In 2012, everyone felt the tide was turning against breed discriminatory laws. This year is no different. The following is a list of confirmed passages, repeals and refusals of breed discriminatory laws in 2013.
In 2013, 3 states passed laws on the state level that prohibit breed discriminatory laws. Connecticut, Nevada and Rhode Island joined the other states that had previously outlawed breed discrimination on the state level.
This year we saw the effects of Massachusetts’ 2012 passage of a law prohibiting breed discriminatory laws, with all the municipalities in the state repealing their laws, instead of attempting to fight to keep them. Boston was the only municipality that made an attempt to create an exemption in the state law that failed. There are still a few that need to be confirmed as having removed their laws from the books officially. Those listed are ones that have been confirmed as removed from the cities code of ordinances via e-mail or phone.
The following municipalities in MA repealed their breed discriminatory laws, to be in compliance with the state law:
The following municipalities have repealed a breed discriminatory law in 2013:
The following places had a partial repeal of their breed discriminatory laws:
-Dodge City, Kansas
The following places rejected breed discriminatory laws:
-Baker City, Oregon
-Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
-Rockaway Beach, Missouri
-Great Bend, Kansas
-Manderson, Wyoming (rejected adding additional breeds to existing ban)
-Royal Oak, Michigan
-Broward County, Florida
The following states had failed attempts to pass breed discriminatory laws at the state level or to repeal state level prohibitions on BDL:
The following places passed a breed discriminatory law:
-Riverside City, California (spay/neuter)
-Riverside County, California (spay/neuter)
-Dover Arkansas (ban)
-Garland County, Arkansas (confinement)
-Murfreesboro, Arkansas (ban)
-Livingston County, Kentucky (restrictions)
-Clay, Alabama (ban: In litigation)
-Bluefield, West Virginia (ban)
-Hornbeak, Tennessee (restrictions)
-Schuyler, Nebraska (restrictions)
In Summation, we have 3 states pass prohibitions against breed discriminatory laws and 5 states who rejected either a state-wide restriction, or an attempt to repeal the prohibitions against BDL. One of those states, Rhode Island, went from a bill to restrict breeds at the state level, to a prohibition against breed discriminatory laws at the state level in one year.
Additionally, New Mexico and Georgia both proposed state level prohibitions. New Mexico came close to passing a state level prohibition against BDL, but the legislative session ended before a final vote was taken. The bill had passed all other steps nearly unanimously. The Georgia prohibition was attached to some very controversial measures and though legislators were supportive of the aspect addressing BDL, they were not supportive of the other sections, so the bill died. At least 5 states looked into prohibiting discrimination in insurance practices, Maine, New York, Maryland, West Virginia and Massachusetts. Most of these bills were tabled for study.
There were 10 passages this year that effect 14 distinct breeds, and their mixes, as well as wolf hybrids. The breeds effected by the places that passed these laws are as follows: Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Dobermans, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Akitas, Chows, American Bulldogs, Dogo Argentino, Presa Canario, Cane Corso, American Bandogge and Wolf hybrids.
There were 12 municipalities who decided, based on the evidence, to repeal their breed discriminatory laws, and 10 that repealed due to a state law having been enacted, bringing total repeals to at least 20.
There were at least 18 municipalities who had a proposal that was rejected. This number is actually much higher than what is listed here. The reason for this is that there are quite a few places that had a proposal or recommendation that was breed discriminatory that has not been officially rejected, but rather “tabled indefinitely.” Only places that officially rejected a proposal or recommendation were counted.
While we tend to focus on places considering breed based laws, it is important to note that there have been hundreds of places (at the very least) that amended their dangerous dog laws in 2013. Only a very small minority ever even consider targeting certain breeds or types of dogs.
Breed discriminatory laws are not the norm now, nor have they ever been.
We try our hardest to make sure these numbers are as accurate as possible but there may be some omissions. Should there be something we missed, that is between the dates of January 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2013 that can be confirmed, please feel free to reach out to us at StopBSL.firstname.lastname@example.org, so that we may correct the omission.