Tag Archives: Rottweiler

Connecticut HB6311 to prohibit breed discrimination moves to the Governor’s desk

Posted on May 30, 2013 by | Leave a comment

This Thursday the Connecticut bill to out law breed discriminatory laws on the state level passed the full Senate with a vote of 30-4.  The bill now moves to the Governor to be signed into law. The bill must go to the House for concurrence first but this is usually a very simple matter especially since the bill was voted for unanimously.

If the Governor signs the bill, this will not only be the 15th state to out-law breed discriminatory laws but it would also be the second state this year to do so, following Nevada AB110 that was just signed into law.

If signed the bill would go into effect October 1st 2013. There is no home rule exemption in this bill and there is also no grandfather clause.  This means that any place with a discriminatory law in place would have to repeal it.

Connecticut residents: Please reach out to Governor Dannel P. Malloy and ask that he sign this bill, ensuring that the real causes of dangerous dogs are addressed at the municipal level.

You can e-mail the Governor via the states website.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Connecticut

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 , , , , , ,

Nevada AB 110, the bill to prevent breed discrimination, needs help NOW

Posted on April 30, 2013 by | Leave a comment

We received an e-mail from Ledy VanKavage of Best Friends Animal Society that AB 110, the bill to prevent breed discrimination on the state level,  has hit a speed bump.  One Senator in particular has pushed the case to the committee that municipalities should be able to ban any breeds they want. This bill may not make it out of committee.

NEVADA RESIDENTS: AB 110 NEEDS you now!

Please call and write the members of the committee today to urge them to support this bill.  We have been asked to urge folks to cite studies on the failure of breed discriminatory legislation to make communities safer. As usual be polite and professional.

You can find information to include here.

Best Friends Animal Society has a form to contact the members of the committee.

Phone numbers for the committee:

Aaron Ford: 702-772-5544

Tick Segerblom: 775-684-1422

Ruben Kihuen: 702-274-1707

Justin Jones: 775-684-1421

Greg Bower: 775-684-1419

Scott Hammond: 702-523-9055

Mark Hutchinson: 702-233-2049

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Nevada

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

North Carolina bill to restrict multiple breeds is nixed

Posted on April 26, 2013 by | 4 Comments

Rep. Rodney Moore, of North Carolina, was not anticipating the backlash he received in response to his bill that would restrict multiple breeds of dogs and their mixes.

We have been hearing rumors that he pulled the bill since roughly 72 hours after the bills introduction.

This bill is officially dead, though there is some confusion as to whether this was a voluntary action or an action by the assigned committee.  In a news report it is stated the bill died in committee, not that Rep. Moore pulled it.

The breeds of dogs targeted by this bill were Rottweiler, Mastiff, Chow, Presa Canario, wolf hybrid, pit bull (which are defined as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier).

In the same report Rep. Moore is quote saying, “he wasn’t sure that the breeds designated by the bill as aggressive are ones “with the most incidents,” but he said they “were the most prevalent by the feedback that I’ve gotten.”

Initially, Rep. Moore was saying that he created the list of targeted breeds based off of those restricted by insurance companies.  This may be the “feedback” he is referring to.

Regardless of the reason the bill has died, we are pleased with the outcome.

Some people having been expressing support for this legislation, which would require a criminal background check, as well as a class to own the previously mentioned dogs.  We feel that a much larger point was being missed in support of the bill. Aside from the fact the breed discrimination is breed discrimination, no matter how you package it, this bill by default would have legally labeled all dogs of those breeds, their mixes and their look a likes as aggressive.

We already know where this road leads. We can look to Ohio as an example.  The severity of the restrictions does not matter. Such a label on the state level targeting certain breeds creates an avalanche of local municipalities that create tighter restrictions on the same dogs targeted by state law, as well as creating a dangerous precedent for other states.  One can applaud intentions but should never applaud intentions implemented in a thoughtless or reckless way that would create a swath of chaos in its wake.

First alert for NC, Second alert for NC

→ 4 Comments

Posted in BSL Defeated, North Carolina

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

North Carolina HB956 assigned to committee

Posted on April 19, 2013 by | 6 Comments

UPDATED INFORMATION HERE

The North Carolina bill to restrict ownership of multiple breeds of dogs has been referred to the House Committee on Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House. No date has been set as of yet for the bill to be heard.

HB 956 would restrict the following breeds and their mixes:

Rottweiler
Mastiff
Chow
Presa Canario
wolf hybrid
pit bull, which are defined as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier

The bills sponsor Rep. Moore is now saying that he derived this list based off of dogs that insurance companies restrict.  Basing legislation on restrictions from insurance companies would be absolutely detrimental to dog owners everywhere who currently have insurance, or want to obtain insurance. Considering that one of the requirements of the bill is to notify an insurance company that you have a targeted dog and are in compliance with the regulations, should this pass, we can expect people to be dropped from their insurance, even if there were previously no issues.

