Tag Archives: Fila Brasileiro

Bermuda: Govt revises prohibited breeds list, creates new “restricted breeds” list

Bermuda has moved some previously prohibited breeds into a new restricted-breed category. (We last told you about this plan in September 2010, but the official breed list is now finalized.)

Prohibited breeds may not be imported or bred. All of the below breeds were also prohibited under the previous prohibited-breed list.

  • American Pit Bull Terrier
  • American Bulldog
  • American Staffordshire Terrier
  • Argentine Mastiff / Dogo Argentino
  • Boerboel
  • Brazilian Mastiff / Fila
  • Cane Corso
  • Presa Canario
  • Neapolitan Mastiff
  • Tosa Inu
  • Wolf / Wolf hybrid
  • Any crossbreed of above

Restricted breeds can be imported or bred, but there are restrictions on ownership, such as special enclosures, property inspections, etc. Some of the below breeds were previously on the prohibited breed list, and some of the below breeds were not previously restricted or prohibited. I have noted the changes. Restricted breeds are as follows:

  • Akita (previously prohibited)
  • Australian Cattle Dog (previously unrestricted)
  • Belgian Malinois (previously unrestricted)
  • Bouvier Des Flandres (previously unrestricted)
  • Bull Terrier (previously prohibited)
  • Bullmastiff (previously prohibited)
  • Chow Chow (previously unrestricted)
  • Doberman Pinscher (previously unrestricted)
  • Dogue De Bordeaux (previously prohibited)
  • German Shepherd (previously unrestricted)
  • English Mastiff (previously prohibited)
  • Rhodesian Ridgeback (previously unrestricted)
  • Rottweiler (previously prohibited)
  • Staffordshire Bull Terrier (previously unrestricted)
  • Any crossbreed of above

News articles with details regarding the new breed lists:

All alerts for Bermuda: http://stopbsl.com/?s=bermuda

Lithuania: Ten breeds will be banned

Lithuania currently classifies the following breeds as “aggressive” or “fighting” breeds, and the government is now working on a law that will ban dogs of these breeds:

  • American Pit Bull Terrier
  • Bandogas (American Mastiff) [ED note: This refers to a bandog type. Not the English Mastiff cross that Americans call an American Mastiff.]
  • American Staffordshire Terrier
  • Staffordshire Bull Terrier
  • American Bulldog
  • Dogo Argentino
  • Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian Mastiff)
  • Kangal (Turkish Shepherd)
  • Caucasian Ovtcharka
  • South Russian Shepherd Dog

Various drafts of the law are being considered, so at this time, it’s not clear how they intend to address the dogs of these breeds that are currently living in the country. It has been suggested that currently-existing “aggressive” breeds will be allowed to live out their lives with their owners, but they may not be bred, and any such dogs that become homeless (i.e. end up in a shelter) would be killed rather than rehomed.

The following links are in Lithuanian. If you don’t know Lithuanian, you can use Google Translate to get the gist of things, but the translation isn’t great.

A group in Lithuania that opposes the breed ban (rough translation “Against Dog Racism”) can be found on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/265365626833937/266727803364386/

An article about the proposed Lithuanian law can be read here. http://www.grynas.lt/gyvenimas/agresyvus-sunys-lietuvoje-drausti-negalima-pasigaileti.d?id=51038443

This is a link to the official Lithuanian government proposal page. I’m afraid I don’t understand it well, due to poor translation: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=403129

Thank you to Arvydas for this information!

New Zealand: Presa Canario added to import ban

The New Zealand parliament has recently added the Perro de Presa Canario to Schedule 4.

New Zealand’s Dog Control Act 1996 prohibits the import of any dog believed to be of a breed listed in Schedule 4. Such dogs already in New Zealand are also classified as “menacing.” Menacing dogs must be leashed and muzzled in public; they may also be required to be neutered.

The breeds and types of dogs that are listed on Schedule 4 are now currently as follows: American Pit Bull Terrier (type), Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Brazilian Fila, and Presa Canario.

The committee report on Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 may be read here: http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2B34A146-823B-47C2-B582-3C38B8D291A4/164778/DBSCH_SCR_4928_DogControlPerrodePresaCanarioOrder2.pdf


Subang Jaya, Malaysia: Seven breeds banned

Perplexingly, though the article cites several attacks by Rottweilers and public concern and comments are focused primarily on Rottweilers, that breed has not been targeted by the new breed ban.

