Tag Archives: breed specific legislation

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 , , , ,

Hearing set for Massachusetts S969, to allow breed discriminatory laws on the state level

Posted on May 16, 2013 by | Leave a comment

At the end of 2012, the Massachusetts legislature passed a comprehensive animal control act.  This new law contained a clause in it that subverted all breed discriminatory laws in Massachusetts, making breed discrimination illegal on the state level.

Boston officials were extremely unhappy with this clause and as a result immediately filed S969 which would create an exemption in the state law prohibiting breed discriminatory laws.  The language of the bill states that a municipality would be able to institute breed discriminatory laws if

“a city or town deems a specific breed to be deemed dangerous through analysis of municipal attack data and by a majority vote of the city council with the approval of the mayor, in the case of a city with a Plan A, Plan B, or Plan F charter; by a majority vote of the city council, in the case of a city with a Plan C, Plan D, or Plan E charter; by a majority vote of the annual town meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose, in the case of a municipality with a town meeting form of government; or by a majority vote of the town council, in the case of a municipality with a town council form of government.”

The bill sets forth no clear rules for what constitutes proof in regards to data collection methods or data analysis.  The bills backers seem to want people to take their word on what they deem to be a “dangerous breed.”

Despite claims from the bills backers that they have data that would allow Boston an exemption under the proposed changes, no such data has ever been provided to any constituents that have made the request to see this data.

Pit Bulletin Legal News drafted a Freedom of Information Act Request, which can be viewed here, in an attempt to access the information that officials were relying on to make the determination that Boston should be allowed to re-institute their breed discriminatory ordinance.

This bill has been set for a hearing date.  The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government is set to hear this bill on June 4th.

Massachusetts residents: Reach out to the members of the committee and your legislators to offer opposition to S969. All members of the committee are listed below. You can find you specific representatives here.

Senator Sal DiDomenico: Phone: 617-722-1650 Email: Sal.DiDomenico@masenate.gov

Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz: Phone: 617-722-1673 Email: Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov

Senator William Brownsberger: Phone: 617-722-1280 Email: William.Brownsberger@masenate.gov

Senator James Timilty: Phone: 617 722-1222 Email: James.Timilty@masenate.gov

Senator Barry Finegold: Phone: 617-722-1612 Email: Barry.Finegold@MASenate.gov

Senator Richard Ross: Phone: 617-722-1555 Email: Richard.Ross@masenate.gov

Rep. Sarah Peake: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Sarah.Peake@mahouse.gov

Rep. Gailanne Cariddi: Phone: 617-722-2450 Email: Gailanne.Cariddi@mahouse.gov

Rep. Thomas Stanley: Phone: 617-722-2230 Email: Thomas.Stanley@mahouse.gov

Rep. Sean Garballey: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Sean.Garballey@mahouse.gov

Rep. Rhonda Nymann: Phone: 617-722-2210 Email: Rhonda.Nyman@MAhouse.gov

Rep. Wayne Matewsky: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Wayne.Matewsky@mahouse.gov

Rep. Kevin Kuros: Phone: 617-722-2460 Email: Kevin.Kuros@mahouse.gov

Rep. Cleon Turner: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Cleon.Turner@mahouse.gov

Rep. Timothy Madden: Phone: 617-722-2810 Email: Timothy.Madden@mahouse.gov

Rep. David Rogers: Phone: 617-722-2400 Email: Dave.Rogers@mahouse.gov

Rep. Peter Durant: Phone: 617-722-2060 Email: Peter.Durant@mahouse.gov

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

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 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 , , , ,

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 , , , , ,