Tag Archives: chow

Nevada, AB 110, to prevent breed discrimination, advances to full Senate vote

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.

North Carolina bill to restrict multiple breeds is nixed

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

North Carolina HB956 assigned to committee

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.

North Carolina bill filed to restrict multiple breeds

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

Hornbeak Tennessee passes multiple breed restrictions

Tuesday night the Aldermen for the city of Hornbeak Tennessee gave final approval to an ordinance that places restrictions on 10 different types of dogs.

The dogs that are effected by this ordinance are Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Dobermans, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Akitas, Chows, and Wolf hybrids.

These types of dogs will be considered vicious solely based on their appearance. Owners of these dogs must have a special registration, leash and muzzle requirements, confinement requirements, the placement of “beware of dog” signs, proof of insurance and identification photos of the dogs to be provided to the city recorder.

The ordinance passed with a vote of 5-1, with one official refusing to vote for the new law because they felt it went to far.

The initial stories out of Hornbeak cite issues with dogs at large. In such a small town there is a very accessible way to address these issues since the community is so close-knit. It is rather disconcerting that instead of addressing the real issues behind the problems Hornbeak was experiencing, they chose instead to restrict the rights of responsible owners.

Hornbeak is an extremely small town with limited financial resources. The population is around 450 people. They do not have animal control of their own, or an animal shelter, which poses the question of how exactly any ordinance will be enforced. This new ordinance will undoubtedly be a public safety failure. The people who lose in this are the citizens.

Westwego Louisiana Councilman seeks to add breeds to ordinance

Following an attack on a woman in Westwego Louisiana, Councilman Glen Green has sworn to add more breeds of dogs to the cities dangerous dog laws, which currently single out pit bulls.

Westwego’s law, which was passed in 2000, requires owners of pit bull type dogs to keep the dogs confined in kennels when not on leash or with their owners. Kennels must be made of chain link fencing at least six feet high, five feet from the property line, and 20 feet from neighboring homes. Failure to do so results in a fine of $250.

Though Councilman Green has not said exactly which breeds will be added, he has mentioned Rottweilers specifically. According to Green, he will be seeking additional support from other members of the council before approaching this issue. He was quoted in a recent news story saying “If they want to challenge it in court, so be it. There are several breeds that I’m putting in there.”

What is rather unfortunate is that these challenges will cost everyone in the city by making poor use of tax payer dollars. Councilman Green says that he blames the owner of these dogs for not taking care of them properly, yet he is choosing to target the dogs instead.  Not the attacking dogs, but dogs that he has a perception of as being vicious.

Councilman Green knew the victim personally.

Residents: Please respectfully, and sympathetically reach out to your council members to ask that they look into a strong and enforceable breed neutral law instead of adding breeds to their restrictions. The urge, after such a terrible incident, is to act but actions taken must still be in the best interests of the community at large.  No amount of breed specific laws would have stopped this heartbreaking incident.  By creating a comprehensive breed neutral ordinance with stiff penalties for violation serious incidents like this can be reduced.

Officials can be found here. It is of absolute utmost importance that, when communicating after an attack this severe, you remain unimpeachable in your professionalism in every communication.  This is not about dogs.  This is about creating a safer community for the residents of Westwego. Breed specific laws divert resources from the real obstacles to making communities safer, which is why breed neutral laws have been shown repeatedly to increase public safety.

Our heartfelt sympathies go out to the victim of this attack and all the friends and  family of the victim.

Pointe Coupee Parish, LA: New animal ordinance is not BSL

Good news in Pointe Coupee Parish. The police jury passed a new animal control ordinance in early April. The parish has considered BSL in the past, and there were concerns that this new ordinance could incorporate some of the breed-specific language that was previously under consideration.

We have received a copy of the new ordinance, and confirmed that it is breed-neutral. Many thanks to the parties in and around the parish who worked to make sure that the new ordinance was not breed discriminatory.

If you would like to read the text, we noticed that the parish has not posted it online (their website isn’t very up to date). So, here it is, for your convenience: Pointe Coupee Animal and Fowl Ordinance 3_27_12

All alerts for Pointe Coupee: http://stopbsl.com/?s=pointe+coupee