Author Archives: krisdiaz9

Jurupa Valley California first reading of breed discriminatory spay/neuter

This Thursday, officials in Jurupa Vally, California will hold the first reading of a breed discriminatory mandatory spay/neuter law.

The move follows the passage of the county-wide measure which was passed recently in Riverside County, California.

While there are not a lot of details at this time as to the justification for the measure, it is important that residents reach out to oppose the move.

Spay/neuter is a very good thing but mandatory measures, especially those that require pediatric procedures have unintended consequences that not only effect the health and welfare of the dogs, but also have the exact opposite effect of the most commonly stated intention, decreasing shelter populations.

Mandatory spay/neuter has been shown in city after city to increase shelter populations.

The city would be far better served with extreme low-cost options, mobile clinics and community out reach.  Programs such as the Pets for Life Program show resoundingly that given the access people will come to use the provided resources but the community must be made aware that these options are out there and accessible.

Passing a law will not reach the under served communities, the places where people take dogs in off the streets or from neighbors as puppies, which is where the majority of unaltered dogs in the community come from.

If residents cannot attend this meeting, please take the time to write to the council to express opposition for a mandate and encourage community out reach and education.

Frank Johnston Higher FJohnston@JurupaValley.org
Micheal Goodland Mayor Pro-Tem MGoodland@JurupaValley.org
Brad Hancock Council Member BHancock@JurupaValley.org
Verne Lauritzen Council Member VLauritzen@JurupaValley.org
Laura Roughton Council Member LRoughton@JurupaValley.org

The meeting will take place at 7 PM  May 15th.  The meeting is held at the Former Sam’s Western Wear Building City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 .

This is on the council agenda for consideration, item number 13.

Thank you Swaylove.org for the alert.

 

League City, Texas officials talk about breed discriminatory law

City officials in League City, Texas, have begun to talk about instituting a breed discriminatory law.

Following an attack by a dog identified as a pit bull, city officials are looking at restrictions for “pit bulls.”

A toddler and mother were watching the mother’s boyfriends dog when the dog attacked.  There have been no details as to the moments leading up to the attack or how well know the dog was to the victims.

Councilman Todd Kinsey has said that he would like to see breed based restrictions enacted in the city.  He claims that local statistics point to the need for a breed based law.  These numbers have not as yet been supplied to the public, nor have any details regarding any circumstances of these incidents such as free roaming or chained dogs, percentage of incidents that were dog on dog, dog on human, sexual status of the attacking dog, how the “breed” of the dog is being identified and other such pertinent information.

Kinsey claimed that 80% of attacks “resulting in injury” are by dogs identified as pit bulls.  This claim leaves out the actual number of attacks in League City, total number of attacks attributed to “pit bulls” as well as population of dogs being identified as pit bulls in the community.  Without this information, the claim of 80% is specious at best.

At a city council meeting the Police Chief outlined several measures for the control of “dangerous dogs.”  The following were options discussed: mandatory microchips, fluorescent ID tags and sterilization of dogs meeting a definition of dangerous.  Chief Kramm also included the idea that a dog deemed dangerous be euthanized or banned from the city limits.

Officials are aware that there is a law in Texas that prohibits the enactment of a breed discriminatory law.  However, they seem to be under the impression that such a law applies only to a breed ban, and not restrictions.

From a recent article:  “According to Police Chief Kramm, Texas law prohibits the banning of specific breeds but it would be possible to increase regulations for pit bulls.Kinsey said he would like to see higher registration fees for pit bulls, extra security fences so they are unable to dig out of yards as well as special liability insurance requirements.”I’m in favor of making it difficult for people who want to own pit bulls in our community,” Kinsey said.”

Texas state law prohibits any form of breed discriminatory law, including restrictions.”

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
TITLE 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS
CHAPTER 822. REGULATION OF ANIMALS
SUBCHAPTER D. DANGEROUS DOGS
§ 822.047. LOCAL REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS.

