The Livingston County Kentucky Fiscal Court has passed an ordinance that targets several different breeds of dogs and their mixes at their last meeting, despite opposition from residents.
In a bold display, officials cut off public comment at the vote. A resident was presenting testimony about the ordinances violation of the AKC and UKC’s copyright of their breed standards, when officials cut off his comments and proceeded directly to the vote.
The ordinance relies on the breed standards from these two kennel clubs for enforcement of a “licensing” provision for American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers and Rottweilers. These standards are on file in the County Judges office, as well as Animal Control offices. All the kennel clubs have been very clear that any use of their breed standards to enforce a breed discriminatory law is a direct and flagrant violation of the copyright. Some have gone so far as to testify in court on this.
Registered show dogs are exempted from this ordinance so, once again, we have a situation where the mixed breed dogs are being targeted but dogs that are officially one of the targeted breeds, are not. The language is confused, including both the phrases “substantially conforms to” and “primarily of the breed” with no clarification as to what either of these standards are.
The ordinance appears to be a licensing ordinance on its face but when examined more closely it reveals itself to be the standard breed discriminatory restrictions. In order to “license” a restricted dog, residents must meet multiple requirements. Proof of vaccines, sterilization, confinement, personal contact information for the owner and the owner of a restricted dog will have to provide proof of $50,000 in liability insurance.
Officials were going to pass this no matter what. This is clear from the comments of those present at the meeting and the way officials closed the discussion when it was pointed out they would be breaking the law to enforce their law.
County wide ordinances are expensive to enforce. Residents will no doubt see a decrease in enforcement of effective animal control laws to be able to have the time and money to enforce a breed discriminatory law, that will clog shelters, dry up resources and penalize responsible owners.
It is always said by officials that irresponsible owners will be the ones to be targeted but this is never the case. Blanket regulations for only certain segments of the population do not effectively create a safer community. Breed discriminatory ordinances are over and under inclusive.
Viewing the report on incidents for restricted dogs raises a more serious question as to what exactly the basis is for this action. There are a very limited number of incidents by the targeted population of dogs. In Livingston County’s letter to justify their breed discriminatory law, officials try to show they have an issue with targeted dogs. There is a lot wrong with this letter.
The first thing is that based on the population of Livingston County and the most concrete time frame given in it of 2 years, this letter shows that there is a .0003% change of having being bitten by one of the targeted types of dogs. Once we begin to break these down by the dogs actual breeds, or supposed breeds, the odds reduce. The lack of a specific time frame, however, puts these odds at even less than that. The text says that these bites occurred over the last “2 years (plus).” The “plus” is undefined since there is no specific date span given. This one word pulls into question all of the numbers presented.
The last section reads, “These Numbers do not reflect attacks not reported (we are confident that number would double these as we are personally aware of many that were not reported to animal control)”
It is completely erroneous for officials to include that they have heard of more attacks but they were not reported. Officials are basing their opinions and passage of this ordinance on completely unsubstantiated claims, a kind of dog attack game of telephone. It seems that officials were very much aware that the numbers they presented to do not speak to rampant dog related issues, rather a specified owner related one and were trying to mitigate the impression of the actual verifiable statistics.
Also noticeably absent are the bite reports of all other dogs and the total numbers of reported bites in the community, as well as the estimated population of targeted dogs in the community. Cherry picked statistics are not uncommon in these cases, but they are always disappointing.
The biggest issue seems to be unattended dogs. A very simple fix for this is to pass a breed neutral containment law. No dogs should be in the community unattended, regardless of breed.
Owners have 60 days to comply or their dogs will be confiscated and they will be fined.
Fred M. Kray
krisdiaz9
Stop BSL 
The 60 days up and I understand that some seizures have started.