Tag Archives: presa canario

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

Advertisements

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.

Schuyler, Nebraska – MULTI-Breed Restrictions Considered

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012, the Schuyler, Nebraska city council will hold the second reading of a proposed dangerous dog ordinance that targets several breeds of dogs including:

American pit bull terrier,
American Staffordshire terrier,
Staffordshire bull terrier,
Dogo Argentina,
Presa Canario,
Cane Corso,
American bulldog,
Chow chow,
Doberman,
Rottweiler;
and American bandagge.

Read more from Bless the Bullys….

Xenia, OH: BSL revised (still BSL)

Xenia, OH, has revised their dog ordinances once again, in response to the recent change in state law.

The new ordinance prohibits anyone whose dog is declared vicious by a judge from owning “an American Bulldog, Canary dog, or pit bull terrier or any previously labeled dangerous or vicious dog in the City of Xenia in the future.”

So, vicious dogs are now identified by their behavior, but if you happen to have a court-designated vicious dog of any breed, then you must get rid of any other of your dogs that look like a “pit bull,” Presa Canario, or American Bulldog, and you can’t own a dog that looks like those breeds so long as you live in Xenia.

Get it?

As an example, let’s say you own two dogs: a German Shepherd Dog, and a Bull Terrier. The German Shepherd, and only the German Shepherd, gets loose and seriously injures someone, and the court declares it a vicious dog. You can keep the German Shepherd as long as you pay a special registration fee to the city of Xenia and follow the state law requirements regarding vicious dogs. But you must get rid of the Bull Terrier and you are forbidden from owning any “pit bull”-looking dog so long as you live in Xenia.

Yeah.

Read the recently passed ordinance here (received from city clerk): Xenia 6-26-12 Ord. 12-30 Amending XCO Chapters 604 and 618 Animals

We shouldn’t be surprised. Xenia has never managed to get its vicious dog laws quite right. All alerts for Xenia: https://stopbsl.org/?s=xenia

Contact information for city officials:
jmills@ci.xenia.oh.us; bmiller@ci.xenia.oh.us; mbayless@ci.xenia.oh.us; jcaupp@ci.xenia.oh.us; mengle@ci.xenia.oh.us; dlouderback@ci.xenia.oh.us; wsmith@ci.xenia.oh.us; mjohnson@ci.xenia.oh.us

Irondale, AL: Presa Canarios added to breed ban

Irondale, AL, council has added Presa Canario to the list of banned breeds (“pit bull” already banned). Stereotype and fear, not reality or complaints, drove the decision; the idea to ban Presas came up after someone with an Irondale telephone number put an ad in the paper to sell the breed.

Contact info for Irondale city council:
JStewart@cityofirondale.org; RSaunders@cityofirondale.org; CSanderson@cityofirondale.org; TBearden@cityofirondale.org; CCrews@cityofirondale.org

Irondale City Council adds Presa Canario as second banned dog breed; the other is pit bull

Published: Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 9:26 PM
By Victoria L. Coman — The Birmingham News

IRONDALE, Alabama — The Irondale City Council tonight added the Presa Canario dog as the second dog breed that people are banned from owning in the city. The other is pit bulls. […]

Full article retrieved 6/6/12 from http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/06/irondale_city_council_adds_pre.html

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

UK: 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act an obvious fail

UK statistics show that emergency room dog bite treatments have increased by 94% over the last ten years, reaching 6,097 treated bites in the year ending March 2011. Prosecutions of dangerous dog owners and costs for boarding seized dogs have also risen to new highs.

The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is generally acknowledged by most people in the UK, from vets to politicians to the general public, as a massive failure that does not adequately address dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners. According to the Daily Mail, the DDA is “often cited as a classic example of over-hasty law-making by ministers, officials and MPs working too fast in the face of a temporary scare.”

A couple of news articles from the UK this week have been interesting to read for their slant. Two new crossbreeds of dogs are generating concern, at least in the press: bull lurchers (Guardian) and presweilers (Daily Record). Both of these articles are worth a read; in particular, the sensational rhetoric used by the Daily Record to describe presweilers. (What happens when you put a Presa Canario and a Rottweiler together? You get a deadly cross-bred superbeast sharkdog, and, gasp, there are no laws against it!)

These mixed-breed dogs are not covered by the breed-specific portion of the DDA. Although the press recognizes the larger problem—hoodlums who want to own big, threatening, vicious dogs—much of the news coverage continues to place the blame on dog breeds. The news media seems determined to find fault with the DDA not because it is breed-specific, but because it is not breed-specific enough to keep up with the “dangerous breed du jour.”

As the failed DDA has shown us, it is not possible for a breed-specific law to effectively eliminate dangerous dogs. The hoodlums simply turn their attention to a new type of dog. Because there is no focus on the humans in the equation, thugs are free to continue misusing and abusing dogs of unrestricted breeds.

So, what’s being done about the DDA?

Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill [HL] 2010-11, which would overhaul the DDA and repeal its breed-specific portion, is moving along in the House of Commons (currently scheduled for second reading on 3/30/12).

For its part, the government has consistently rejected Lord Redesdale’s bill, indicating that it intends to introduce a different proposal. To that end, the Environment Department (DEFRA) has announced that it will introduce new dog control measures in the coming months. Unfortunately, we’re not convinced that DEFRA intends to repeal the breed-specific portion of the DDA. It remains to be seen exactly what the government will propose.

UK citizens and residents are encouraged to contact their government representatives (and DEFRA) and stress the need for effective breed-neutral dog laws.