Category Archives: Non-BSL Proposed

Waterbury, CT: Proposed animal ordinance revisions are not breed-specific

We have finally gotten a copy of Waterbury alderman Brunelli’s proposed animal ordinance revisions, and we are pleased to say that the revisions are not breed-specific.

The proposal is not exactly easy to find, so here it is (PDF): waterbury_brunelli_proposal

There will be a public hearing on the proposed revisions on June 11 at 6:30 PM in the council chambers. You must be a Waterbury resident to speak.

As we have confirmed that BSL is not a concern, StopBSL will no longer actively track Waterbury. However, locals and residents are encouraged to attend the public hearing and stay actively involved in the lawmaking process.

All alerts for Waterbury: http://stopbsl.com/?s=waterbury

Wareham, MA: Dog bylaws will be revised (whispers of BSL)

Wareham, MA, was considering breed-neutral revisions to their breed-neutral dog bylaws. The revisions failed to pass, and the council decided to create a committee to look at the proposal further. However, some of the residents and the animal control officer expressed concerns about the danger of specific breeds. We are concerned that the committee may consider or add breed-specific restrictions to the proposal while they are looking at it.

Residents of Wareham are encouraged to inquire and get on the committee that will discuss the revisions further. This is an opportunity to provide reasonable breed-neutral solutions and education to guide the direction of the town’s dog ordinance revisions.

Dog laws postponed for Fall 2012 Town Meeting

By Rishi Sidhu | May 02, 2012

Town Meeting decided on Tuesday to further study a proposed bylaw aimed to prevent dog bites and excessive dog barking after voters expressed concern that the regulations were too restrictive to individual dog owners. […]

Ultimately, the proposed bylaw failed, though voters OK’d the creation of a “Dog Regulation By-law Committee,” which will meet once per month and draft a bylaw for approval at Town Meeting in the fall.

The five-member committee will consist of the Animal Control Officer, one member of the Board of Selectmen, and three citizens-at-large.

Full article retrieved 5/2/12 from http://wareham-ma.villagesoup.com/news/story/dog-laws-postponed-for-fall-2012-town-meeting/818394

Nevada: Assemblyman plans to introduce bill to make BSL illegal

Nevada’s 2013 legislative session will be an exciting one!

Assemblyman John Hambrick plans to introduce a bill in 2013 that would prohibit Nevada municipalities from passing BSL. If the bill passes, Nevada would become the 13th state in the U.S. to prohibit its municipalities from passing BSL.

This isn’t Hambrick’s first attempt to “ban BSL” in Nevada. In 2011, he sponsored Assembly Bill 324. Unfortunately, the bill didn’t get far before bogging down in committee and missing a critical deadline.

Although we have a while before the 2013 legislative session, supporters of the new bill are already organizing. Let’s help Nevada make BSL illegal in 2013!

You can help Nevada become BSL-free.

Sign the online petition to make breed discrimination illegal in Nevada: http://www.change.org/petitions/nevada-legislature-revise-nrs-202500-to-make-breed-discrimination-illegal-in-nevada

Nevada residents, contact your assembly members and senators and tell them you want to make breed discrimination illegal in Nevada.
Legislator Finder: http://mapserve.leg.state.nv.us/website/lcb/viewer.htm

Up for a bigger challenge? Hambrick could use some additional sponsors for his bill (more sponsors means a better chance of survival). Ask your assembly members to sign on to Hambrick’s bill.

Join up with other supporters.
Las Vegas-based Incred-a-Bull is on top of the initiative.
Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/IncredABull.org

West Virginia HB 4432 would prohibit breed discrimination by property insurance co

Update 5/28/12: The legislative session is over and this bill is dead.

Filed this week in West Virginia, HB 4432 is a very simple bill that would prohibit declination or termination of property insurance based solely upon a home owner’s possession of a certain breed of dog. The bill does not prohibit insurers from denying coverage for any dog that has actually bitten.

Some people have had difficulty finding a place to live with their pet dog, even if it’s well-trained and well-behaved, because it looks like a breed that the property insurance company prohibits. HB 4432 would make it possible for people to get property insurance no matter what their dog looks like. However, bills like HB 4432 can be a hard sell; insurance companies have a lot of money and influence, and they don’t like being told to stop discriminating.

With things going well for BSL repeals in Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere, we feel that with enough public support, WV HB 4432 has potential to succeed.

HB 4432 has been moved to the House Banking and Insurance committee. It is not on the agenda yet. Please write the following committee members and ask them to support HB 4432.
clif.moore@wvhouse.gov; d.perry@wvhouse.gov; delegatedoug@yahoo.com; daniel.hall@wvhouse.gov; tom.azinger@wvhouse.gov; bob.ashley@wvhouse.gov; jonathan@delegatejmiller.com; ron.walters@wvhouse.gov; sam.cann@wvhouse.gov; ryan.ferns@wvhouse.gov; ron.fragale@wvhouse.gov; john.frazier@wvhouse.gov; bill.hartman@wvhouse.gov; mhunt@markahunt.com; richard.iaquinta@wvhouse.gov; virginia.mahan@wvhouse.gov; tmanchin@manchininjurylaw.com; harold@hardynet.com; delegatejim@aol.com; stan.shaver@wvhouse.gov; david.walker@wvhouse.gov; mitch.carmichael@wvhouse.gov; nelson@wvhouse.gov; john.oneal@wvhouse.gov; brian.savilla@wvhouse.gov

Read the text of WV HB 4432: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb4432%20intr.htm&yr=2012&sesstype=RS&i=4432

All alerts for HB 4432: http://stopbsl.com/?s=WV+HB+4432

La Vista, NE update: Dog ordinance is not breed specific

We were very pleased to hear the outcome of last night’s La Vista, Nebraska, council meeting. The proposed dog ordinance is not breed-specific. The mayor says that the breed-neutral ordinance is better than BSL, and we fully agree.

