ca
Mayor contact form: http://webproxy.edmonton.ca/forms/Contact311/default.aspx
City Councillors: Councillors@edmonton.ca

Sadly, the following news article is fairly inaccurate. Contrary to the article headline, the city report did not make a recommendation to either keep or repeal the city’s BSL. The article made several other inaccurate statements. The supporting documentation at the agenda link, provided above, is a much more informative and accurate primary source.

Change dog breed restrictions: city report

BY TANARA MCLEAN, EDMONTON SUN
FIRST POSTED: FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2012 05:07 PM MDT

City dog breed restrictions could be pooched in the near future.

A city committee is set to hear the pros and cons of whether or not changes should be made to current animal control bylaws. […]

As it stands only two breeds are restricted under city laws — the American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier. […]

Full article retrieved 3/18/12 from http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/03/16/change-dog-breed-restrictions-city-report

All alerts for Edmonton: http://stopbsl.com/?s=edmonton

MIAMI-DADE PASSES DANGEROUS DOG REGISTRY LEGISLATION

We reported that two separate pieces of legislation had been proposed in Miami-Dade and would be voted on Tuesday night.

Officials chose to adopt Commissioner Diaz’s proposed ‘Dangerous Dog Registry’ last night.  The new ordinance increases fines from $500 to $1000 and creates an on-line registry that will allow residents to identify dangerous dogs within their own communities, and permits police officers to take any dog it determines is vicious.

“This is all about being responsible for your animal. I don’t believe in bad dogs, I believe in bad owners,” said Miami-Dade County Commissioner Jose Diaz.

Commissioner Lynda Bell wasn’t as certain the registry would be as successful, “I just see so many potential problems for abuse in this legislation.  I really appreciate the intent but I have to say that I appreciate the intent.”

Now, when your dog, no matter the breed or type of dog, bites a person or another pet, your dog’s “mug-shot” will be posted on-line along with your address, and a description of how the bite occurred.
According to Alex Munoz, Animal Services Director, “Any action taken can be appealed to a hearing officer”.
 So, we ask….why does Miami-Dade need a pit bull ban?

UPDATE: Australia- Dangerous Dog Laws Fail to Accomplish Convictions

Second Council reports coming as a result of the one year anniversary of the Domestic Animals Act anniversary:

WYNDHAM Council has not seized any restricted breed dogs under tougher dangerous dog laws brought in a year ago.

But it is investigating two dog attack-related matters for court action.

It has been a year since the State Government introduced tough new legislation covering dangerous dogs.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Are the new laws working? Tell us below. 

The regulations were dubbed “Ayen’s law” after four-year-old St Albans girl Ayen Chol, who was killed by an unregistered pit bull cross.

Owners of dangerous, menacing or restricted dogs can face jail if their dog kills a person.

Since the legislation came into effect, the Wyndham Council has not seized any dangerous dogs.

There are 31 registered restricted breed dogs in Wyndham.

The council said it had inspected properties where dangerous dogs were being kept.

No dogs have been surrendered or euthanised, acting chief executive Bill Forrest said.

Since January 1, 127 dog attacks have been reported to the council.

“Wyndham City rangers are currently investigating two dog attack incidents, both involving minor injuries on other dogs,” Mr Forrest said.

http://wyndham-leader.whereilive.com.au/lifestyle/story/no-dogs-seized-in-wyndham/

 

According to news out of Moonee Valley, a small area located within Melbourne, Victoria, Australia has received 24 reports of suspected dangerous dogs since changes to the 1994 Domestic Animals Act went into affect almost a year ago.

The changes stipulated only restricted-breed dogs registered before September 30th, 2011 would be allowed to stay in Victoria.

The revised law, which was made effective September 1st of last year, required registration, spay/neuter and microchipping of existing dogs that would have to be secured in an enclosure with warning signs.

Two unregistered ‘restricted breed’ dogs have been identified within the past year according to Council Chief Executive Neville Smith.  One of the two was voluntarily surrendered by the owner while the second is currently awaiting a court ruling while in the custody of officials.

Only four restricted dogs and one cross-breed are currently registered in Moonee Valley.

“While we have experienced dog attacks in Moonee Valley, the majority of these have not involved dogs that the State Government have classified as restricted breed dogs,” Smith said.  “This is a complex issue and counsil understand community concerns regarding dangerous breeds of dogs and their potential to harm.”

http://moonee-valley-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/dog-laws-show-bite-moonee-valley-stats-show/

UPDATE: Moonee Valley, AU – Dangerous Dog Laws Fail to Accomplish Convictions

According to news out of Moonee Valley, a small area located within Melbourne, Victoria, Australia has received 24 reports of suspected dangerous dogs since changes to the 1994 Domestic Animals Act went into affect almost a year ago.

