Tag Archives: wolf hybrid

Camp LeJeune, NC – Eastern Bases

As of September 30th, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune‘s pet policy will undergo further changes, banning all aggressive dogs and specific dog breeds.

The Marine Corps banned aggressive dog breeds in 2009, but owners who had lived on a Marine Corps base with a restricted dog before the ban were allowed to “grandfather in” their dogs and keep them on base, new residents however were not allowed to bring their restricted breeds on base when they moved after the initiative was adopted.

Recently Animal Control has taken over pet registration on the Camp Lejeune and MCAS New River bases resulting stricter enforcement of the pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf hybrids restrictions.

It was estimated in March of 2010 that of 200 dangerous dog breeds living on Camp LeJeune, only a quarter of the dogs were properly registered.  Ongoing difficulties in maintaining proper registration of grand-fathered allowances may be one reason we’re seeing this change.  However, when the original initiative was first proposed, a deadline of December 2011 was discussed.

Now, regardless of when the dog was acquired, all owners of pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf hybrids will face the difficult decision of moving off base or giving up their pet.  In addition, all pet owners will be required to reregister their pets under the new system by the same date.  Even though statistically it would appear the enforcement of the restrictions and requirements was difficult to enforce, base officials have elected to impose more restrictions for enforcement.

According to Sgt. Brent Mitzel of the Provost Marshal’s Office Animal Control, “It also has to do with base housing.  There (have) been incidences in the past with bites and stuff like that, and we’re all just trying to limit the potential hazards.”

Alisa Johnson, a Marine and president of Dogs on Deployment, a 501(c)(3) national non-profit which provides a central online database for service members to search for individuals or families who are willing to welcome a Dog On Deployment into their home for the length of their owner’s deployment.

“Service members should never have to choose between their family pet and serving at their next duty station. Every day, I talk to families affected by these harmful policies and it’s time for that to end,” Johnson said.  Johnson’s organization is currently spearheading a more suitable option to implement a military-wide standardized pet policy so there is no confusion for enlisted members when assigned to a new base.  Her proposed policy would target aggressive dogs rather than focus on breeds or types of dogs.

In an interview with JDNews.com Mitzel said Animal Control will also test dogs for aggression during registration, and if the dog is considered aggressive by the staff, regardless of the breed, it will not be allowed on base.

“If they try to bite us, snap at us, growl, snarl show any type of aggression toward us, we’ll make that determination on whether we believe that pet is aggressive,” Mitzel said. “If it’s a three-pound dog and it’s trying to bite everybody’s hand off, we will not register that dog on the base.”

According to statements in the JDNews.com article, animal control will also determine if a dog is a banned breed or a mix of any of the banned breeds by visual ID.  If they “suspect” the dog to be mixed with an affected breed, they will not approve registration of the pet on base according to Mitzel.

“We’re going to tell the owner they can contest it with a DNA test if they’d like. Once we get the results back, if it’s not one of those banned breeds and it’s not aggressive, then we’ll register it on base,” he said, adding that if the results come back positive, the dogs will be forced to leave the base, with or without their owners.

DNA testing has long been used by military bases and veterinary clinics to determine the breed of a dog.  Many argue that testing is not accurate however and it is unclear if the dog’s owner will be responsible for the cost of the testing.

“In a memorandum distributed Army-wide on Feb. 3, 2012, Col. Bob Walter, director of the Army’s Veterinarian Service Activity, stated there is no scientific method to determine a breed and that breed bans are unlikely to protect installation residents,” the petition from Johnson’s nonprofit that calls for standardized pet policies across the military reads. “The letter recommends generic, non-breed, specific dangerous dog regulations with emphasis on identification of dangerous and chronically irresponsible owners.”

Currently, the Army and Air Force ban pit bulls, rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, chows and wolf hybrids, while the Marine Corps bans only pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf hybrids. Navy policies vary by installation. Some private base housing offices have additional breed restrictions beyond the listing of the military branch, meaning a family that moves from one base to another could be forced to give up their dog depending on the pet policy on that particular base.