The ban goes into effect immediately and does not contain a grandfather clause.

Pit bull among seven breeds banned in Subang Jaya

By EDWARD R. HENRY, edward@thestar.com.my

SEVEN dog breeds — Akita, Neapolitan Mastiff, American Bulldog, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanesa Tosa and American Pit bull — are set to vanish from households in Subang Jaya soon.[…]

MPSJ director Dr Roslan Mohamed Hussin said the ban was with immediate effect.

He said the council had begun operations to check residential areas in the township for such dog breeds.[…]

Full article retrieved 4/14/11 from http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2011/4/14/central/8475437&sec=central

Norway: Government may be receptive to breed ban repeal

The NKK (Norway’s major kennel club) has recently discussed with some members of Parliament the possibility of repealing section 19 of their Dog Act.  The Dog Act, section 19, allows the King to choose the breeds that will be considered “dangerous,” and to create restrictions to be placed on those breeds. Norway currently bans the ownership of the “pit bull terrier,” American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa Inu, and Dogo Argentino.

The NKK has stated the many difficulties with the law, including significant breed identification issues, no effect on public safety, and the arbitrary selection of breeds to ban.

You may read more from the NKK here (Norwegian), article date March 21, 2011: http://www.nkk.no/nkk/public/openIndex?ARTICLE_ID=11782

Google Translate offers a rough translation in English here: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nkk.no%2Fnkk%2Fpublic%2FopenIndex%3FARTICLE_ID%3D11782

Because I’m not well-versed in Norwegian politics or parliamentary processes, and because it’s difficult to find English-language materials on this topic, if you are interested in assisting the Norwegian effort to repeal the breed-specific portion of the Dog Law, please contact the NKK (www.nkk.no) to find out how you can help.

Thanks to Charlotte for passing the link along.

Aurora, CO: Council to consider breed ban revisions, March 17

On March 17, Aurora city council will consider revisions to their breed ban, which currently bans American Bulldogs, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Fila Brasileiros, Presa Mallorquins, Presa Canarios, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Tosa Inus, and any mixed breed dog resembling one of these. Per city documents, the ban was passed due to public perception and fear of these breeds—not because of any public safety data indicating these breeds were problematic in Aurora.

City council and other officials have touted the “success” of the breed ban by observing that bites from restricted breeds have decreased. It should be noted that bites by non-restricted breeds have NOT decreased. In fact, non-restricted dog bites are above pre-ban levels.

Courtesy of the city, from January/February 2011 council packet:
2003   Total bites: 213     Restricted breed: 28       Non-restricted breed: 185
2004   Total bites: 211     Restricted breed: 33       Non-restricted breed: 178
2005   Total bites: 137     Restricted breed: 27       Non-restricted breed: 110
Breed ban enacted in 2006, dog-on-animal bites now included in data(?)
2006   Total bites: 137     Restricted breed: 8       Non-restricted breed: 129
2007   Total bites: 172     Restricted breed: 15     Non-restricted breed: 157
2008   Total bites: 224    Restricted breed: 8        Non-restricted breed: 216
2009   Total bites: 229    Restricted breed: 9        Non-restricted breed: 220
2010   Total bites: 194    Restricted breed: 6        Non-restricted breed: 188

In 2008 and again in late 2010, council received bite data as well. It should be noted that the numbers provided in 2008 and 2010 do not match the numbers provided in 2011 and in fact paint a less-sunny picture. For instance, the 2008 report provided the following data for 2006 and 2007 (dog-on-animal bites not included, for comparison purposes).

2006   Total bites: 182     Restricted breed: 11     Non-restricted breed: 171
2007   Total bites: 180     Restricted breed: 13    Non-restricted breed: 167

It is not clear why the numbers differ. In 2008, the city acknowledged past record-keeping inaccuracies, but claimed to have corrected both the data and the data collection process at the time of the 2008 report. It stands to reason that if the data was accurate as claimed in 2008, there should be no difference between 2008 and 2011 data. Why, then, do over 40 bites disappear from the 2006 data when reported in 2011?