The changes stipulated only restricted-breed dogs registered before September 30th, 2011 would be allowed to stay in Victoria.

The revised law, which was made effective September 1st of last year, required registration, spay/neuter and microchipping of existing dogs that would have to be secured in an enclosure with warning signs.

Two unregistered ‘restricted breed’ dogs have been identified within the past year according to Council Chief Executive Neville Smith.  One of the two was voluntarily surrendered by the owner while the second is currently awaiting a court ruling while in the custody of officials.

Only four restricted dogs and one cross-breed are currently registered in Moonee Valley.

“While we have experienced dog attacks in Moonee Valley, the majority of these have not involved dogs that the State Government have classified as restricted breed dogs,” Smith said.  “This is a complex issue and counsil understand community concerns regarding dangerous breeds of dogs and their potential to harm.”

http://moonee-valley-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/dog-laws-show-bite-moonee-valley-stats-show/

Annapolis MD – Legislative Task Force Workshop Announced

In May, the Maryland General Assembly created a task force to study the recent Court of Appeals decision that pit bull dogs and pit bull mixes are “inherently dangerous,” and to recommend possible legislation. The task force held a hearing and work session in June, but the General Assembly failed to pass legislation during the August special session.

Fortunately, they will be meeting again on October 25 to continue to work on hammering out legislation for January. This hearing will be open to the public and it would be great to have a large showing of support! Just a couple things to know if you plan to attend:

They will not be accepting oral testimony from the public. This is only a work session for the members of the task force (legislators) to discuss possible legislation.

Please be professional and polite. These legislators did not have anything to do with the Court of Appeals decision, but have been tasked with considering what to do about it — which is a good thing! We need to give them our support and encouragement.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 1pm and it’s difficult to predict how long it will last.

Here is the location of the hearing:

Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Hearing Room
Miller Senate Office Building, Suite 2E
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401

For more information, please visit HSUS Facebook Event:

Tracey v. Solesky Task Force Work Session 

Camp LeJeune, NC – Eastern Bases

As of September 30th, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune‘s pet policy will undergo further changes, banning all aggressive dogs and specific dog breeds.

The Marine Corps banned aggressive dog breeds in 2009, but owners who had lived on a Marine Corps base with a restricted dog before the ban were allowed to “grandfather in” their dogs and keep them on base, new residents however were not allowed to bring their restricted breeds on base when they moved after the initiative was adopted.

Recently Animal Control has taken over pet registration on the Camp Lejeune and MCAS New River bases resulting stricter enforcement of the pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf hybrids restrictions.

It was estimated in March of 2010 that of 200 dangerous dog breeds living on Camp LeJeune, only a quarter of the dogs were properly registered.  Ongoing difficulties in maintaining proper registration of grand-fathered allowances may be one reason we’re seeing this change.  However, when the original initiative was first proposed, a deadline of December 2011 was discussed.

Now, regardless of when the dog was acquired, all owners of pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf hybrids will face the difficult decision of moving off base or giving up their pet.  In addition, all pet owners will be required to reregister their pets under the new system by the same date.  Even though statistically it would appear the enforcement of the restrictions and requirements was difficult to enforce, base officials have elected to impose more restrictions for enforcement.

According to Sgt. Brent Mitzel of the Provost Marshal’s Office Animal Control, “It also has to do with base housing.  There (have) been incidences in the past with bites and stuff like that, and we’re all just trying to limit the potential hazards.”

Alisa Johnson, a Marine and president of Dogs on Deployment, a 501(c)(3) national non-profit which provides a central online database for service members to search for individuals or families who are willing to welcome a Dog On Deployment into their home for the length of their owner’s deployment.

“Service members should never have to choose between their family pet and serving at their next duty station. Every day, I talk to families affected by these harmful policies and it’s time for that to end,” Johnson said.  Johnson’s organization is currently spearheading a more suitable option to implement a military-wide standardized pet policy so there is no confusion for enlisted members when assigned to a new base.  Her proposed policy would target aggressive dogs rather than focus on breeds or types of dogs.

In an interview with JDNews.com Mitzel said Animal Control will also test dogs for aggression during registration, and if the dog is considered aggressive by the staff, regardless of the breed, it will not be allowed on base.

“If they try to bite us, snap at us, growl, snarl show any type of aggression toward us, we’ll make that determination on whether we believe that pet is aggressive,” Mitzel said. “If it’s a three-pound dog and it’s trying to bite everybody’s hand off, we will not register that dog on the base.”

According to statements in the JDNews.com article, animal control will also determine if a dog is a banned breed or a mix of any of the banned breeds by visual ID.  If they “suspect” the dog to be mixed with an affected breed, they will not approve registration of the pet on base according to Mitzel.

