Like others who have posted on this thread, I oppose breed bans and other forms of breed-specific legislation.
I really don’t think we are going to see breed bans spread. In fact, I think that we are going to see a lot of municipalities and states repeal bans they currently have in place.
This paper has a lot of good information.
“Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation”
Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed–Specific Legislation
Re: State of Breed-Ban Legislation
Quote:
“Hundreds of municipalities of all sizes and geographic locations throughout the country have adopted BSL. (One of the most comprehensive, up–to–date lists of BSL jurisdictions can be found at
www.understand–a–bull.com.)
Still other towns are repealing existing bans, such as Edwardsville, Kansas, which removed its pit bull ban after the nearby Niko case ended.
In 2009 new statewide BSL bills were introduced in Hawaii, Montana, and Oregon, where there are two BSL bills pending. One would ban “pit bulls” from Oregon unless a person has obtained a permit within 90 days of the bill’s passage; the other would require minimum liability insurance coverage of $1 million for pit bull owners..."
"Interestingly,
12 states have passed laws prohibiting the passage of BSL by local governments: Florida and Pennsylvania (although bills are currently pending to repeal this prohibition in both states), California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. Like the other 11 states, California has ruled that no specific dog breed mix shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious as a matter of breed, but it does allow BSL related to mandatory spay/neuter programs, meaning it requires dogs of certain breeds to be “fixed.” The city of Denver has perhaps the most tortured history with BSL Denver passed BSL in 1989, but the Colorado State Legislature outlawed BSL in 2004. Denver later reinstated BSL after the city challenged the state’s BSL prohibition, and a judge ruled that Denver’s BSL could be allowed to stand as a home rule exception..."
Re: Who opposes Breed Bans and BSL?
“Quote:
“National animal organizations such as the American Veterinary Medical Association, Humane Society of the United States, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Best Friends Animal Society, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Kennel Club, and the National Animal Control Association all oppose BSL. Otto sums up their position this way: “If the goal is dog–bite prevention, then dogs should be treated as individuals under effective dangerous dog laws and not as part of a breed painted with certain traits that may not be applicable to each dog. By doing so, owners of well–trained, gentle dogs are not punished by a breed ban, while dangerous dogs of all breeds are regulated and may have their day in court to be proven dangerous.”
Note: This has to be one of the few issues in dogdom where all of these groups are in agreement with each other… LOL!
Re: Is BSL effective?
Quote:
“Extensive studies of the effectiveness of BSL in reducing the number of persons harmed by dog attacks were done in Spain and Great Britain. B
oth studies concluded that their “dangerous animals acts,” which included pit bull bans, had no effect at all on stopping dog attacks. The Spanish study further found that the breeds most responsible for bites—both before and after the breed bans—were those breeds not covered by it, primarily German Shepherds and mixed breeds.”
One of the few known instances in which a breed ban’s effectiveness was examined and reported on in the United States occurred in Prince George’s County, Maryland, where a task force was formed in 2003 to look at the effectiveness of its pit bull ban.
The task force concluded that the public’s safety had not improved as a result of the ban, despite the fact that the county had spent more than $250,000 per year to round up and destroy banned dogs. Finding that other, non–breed–specific laws already on the books covered vicious animal, nuisance, leash, and other public health and safety concerns, the task force recommended repealing the ban.”
[Note: In addition to these studies, it is also interesting to note that the Netherlands and the Province of Ontario have repealed their breed bans because the legislation was found to be ineffective. [See the NCRC link below for the source of that information]
Re: Options beyond BSL?
Quote:
“The National Canine Research Council has identified the most common factors found in fatal dog attacks occurring in 2006:
- 97 percent of the dogs involved were not spayed or neutered.
- 84 percent of the attacks involved owners who had abused or neglected their dogs, failed to contain their dogs, or failed to properly chain their dogs.
- 78 percent of the dogs were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.”
Quote:
"The ASPCA has proposed a list of solutions for inclusion in breed–neutral laws that hold reckless dog owners accountable for their aggressive animals:
- Enhanced enforcement of dog license laws with adequate fees to augment animal control budgets and surcharges on ownership of unaltered dogs to help fund low–cost pet- sterilization programs. High–penalty fees should be imposed on those who fail to license a dog.
- Enhanced enforcement of leash/dog–at–large laws, with adequate penalties to supplement animal control funding and to ensure the law is taken seriously.
- Dangerous dog laws that are breed neutral and focus on the behavior of the individual dog, with mandated sterilization and microchipping of dogs deemed dangerous and options for mandating muzzling, confinement, adult supervision, training, owner education, and a hearings process with gradually increasing penalties, including euthanasia, in aggravated circumstances such as when a dog causes unjustified injury or simply cannot be controlled. (“Unjustified” typically is taken to mean the dog was not being harmed or provoked by anyone when the attack occurred.)
- Laws that hold dog owners financially accountable for failure to adhere to animal control laws, and also hold them civilly and criminally liable for unjustified injuries or damage caused by their dogs.
- Laws that prohibit chaining or tethering, coupled with enhanced enforcement of animal cruelty and fighting laws. Studies have shown that chained dogs are an attractive nuisance to children and others who approach them.
- Laws that mandate the sterilization of shelter animals and make low–cost sterilization services widely available.
"
[Note: The AVMA paper and the CDC have made similar community-based recommendations, I posted links to those below]
Other interesting sources of information:
From the AVMA via the CDC site:
https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Documents/dogbite.pdf
From the NCRC
Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) FAQ I NCRC
From the ASPCA:
Breed Specific Legislation | ASPCA
From the HSUS
Why Breed-Specific Legislation Doesn?t Work : The Humane Society of the United States