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 , , ,

Nevada, AB 110, to prevent breed discrimination, advances to full Senate vote

Posted on May 13, 2013 by | 2 Comments

A bill to prevent breed discrimination at the state level has been working its way through the Nevada legislature. Despite some opposition during the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have just found out that AB110 has passed the committee unanimously.

The results of the vote can no doubt be linked to the hard work of representatives from Best Friends Animal Society. Last week on Pit Bulletin Legal News Radio, Laura Handzel discussed some of the issues that had been raised by the committee and how, through respectful and clear communication, the concerns of the legislators were addressed.  Most of the objections revolved around either the issue of home rule or a general misunderstanding of the bill and breed discriminatory laws in general. The efficacy of the approach is reflected in the unanimous vote.  Even those legislators who had the largest opposing voice voted in favor of ending breed discrimination in Nevada.

Nevada residents: The bill is almost there! The full Senate vote should come up soon so please contact your Senators to ask that they support this bill. After the vote it just needs to be signed into law. Reach out and ask your Senators to support this bill.

You can find your respective Senators here.

Or if you are having trouble with wording you can us the contact form Best Friends has set up. Click here for the Best Friends Action alert.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Nevada

Tagged , , , , , , ,

California legislator intends to try to repeal state protection from breed discrimination

Posted on May 11, 2013 by | 2 Comments

Following a fatal attack on a jogger, Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich has announced intentions to approach the state legislature and ask them to repeal the portion of California state law that prohibits breed discriminatory laws on the state level.

The current law allows mandatory spay/neuter to be passed but bars municipalities from enacting any other laws directed at the breed of the dog. In 2005, the law was amended to allow spay/neuter by SB861, which had initially been a proposal to allow any kind of breed discriminatory laws, but was amended down in committee.

“We’re going to go back to the state legislature and see if we can change that law, allow the local communities to make up their own minds with regards to breeds,” said Tony Bell, spokesman for Antonovich. “Pit bulls are a different breed of animal. They’re capable of incredible damage to humans, to other dogs, to horses.” (read more)

Interestingly, Antonovich himself points out that this has been the only fatal attack attributed to pit bulls ever in Los Angeles County. As it stands the ID of the breeds of dogs involved is spotty at best.  The attacking dogs were ID’ed by a motorist, and the dogs ran into the desert after the attack.  A group of dogs have been confiscate from a local man and will be DNA tested to determine if they were involved in the attack.  These results are expected Friday. The dogs in question have a history of aggressive behavior, the owner has a history of engaging in illegal activities and there is no doubt that the owner was not operating proper control of the dogs. If it comes out that these were, in fact, the attacking dogs, we have a long history of owner failure that the attack can be traced back to.

This does not just affect “pit bulls.”  Should the state law be changed to allow breed bans and restrictions there are many other breeds that are targeted, as well as dogs who are not those breeds but just happen to have some vague resemblance to them.  All dog owners are at risk when breed discrimination is allowed. This would also have sweeping consequences for people who utilize service dogs and members of our military.

California residents: It is extremely important that this never reach the legislature, so reach out now to oppose breed discrimination. Below are links to contact your legislators, as well as Supervisor Antonovich. Please reach out, respectfully, factually and unemotionally to oppose any form of breed discrimination because of its failure to make communities safer.

Los Angeles County residents: Constituents voices always hold more power. Please write Supervisor Antonovich to ask him to reconsider and offer your factual and professional opposition to breed discrimination.

If you are have trouble with what to say, please see our “What is BSL?” tab.

Supervisor Antonovich’s website has an e-mail contact form which can be found here.

You can find your legislators on the states website.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in California

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. Officials say 50% would be considered 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 , , , ,

Connecticut HB6311, a bill to prohibit breed discrimination, moves forward

Posted on May 10, 2013 by | Leave a comment

Yesterday Connecticut House Bill 6311, a bill to outlaw breed discriminatory laws, passed the next step by receiving a favorable report from the Senate Judiciary Committee. It has been reserved for a full Senate vote and has been placed on Senate Calendar Number 556.  If this bill clears the full Senate vote it will go to the Governor to be signed into law and will become effective October of this year.

It was reported a few days ago that this bill cleared the House with a unanimous vote of 142-0. This is an impressive vote, but not really that remarkable because the vast majority of legislators come down on the side of common sense breed neutral laws that protect both the citizens and their rights.

More and more states are recognizing that breed discrimination is something that needs to be avoided, and the citizens need protection from.

Connecticut residents: Please reach out to your Senators and ask them to support this bill.

You can find you Senators here.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Connecticut

Tagged , , , , ,

Rhode Island HB5671, a bill to prohibit breed discriminatory laws set for committee

Posted on May 7, 2013 by | 9 Comments

Rhode Island legislators are looking at a bill that would prohibit municipalities in the state of Rhode Island from enacting breed discriminatory laws. HB5671 would amend the current laws to include a section that states:

“No city or town may enact any rule, regulation or ordinance specific to any breed of dog, cat or other animal in the exercise of its power to further control and regulate dogs, cats or other animals as authorized by this chapter.”

This bill is coming fresh on the heels of another bill that was introduced that would have restricted certain breeds of dogs and dogs that resemble those breeds. That bill was pulled very quickly because of the huge out pouring of opposition to breed discrimination.

Legislators will have this in their minds as they hear this bill, but it is extremely important that Rhode Island residents reach out to their legislators to ask them to support this bill.

The bill is on the House agenda for Thursday May 9th at approximately 4:30.

Rhode Island Residents: Please reach out to the members of the committee to show support for HB5671. As always, be professional, polite and factual.

The committees information:

Representative Edith H. Ajello: rep-ajello@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Joseph S. Almeida: rep-almeida@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Christopher R. Blazejewski: rep-blazejewski@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Dennis M. Canario: rep-canario@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Doreen Marie Costa: rep-costa@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Robert E. Craven, Sr.: rep-craven@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative John J. DeSimone: rep-desimone@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Donald J. Lally Jr.: rep-lally@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Charlene Lima: rep-lima@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Michael J. Marcello: rep-marcello@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Peter F. Martin: rep-martin@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative K. Joseph Shekarchi: rep-shekarchi@rilin.state.ri.us
Representative Donna M. Walsh: rep-walsh@rilin.state.ri.us

You can find your respective legislators here. Enter your zip code into the search bar to find who represents you.

Previous alert

Thank you Rhode Island Defenders of Animals for the information.

→ 9 Comments

Posted in Rhode Island

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 , ,