“We’re going to tell the owner they can contest it with a DNA test if they’d like. Once we get the results back, if it’s not one of those banned breeds and it’s not aggressive, then we’ll register it on base,” he said, adding that if the results come back positive, the dogs will be forced to leave the base, with or without their owners.

DNA testing has long been used by military bases and veterinary clinics to determine the breed of a dog.  Many argue that testing is not accurate however and it is unclear if the dog’s owner will be responsible for the cost of the testing.

“In a memorandum distributed Army-wide on Feb. 3, 2012, Col. Bob Walter, director of the Army’s Veterinarian Service Activity, stated there is no scientific method to determine a breed and that breed bans are unlikely to protect installation residents,” the petition from Johnson’s nonprofit that calls for standardized pet policies across the military reads. “The letter recommends generic, non-breed, specific dangerous dog regulations with emphasis on identification of dangerous and chronically irresponsible owners.”

Currently, the Army and Air Force ban pit bulls, rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, chows and wolf hybrids, while the Marine Corps bans only pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf hybrids. Navy policies vary by installation. Some private base housing offices have additional breed restrictions beyond the listing of the military branch, meaning a family that moves from one base to another could be forced to give up their dog depending on the pet policy on that particular base.

“There is a huge lack of consistency with these policies,” Johnson said. “What we’re asking for is the DoD to give our military some piece of mind.” In an interview with Pit Bulletin Legal News Radio, Johnson said “It’s a huge morale problem when you have families that are being broken up over breed restrictions.”  Johnson’s petition calls for a standardized, consistent military policy for all pet owners, regardless of the breed and asks that the military focus on strong enforcement of general dangerous dog policies and pet education programs for troops.  When considering only 50 dogs were registered as required at Camp LeJeune in the past, certainly enforcement appears to be a matter of concern for effective animal control.

Johnson added that their petition is not “an attack on military policies.” Rather, it’s a request for the military to “make a change that’s going to help our military families, instead of hurt them.”

You can help by supporting Dogs on Deployment, signing and sharing their petition, and by contacting the House and Senate member for your state’s Armed Services Committee.  In a POLITE, RESPECTFUL and INFORMATIVE explanation make them aware that the policies target responsible pet owners, innocent dogs and creates a burden on public shelters faced with the owner-release that results from the policies and attitudes of military animal control.

House Armed Services Committee:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/contact-information

Senate Armed Services Committee:
http://www.senate.gov/general/committee_membership/committee_memberships_SSAS.htm

Dogs on Deployment Change.org petition:
http://www.change.org/petitions/standardize-military-pet-policies

Dogs on Deployment:
http://dogsondeployment.org/

JDNews:
http://www.jdnews.com/articles/marine-106859-corps-aggressive.html

MarineCorpsTimes:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/03/ap_lejeune_dogs_032510/

Kingsford Michigan – BSL Exception

John Ketola requires a service animal, unfortunately for John, his dog is 25% Staffordshire Terrier.  According to the city of Kingsford’s 1987 ordinance banning all pit bulls, including mixed or partial breeds, that’s a problem.

Mr. Ketola petitioned the Council for exception based on the unique issue relative to information submitted to City Attorney, Bruce Brouillette.  Brouillette examined the federal statute then issued a recommendation to Council to approve the exception for Ketola’s service dog.

Council agreed at Monday evenings public meeting, however they attached severe limitations and requirements for Mr. Ketola, such as requiring the service dog be securely confined within the Ketola home or in a secure outdoor enclosure with sides, top and permanent bottom and that such enclosure be secured to prevent a minor from entering on his or her own accord.  Also when Mr. Ketola has his service dog in public, the dog must be leashed ona harness and under the direct control of Mr. Ketola.

Related to the Kingsford ban, city resident Mark Wiederrecht provided information countering the ban’s constitutionality and argued it is unnecessary as the city has general ordinances dealing with vicious and dangerous dogs.  Several citizens spoke publicly at the last nights meeting opposing the continuation of the 25 year old ban.

However, City Attorney Brouillette contends the ban is constitutional and valid. Council members continue to raise safety issues and Mayor Michael Flaminio said the committee that was formed in June recommended to make no changes to the ban, but they continue to look at the issue.

Please send your POLITE, RESPECTFUL and INFORMATIVE correspondence to officials in Kingsford at:

Mayor/Councilman Michael Flaminio

Mayor Pro-tem/Councilman Dennis Baldinelli

Councilwoman Cynthia Dixon-Miller

Councilman Jeff Pearson

Councilman Brian Smeester
Email: briansmeester@yahoo.com

All other officials can be contacted with general correspondence directed to:
Phone – 906-774-3526
Email – info@cityofkingsford.com

http://www.ironmountaindailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/536776/Kingsford-OK-s-pit-bull-exception.html?nav=5002