“There is a huge lack of consistency with these policies,” Johnson said. “What we’re asking for is the DoD to give our military some piece of mind.” In an interview with Pit Bulletin Legal News Radio, Johnson said “It’s a huge morale problem when you have families that are being broken up over breed restrictions.”  Johnson’s petition calls for a standardized, consistent military policy for all pet owners, regardless of the breed and asks that the military focus on strong enforcement of general dangerous dog policies and pet education programs for troops.  When considering only 50 dogs were registered as required at Camp LeJeune in the past, certainly enforcement appears to be a matter of concern for effective animal control.

Johnson added that their petition is not “an attack on military policies.” Rather, it’s a request for the military to “make a change that’s going to help our military families, instead of hurt them.”

You can help by supporting Dogs on Deployment, signing and sharing their petition, and by contacting the House and Senate member for your state’s Armed Services Committee.  In a POLITE, RESPECTFUL and INFORMATIVE explanation make them aware that the policies target responsible pet owners, innocent dogs and creates a burden on public shelters faced with the owner-release that results from the policies and attitudes of military animal control.

House Armed Services Committee:


Senate Armed Services Committee:

Dogs on Deployment Change.org petition:

Dogs on Deployment:



Lincoln Military Housing: Seven breeds banned

Thanks to a Facebook member for this information!

Contact Lincoln Military Housing managers through their website at http://www.lincolnmilitary.com/

May 25, 2010

RE: Dog Breed Restrictions

Dear Residents of Lincoln Military Housing:

As you are probably aware, the Navy Housing Instruction, numerous other Public Private Ventures and many apartment communities have stopped allowing certain breeds of dogs. Such restrictions will be phased into the Lincoln portfolio here in the Hampton Roads region as well. While this represents a change in policy, we hope you will find that we have taken great strides to ensure that this does not have a negative impact on our current residents.

Please see the following list of soon to be restricted breeds:

Chows, Doberman Pinschers, Presa Canarios, Pit Bulls (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier), Rottweilers, any Wolf Hybrid, or any mix of the aforementioned breeds.

Current Residents: any of the above dogs that are living in Lincoln housing (and are properly registered with the local municipality and the Lincoln housing office) on or before June 15, 2010, will be allowed to stay. After June 15, 2010, current residents will no longer be allowed to bring new dogs of the above breeds into housing. That includes new dog purchases/adoptions as well as litters of existing dogs.

New Residents: as of May 1, 2010, Lincoln ceased to sign new leases with any family possessing a dog from the restricted breed list. Any resident that moved in after May 1, 2010 will not be allowed to possess dogs from the restricted breed list.

Current Residents Transferring from one Lincoln home to another: will be handled on a case by case basis. Factors that will be taken into consideration will be (i) whether the resident is choosing to move or they are moving due to circumstances beyond their control, (ii) history of resident and pet compliance with policies, (iii) history (if any) of complaints against the dog(s).

Note: these restrictions to [sic] not apply to doctor ordered service animals.

Please call our office if you have any questions and we thank you for your cooperation with this effort.

District Manager

Eupora, MS: BSL passed (multiple breeds)

Previous alert for Eupora: http://stopbsl.com/?s=eupora

The article doesn’t provide many details regarding the ordinance passed last week. However, unless significant amendments were made to the proposed ordinance since I last spoke with the city clerk a few hours before the council meeting, it contains language that regulates and/or bans the ownership of SEVERAL breeds of dogs. To my knowledge and per the city clerk, the only amendment to the ordinance on April 5 was with respect to the insurance requirement. The breed specific language had not been removed.

Jodi Preis
Bless the Bullys

Board okays dog law

by By Russell Hood
The Webster Progress-Times

The Eupora Board of Aldermen has given final approval to a dog and animal control ordinance. It did so April 5 following a public hearing in the Community Center.[…]

Article retrieved 4/16/10 from http://www.websterprogresstimes.com/view/full_story/7089380/article-Board-okays-dog–law?instance=websterhome_news_right

Eupora, MS: BSL proposed (multiple breeds), hearing April 5

Thanks to Jodi for this alert! Some changes have been made to the ordinance since this article was published, including the definition of “dangerous dog,” but it is not clear what those changes are.

The city of Eupora, Mississippi is currently considering an extremely vague ordinance that would affect:

1. Pit Bulls
2. Rottweilers
3. Dobermans
4. Chow Chows
5. Dalmations
6. Any type or breed of “guard dog” (a/k/a German Shepherds, Belgian Malinois, etc.); and
7. Wolf hybrids

The Board of Aldermen must hold a hearing and take a second vote before this ordinance takes effect.