A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if the requirements or restrictions:

(1) are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs; and
(2) are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter.

It is clear in the statute that this applies not only to bans but also to restrictions.

Nothing official has been proposed at this time, but residents and locals should attend council meetings to urge for reckless owner ordinances, and the strengthening of the current dangerous dog law that would create more nuanced categories and more stringent penalties for those who do not operate proper care and control of their dogs.

Rhode Island HB 7630 to allow Warwick to enact breed discriminatory law set for hearing

Rhode Island HB 7630 has been scheduled for a date to be heard by the first committee.  The House Committee on Municipal Government is set to hear the bill on March 20th.

The bill would allow the city of Warwick to re-institute their breed discriminatory mandatory spay/neuter law.  The old ordinance was voided when the Rhode Island legislature passed a law that made breed discriminatory laws illegal in the state.

This bill follows on the heels of another bill, by the same sponsors, which had attempted to alter state law to allow any town to pass a breed discriminatory mandatory spay/neuter law.  That bill was tabled for further study.  The legislators then submitted HB 7630.

The bill’s sponsors are representatives of Warwick.

Warwick’s old law was a prohibition on owning a targeted dog unless it was altered, or the person had a license for breeding issued by the director on the local animal shelter.  Targeted dogs included American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, “or a dog that is a mix of the two breeds.”

Warwick animal control currently does a fantastic job of out reach.  They work with owners to provide low-cost services and to educate owners on the issue of spay/neuter.  This out reach is what is responsible for their effective population control, not the old law.

It has been proven time and time again that the solution to over population issues is effective out reach and community solutions.  These programs are responsible for the decrease in population and increase in positive outcomes for animals.  Many places do not have breed discriminatory mandatory spay/neuter laws, but they do have community out reach and education, and they still see the same results.

With the programs and out reach being done in the community, there is no reason for a law that would penalize people based on the appearance of their dog.  This is aside from the issue that these laws have the exact opposite effects of their intentions.  Communicating to underserved areas and providing resources does so much more for everyone.

Rhode Island residents:

Please reach out to the members of the committee and ask them to oppose this bill.  The state law was passed for a reason, and to allow a single town exemption via a bill is counter to the intent of the state law.  The rights of all residents of the state of Rhode Island deserve the same consideration.

Residents of Warwick, especially, should reach out to their representatives to oppose this bill.

Committee on Municipal Government:

rep-ogrady@rilin.state.ri.us,  rep-newberry@rilin.state.ri.us,   rep-marshall@rilin.state.ri.us,  rep-lima@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-kazarian@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-johnston@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-hearn@rilin.state.ri.us,  rep-desimone@rilin.state.ri.us,  rep-costantino@rilin.state.ri.us,   rep-bennett@rilin.state.ri.us,  rep-amore@rilin.state.ri.us,  rep-ackerman@rilin.state.ri.us

Medford Oregon officials reject breed discriminatory law

Medford, Oregon, officials have rejected the idea of a breed discriminatory law.

The idea was initially raised by Councilor Karen Blair after a complaint of dog on dog attack in the city.

Councilor Blair had made some ill-informed statements to the media in support of a law that would have targeted dogs deemed to be pit bulls.  Blair stated that, “There are few people that can handle a dog that strong, particularly when its jaws naturally lock.”  (referencing what she called “pit bulls”)

As officials were examining possible changes to their dangerous dog laws, they accepted public input from many different sections of the community.   All presenters were professional, respectful and well versed in the latest peer reviewed studies that all state that breed is not a factor in attacks.

The first study session was widely publicized as one that considered a breed ban.  Information directly from the council showed that this option was discussed, but a large part of the conversation had centered around the problems in enforcing such a law and the failures of breed discriminatory laws to improve public safety.

Additional information from those communicating with the Council also showed the direction of the conversation was a positive one.  Correspondence indicated that only the one council member had shown any interest in such an ordinance.   The police advisory committee was formed to examine the cities options for strengthening the cities dangerous dog laws, and not to draft a breed ban, as was implied by media accounts.  Because one member of the council was interested in a ban, this took precedent in the conversation as presented by the media, overshadowing the rest of the conversation.