The city has also continually struggled with a mingling of dog-on-human and dog-on-animal bites and has apparently accounted for these different types of bites inconsistently over the years. The city claims that 2006 through 2010 data includes both dog-on-human and dog-on-animal bites, whereas pre-2006 data was dog-on-human bites only; therefore, the numbers from 2006 through 2010 appear deceptively high when compared to pre-ban numbers. However, Aurora does not provide exact data for dog-on-animal bites, leaving us to make an educated guess. The 2008 bite report does call out dog-on-animal bites for 2006 and 2007; it was 30 and 18 bites, or 14% and 9% of total bites, respectively. Even if we subtract the higher percentage (14%) of dog-on-animal bites from each year starting in 2006, doing so does not reveal a trend of decreasing total dog-on-human bites; post-ban dog bites remain (mostly) higher than pre-ban dog bites.

Additionally, while the city currently puts forth the idea that restricted breeds “tend to” inflict more-severe bites than non-restricted breeds, the city has not provided data to prove this assertion—and the city’s 2008 report actually disproved this mantra. The 2008 report broke bites down by severity for 2006 and 2007. Over 90% of severe (AND over 90% of moderate) bites were inflicted by non-restricted breeds in 2006 and 2007. The breed ban did not appear to reduce severe dog bites—in fact, severe bites increased from 2006 to 2007, and non-restricted breeds were the ones implicated (restricted breed severe bites remained steady at one per year). No more recent data regarding bite severity has been made available, making it difficult to challenge the city’s current claim.

You can view the 2008 data here: https://stopbsl.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/june-27-aurora-city-council-meeting-dog-bite-stats.doc

It is not clear how the city can declare the ordinance a public safety “success” when they don’t have any numbers to prove it. I would also think last year’s 188 victims of non-restricted breeds’ bites would have something to say about the purported success (namely, “What about us?”).

Aurora city officials have nevertheless staunchly recommended that the ban remain in place. The proposal to “loosen the ban” or eliminate it altogether has been met with much skepticism from city officials and councilmembers.

Please provide intelligent, polite public input to encourage Aurora city council to do away with their breed-specific law, for the sake of public safety.

Aurora Mayor and City Council, 15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Fifth Floor, Aurora, CO 80012

Aurora will reconsider ban on pit bulls

By Carlos Illescas, The Denver Post
Posted: 03/14/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT

AURORA — The city is considering loosening its ban on pit bulls, just as a new federal ruling kicks in Tuesday stating that any breed of dog can be used as a service dog.[…]

On Thursday, an Aurora committee will discuss several options to the current ban. Those include doing away with the ban and keeping the ban but allowing pit bulls as service dogs.[…]

After Thursday’s meeting, the Neighborhood Services Policy Committee will forward a handful of proposed ordinances to the City Council for consideration.[…]

Full article retrieved 3/14/11 from http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17608120

Singapore: Changes to breed-specific dangerous dog laws

In Singapore, Presa Canarios have been moved from the Second Schedule Part II list to Part I list, and new restrictions on Part I and Part II dogs have been added.

Second Schedule Part I dog breeds include the following: “pit bull” (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog), Akita, Neapolitan Mastiff, Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Presa Canario, Boerboel, and any mixes of these breeds.

Part I dog restrictions include the following (includes new changes to dog law):

  • Muzzled and leashed in public
  • Microchipped
  • Spayed/neutered
  • Liability insurance of $100,000 minimum
  • Only one Part I dog may be kept on a premises (new restriction)
  • Obedience training (new restriction)
  • A $5,000 deposit that is forfeited (and must be renewed) if the owner fails to comply with any of these restrictions
  • May not be imported

Second Schedule Part II dog breeds include the following: Mastiffs (Cane Corso, Bull Mastiff, Dogue de Bordeaux), Bull Terrier, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd and related breeds (Belgian Shepherd Dog, East European Shepherd Dog), Rottweiler, and mixes of these breeds.

Part II dog restrictions include the following (includes new changes to dog law):

  • Muzzled and leashed in public
  • Microchipped (new restriction)
  • Liability insurance of $100,000 minimum (new restriction)
  • Obedience training (new restriction)
  • Only one Part II dog may be kept on a premises (new restriction)
  • A $2,000 deposit that is forfeited (and must be renewed) if the dog owner fails to comply with any of these restrictions (new restriction)

Restrictions similar to those in Part II will also apply to any dog that has engaged in an unprovoked attack that causes injury to a person or animal. (New restriction)

The changes to Singapore’s dog law can be viewed here: http://www.ava.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/9253E7B2-E57D-4992-982C-1304E73748D6/18191/CHANGESTOTHEANIMALSANDBIRDSDOGLICENSINGANDCONTROLR.pdf