Please take a moment to send your POLITE, RESPECTFUL and INFORMATIVE letters of opposition to the Eupora city officials. Please be sure to stress the difficulty of enforcement and the potential liability the town could expose itself to with a law that relies so heavily on the subjective opinion of the officials charged with determining the breed and apparently the purpose of a dog. Please also send them viable alternatives and suggestions for their consideration.

Eupora does not have a website, and I am unable to find e-mail contact information for anyone there. If someone could get me a fax number for the city clerk, it would be much appreciated.

Jodi Preis
Bless the Bullys

Contact Info for Eupora, MS

Eupora, Mississippi
City Clerk
390 West Clark Avenue, Eupora, MS 39744
(662) 258-4121
City Hall: (662) 258 -2291

Public Hearing Date on April 5, at 5 PM

Board adopts new dog control law

by By Russell Hood
03.11.10 – 05:16 pm

A proposed city ordinance that, in part, addresses the confinement of dangerous dogs awaits final approval following publication and a hearing.

[…] These are highlights of the proposed ordinance, which also includes the aforementioned collaring regulations:

Pit bull dogs, Rottweilers, Dobermans, chows, Dalmatians or wolf hybrids and any type or breed of dog used a guard or attack dog over the age of 6 months will be considered “prime facie” as dangerous dogs. This doesn’t include police dogs used to assist law enforcement or a non-guard dog attempting to prevent a trespassing or other criminal offense on someone’s property.

Owners or keepers of any dangerous dog must be at least 21, not permit them to run at large and keep them in a proper enclosure (no more than two at any single dwelling).

[…] When unconfined, the dogs must be restrained by a leash and muzzled. No dangerous dog may be walked or exercised within 50 feet of any public school grounds, nor enter any school grounds, public event, parade, public or municipal park.

It will be unlawful for anyone in the city to own, keep or harbor a dangerous dog unless it is registered, and proof must be provided by a veterinarian that it has been neutered or spayed, and has had anti-rabies vaccination within the preceding year.

The city clerk’s office will issue a certificate of registration to the owner of a dangerous dog for one year after payment of a $50 fee per dog. A photograph and police officer’s on-site investigation and testimony to the clerk’s office that a proper enclosure is confining the dog will also be required.

Additionally, a surety bond or a policy of liability insurance of at least $50,000 per dangerous dog insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dog will be necessary.

Article retrieved 4/1/10 from http://www.websterprogresstimes.com/printer_friendly/6671570

Exeter, CA: Exeter council delays vote on dog ordinance

Previous alert for Exeter: http://stopbsl.com/2010/02/08/exeter-ca-city-council-to-consider-bsl-that-violates-state-law-feb-9/

Exeter council delays vote on dog ordinance

Staff reports • February 9, 2010

By a 5-0 vote Tuesday night, the Exeter City Counci voted to delay a vote on a controversial dog ordinance that would have targeted certain breeds for especially stiff licensing requirements and harsh confinement.

[…] No date was set to revisit the ordinance.[…]

Full article retrieved 2/10/10 from http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20100209/NEWS01/100209017/Exeter+council+delays+vote+on+dog+ordinance

Holland Twp., NJ: Wolf-dog ban passes first vote in Holland Township [BSL]

Crossposted from BSL-UPDATES

This part is interesting — “Because it has not been proven that rabies vaccine works on wolf-dogs, they cannot be licensed.” The comments (at the link below) from the dog owner’s neighbors are generally supportive of the owner — one admits to accidentally breaching the fence with farming equipment, and another is more concerned about night-time howling than any genuine safety issue.

Wolf-dog ban passes first vote in Holland Township

by John Monteith/Hunterdon County Democrat

Wednesday September 02, 2009, 12:00 PM

HOLLAND TWP. — A proposed ordinance “states clearly that the dogs have got to go,” said Committeeman Robert Peabody at a packed-house meeting of the Township Committee last night. […]

The ordinance, which was introduced last night, says no one can keep a dog that cannot be licensed. Because it has not been proven that rabies vaccine works on wolf-dogs, they cannot be licensed.[…]

Full article retrieved 9/3/09 from http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2009/09/wolfdog_ban_passes_first_vote.html