At the last police advisory committee meeting, held this past Tuesday, Medford police said they will propose an ordinance that would target problem dog owners and that a breed ban will not be considered.

One change being considered is increasing penalties for people who are not managing their dogs properly in the community but aside from that there are no real details as to what the proposal could contain.

The advisory committee heard many different options during their meetings.  Councilor Bob Strosser was the council representative on the committee.  Also on the committee were representatives from the local animal control, representatives of the legal interests of the town, as well as the local police department.  The committee had met several times.

During these meetings the legal representative raised concerns about the legal ramifications of a breed discriminatory law.  He recommended against a breed based law due to the cost and legal issues.

The animal control representative supported the idea of resources and programs to help dog owners in the community.  Behind the scenes, local advocates have offered help with such resources, such as spay/neuter, affordable training and licensing campaigns to bring more residents into compliance.

Councilor Strosser brought several breed neutral laws to the committee for consideration, including the recently passed Baker City law.  Baker City passed a comprehensive breed neutral law after some discussion of a breed discriminatory law.  During the Baker City meetings officials rejected information claiming one breed or type of dog as more dangerous than others as inherently biased and factually unfounded.

Interestingly, Medford is yet another case where members of the council roundly rejected the “statistics” of the pro-BDL lobby, calling into question their obvious bias and lack of reliability.

Reason prevails.  The facts are on the side of breed neutral laws, and slowly but surely we are seeing officials reject the cherry picked, media based statistics in favor of peer-reviewed and verified information.

Medford officials have some fantastic ordinances at their disposal to help craft their new law.  We look forward to seeing the results of the continuation of the rational discourse that has taken place thus far.

Thank you Cheryl Huerta, from the Portland Pit Bull Parade,  for the additional information on this issue.

Lake Elsinore California passes breed discriminatory spay/neuter law

Officials in Lake Elsinore, California, passed a breed discriminatory mandatory spay/neuter law at their meeting last night.

Citing high shelter populations of the targeted population of dogs, officials claimed the need for such a measure.

It is no coincidence that Lake Elsinore is located in Riverside County, which recently passed a breed discriminatory spay/neuter law.  When a county passes a law like this it usually applies only to the unincorporated areas of the county.  It is up to the incorporated areas to determine if they are going to pass a similar ordinance.  This is what we are seeing in Riverside County now.  First with the passage of the law in Riverside City and now with Lake Elsinore.

The law is the mirror of the county law the requires all targeted dogs the age of four months or older be altered.  Officials are passing these laws with little if any understanding of the effects of them.   There is mounting evidence that pediatric spay/neuter is detrimental to the health of dogs.  There is also substantial evidence that these laws increase shelter populations of targeted dogs, doing the exact opposite of what they are claiming is the goal of the law.

The ordinance is said to have exemptions for assistance dogs as well as “certified” breeders.  The fines for non-compliance $100 for a first offense, up to $200 for the second offense, and up to $500 for the third and each subsequent offense.  There was a bare minimum of media coverage for this issue and only one dissenting vote.

As with other places that have passed these laws, the spoken intention of the law is quite different from what the rhetoric implies.  For example, in Lake Elsinore a staff report stated that, “The Department of Animal Services for Riverside County has found that Pit Bull and Pit Bull mixes significantly impact the health and safety of residents and their pets.”

Once again we are seeing an attempt to work around the California state law that prohibits all other forms of breed discriminatory laws.  There is no doubt that if officials had the opportunity to enact some other form of restrictions, they would have tried to do so.

Officials have enacted a proven failed policy under the pretense of shelter populations which will take valuable financial resources away from the real issues that need to be addressed in the community.

Rhode Island HB 7630 would allow a single town to enact a breed discriminatory law

A bill has been introduced in the Rhode Island state legislature that would amend the current state law that prohibits breed discriminatory laws.