North Carolina residents: Members of the committee to write in opposition of the bill can be found here.

Block e-mails: (Remember that if you put all the e-mail addresses in the “to” line the e-mail may be bounced back as spam so be sure to utilize to CC address line):

Tim.Moore@ncleg.net, Justin.Burr@ncleg.net, Paul.Stam@ncleg.net, John.Blust@ncleg.net, Jamie.Boles@ncleg.net, Marcus.Brandon@ncleg.net, William.Brisson@ncleg.net, Becky.Carney@ncleg.net, Leo.Daughtry@ncleg.net, Jean.Farmer-Butterfield@ncleg.net,
Elmer.Floyd@ncleg.net, Larry.Hall@ncleg.net, Susi.Hamilton@ncleg.net,
Kelly.Hastings@ncleg.net, Bryan.Holloway@ncleg.net, Darren.Jackson@ncleg.net, Linda.Johnson2@ncleg.net, David.Lewis@ncleg.net, Tim.Moffitt@ncleg.net, Jason.Saine@ncleg.net, Ruth.Samuelson@ncleg.net, Edgar.Starnes@ncleg.net, Michael.Stone@ncleg.net, John.Torbett@ncleg.net

Please continue to reach out to the bills sponsors to urge them to withdraw the bill.

Representative Rodney Moore: Rodney.Moore@ncleg.net

Representative Larry Pittman: Larry.Pittman@ncleg.net

Previous alert for North Carolina.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in BSL Proposed, North Carolina

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

North Carolina bill filed to restrict multiple breeds

Posted on April 17, 2013 by | 31 Comments

UPDATED INFORMATION HERE

A bill has been filed in the North Carolina House of Representatives that would restrict the ownership of several breeds of dogs.

HB 956, a bill to “Regulate Ownership of Aggressive Dog Breeds,” proposes an amendment to North Carolina’s dog laws that would impose restrictions on the following breeds and “dogs that are predominantly of any of the following breeds:”

Rottweiler
Mastiff
Chow
Presa Canario
wolf hybrid
pit bull, which are defined as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier

The following are the requirements proposed to own one of the targeted dogs:

-Submission to a criminal background check

-Enrollment in “a course of instruction of no less than four hours duration provided by the Humane Society of the United States, or any of the rescue organizations for any of the aggressive dog breeds as defined in subsection (a) of this section that is designed to educate the owners of these dogs about their temperament and about the requirements for responsible ownership of the breed”

-A person must notify their insurance carrier, if any, of compliance with the other provisions

-A person must obtain a special permit from the Department of Insurance

Once again, we have a piece of legislation that fails to outline, in the case of mixed breed dogs, what the standard is to prove a dog is one of the listed breeds or mixes.

Also notable is the lack of definition of what constitutes a “mastiff.”  There are roughly 20 separate breeds that are considered mastiffs.

The question must be raised as to who will be developing a curriculum for these classes people are supposed to take. Who determines exactly what constitutes the requirements for responsible ownership of one breed over another?  Who will pay for developing this program?

In an interview, the bills sponsor Representative Rodney Moore was quoted saying, “It’s just to let people take responsibility for owning those breeds. Because they’re good dogs, all of them. But they have the potential.”

Representative Moore is clearly concerned about both the dogs and his community but this particular piece of legislation is a misdirected attempt at forcing responsibility on some people, while allowing lax care from others. All dog owners need to be held to the same standard. By creating special standards for one breed over another, we alienate good owners and create a false sense of security when it comes to other dogs. A gross disparity in the expected care and control of dogs invariably fails the community as a whole.

The financial impact of breed discriminatory laws is something that cannot be ignored. According to Best Friends Animal Society’s fiscal calculator, the estimated cost of enforcing this type of legislation for pit bulls only would be over $14,000,000 a year.  This does not factor in the cost of enforcing this for all the other dogs listed.

North Carolina Residents: Please reach out now to your Representatives to ask them to oppose HB 956. Also, politely and professionally, reach out to Rep. Rodney Moore and the bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. Larry Pittman, to ask that this bill be withdrawn.

You can find your specific representatives on the states website.

Representative Rodney Moore: Rodney.Moore@ncleg.net

Representative Larry Pittman: Larry.Pittman@ncleg.net

→ 31 Comments

Posted in BSL Proposed, North Carolina

Tagged , , , , , , ,