La Vista council OKs dangerous dog ordinance

By John Schreier, WORLD-HERALD NEWS SERVICE

Published Wednesday December 21, 2011

The La Vista City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved an ordinance to cope with potentially dangerous dogs and their owners.[…]

No breed of dog is singled out in the ordinance, unlike Council Bluffs’ ban on ownership of pit bulls.

“This ordinance — for not setting out after pit bulls — is a better ordinance,” said Mayor Doug Kindig. […]

Dogs, regardless of breed, can be classified as potentially dangerous only after an incident that leads to the intimidation, injury or attack on another animal or human. […]

However, not only dogs can be labeled potentially dangerous under the ordinance.

The Humane Society can declare an owner “reckless” if he or she receives three or more convictions from the city in a two-year period, which would bar the owner from owning or living with an animal. […]

All alerts for La Vista: http://stopbsl.com/?s=%22la+vista%22

Vancouver, WA: Animal control ordinance update, Oct 3

Vancouver, WA, is still struggling to update their animal control ordinance. In June, a breed ban was proposed, then quickly dropped in the face of strong public protest. A new (allegedly breed-neutral) ordinance was to have been ready for a vote in September, but it seems that they haven’t settled on the revisions yet.

The Vancouver council will again discuss animal control ordinance revisions during the October 3 council meeting. The item is on the agenda as follows:

4:00-5:00 p.m. Animal Control Ordinance Updates
Summary
At its August 8, 2011, workshop on updates to the City’s Animal Control ordinance, Council expressed interest in prohibiting dangerous dogs within city limits and information on other jurisdictions in Washington with such bans. City and Clark County Animal Control staff will provide follow-up information on other jurisdictions’ experience regulating potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs, provide recommendations and seek further Council direction. (Judith Zeider, Chief Assistant City Attorney 487-8521; Paul Scarpelli, Clark County Animal Protection and Control – Interim Manager 397-2375 x 4705)

Council meetings take place in Council Chambers, City Hall, first floor, 210 East 13th Street. Although the council has disavowed a breed ban, some other kind of BSL may still be a possibility. The public is encouraged to attend the next council meeting to make sure the revisions continue to move in a breed-neutral direction.

All alerts for Vancouver, WA: http://stopbsl.com/?s=%22vancouver%2C+wa%22

Contact info for mayor and city council
Tim.Leavitt@cityofvancouver.us; Jeanne.Harris@cityofvancouver.us; Jeanne.Stewart@cityofvancouver.us; Larry.Smith@cityofvancouver.us; Pat.Campbell@cityofvancouver.us; jack.burkman@cityofvancouver.us; bart.hansen@cityofvancouver.us

Vancouver, WA: Strict breed-neutral dog ordinance in the works

Faced with strong, organized public protest, Vancouver, WA, city council backed away from plans for a breed ban, and appears to be pursuing a strict—but breed-neutral—dangerous dog ordinance instead.

The new ordinance will be read during the Sept. 12 council meeting, and a public hearing and council vote may take place as early as Sept. 19. Council meetings take place in Council Chambers, City Hall, first floor, 210 East 13th Street. The public is encouraged to attend these council meetings to offer feedback on the proposal.

All alerts for Vancouver, WA: http://stopbsl.com/?s=%22vancouver%2C+wa%22

Contact info for mayor and city council
Tim.Leavitt@cityofvancouver.us; Jeanne.Harris@cityofvancouver.us; Jeanne.Stewart@cityofvancouver.us; Larry.Smith@cityofvancouver.us; Pat.Campbell@cityofvancouver.us; jack.burkman@cityofvancouver.us; bart.hansen@cityofvancouver.us

City mulls strict dangerous dog policy

Unprovoked attacks could lead an animal to be banned from Vancouver

By Andrea Damewood, Columbian Staff Reporter
Monday, August 8, 2011

[…] The policy wouldn’t ban pups who, unprovoked, make a minor nip that barely breaks the skin. Those dogs would be named “potentially dangerous.” But if that dog does it again, it could be labeled a dangerous dog — and would no longer be allowed in Vancouver. Or, if a dog with no previous history of aggression, unprovoked, inflicts severe injury — broken bones or disfiguring lacerations that need multiple sutures or plastic surgery — or kills a domestic animal or livestock, it too could be deemed a dangerous dog and could no longer be kept in Vancouver.

The policy the city council discussed would make Vancouver’s law stricter than those in unincorporated Clark County. […]

Full article retrieved 8/9/11 from http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/aug/08/city-mulls-strict-dangerous-dog-policy/