The bill was introduced to allow the city of Warwick to enact a breed discriminatory spay/neuter law.

HB 7630 would add the following language to current state law that prohibits breed discriminatory laws.  Breed discriminatory laws would be prohibited  “…except in those instances where the rule, regulation or ordinance pertains to spaying or neutering of pit bulls and staffordshire bull terriers located in the city of Warwick, and provided such rule, regulation or ordinance shall not apply to licensed breeders of such dogs.”

When the current state law that prohibited breed discriminatory laws was passed, it was unclear what the intention of the bill was, regarding existing ordinances in the text of the bill.  The bills sponsors, however stated very clearly that they intended it to apply retroactively.  Pawtucket took issue with the law, saying that their existing breed discriminatory ordinance should be allowed to stay.  Warwick was another town that had an existing breed discriminatory law.

Warwick’s old law was a prohibition on owning a targeted dog unless it was altered, or the person had a license for breeding issued by the director on the local animal shelter.  Targeted dogs included American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, “or a dog that is a mix of the two breeds.”

It appears that Pawtucket is going the way of litigation in an attempt to keep their old law, but Warwick is attempting to get this specific legislative exemption.

The amending of a state law to allow one town an exemption is bizarre, to say the least.  The bills sponsor has already said that the bill was intended to act retroactively, and this is Warwick’s attempt at being about to keep their old breed discriminatory law.  Four of the 5 sponsors of the bills are located in Warwick, the fifth is from Providence.  Clearly city officials are asking for this from their representatives.

The bill has been assigned to the House Municipal Government Committee.

Warwick residents should reach out to their representative and ask them to pull the bill.  Be factual and polite, we have years of the failure of such laws to back up the opposition.

Rhode Island residents:  Please reach out to the committee, particularly if one of the members of the committee is your specific representative.  The state law was passed to protect the property rights of all residents of Rhode Island, not those residents who don’t live in Warwick.

rep-ackerman@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-amore@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-bennett@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-costantino@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-desimone@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-hearn@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-johnston@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-kazarian@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-lima@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-marshall@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-newberry@rilin.state.ri.us
rep-ogrady@rilin.state.ri.us

New Jersey S 1310 would end breed discrimination by insurance companies

A bill has been introduced in the New Jersey legislature that would end discriminatory practices by insurance companies in New Jersey.

S 1310 has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee.

There are several different aspects to this bill.

First, it states that, “An insurer shall not (1) refuse to issue, (2) cancel, or (3) non-renew a homeowners insurance policy solely on the basis of a dog harbored upon the insured property.”

Secondly, the bill does allow insurance companies to not cover the dog specifically in the policy.    “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection a. of this section, an insurer may offer or issue a homeowners insurance policy which contains an exclusion against covering any liability for a dog harbored upon the insured property.”  This means that people will be able to get coverage for their property, but may have to sign an exclusion for liabilities concerning the dog.

The last part of the bill states that companies are allowed to charge different rates for different dogs.  “...nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an insurer’s use of underwriting guidelines, risk classifications, or other rules of any rating-system, as defined by section 1 of P.L.1944, c.27 (C.17:29A-1), which establish rates and premiums for that coverage on the basis of a dog harbored upon the insured property.”

These bills, traditionally, have been very difficult to pass because of the money and power that is behind the insurance lobby.  Insurance discrimination is an incredibly important issue, however.  It does not just effect home owners, but also effects renters.  Many landlords have policies against certain breeds and types of dogs because they cannot get coverage under their insurance policies to protect them, as the owner of the property.  This bill will not alleviate the problem completely, but it does provide a base line that will begin to address these issues.

Since this particular bill is so light on prohibitions on what an insurance company can do, the traditional backlash may be somewhat lessened.

New Jersey residents should reach out to support this bill.

You can contact your legislators via the states website.

Best Friends Animal Society has also set up a form, if you are having trouble with what to say.