Dangerous Dog Law violates the ADA?

[AbbyK9]

Saginaw, MI, recently passed a Dangerous Dog ordinance that would require owners of certain breeds, including German Shepherds, and any mixes that "look like" certain breeds, to register their dogs for an additional fine and provide certain types of containment and other hoops to jump through.

The original wording of the dog ordinance can be found at - http://www.saginaw-mi.com/Government...0Ordinance.pdf - but I am not sure whether this is or is not the final version.

In the exceptions, the following text is found, emphasis mine -

§ 94.13 EXCLUSIONS
The following are excluded from complying with the terms and conditions of this ordinance:
(A) Guide/service and law enforcement dogs, however, the owner of such dog, upon request, must provide
pictured identification certifying that the dog was trained by a qualified organization or trainer.

Last I checked, it would be a violation of the law to require pictured identification certifying a Service Dog, and it is not a requirement under federal law that the dog needs to be trained by a qualified organization or a specific Service Dog trainer.

Opinions?

[Mom2Shaman]

This is getting shocking. Maybe I should return my GSD pup and get myself a lovely little spaniel. Maybe if I dye my dog pink he won't look threatening (just kidding, I don't dye my dog). Not good.

[DJEtzel]

I did not see this when I originally read the ordinance, and I couldn't agree with you more. I would be bringing all sorts of paperwork into their offices if I were disabled with a service dog and would NOT be paying.

[beaderdog]

A state or municipality may grant more rights than the federal statute, but cannot create more restrictions. If someone forced the issue I'm reasonably certain that portion of the ordinance would be struck down.

[selzer]

It seems like sometime the G-word has nothing better to spend tax money on than passing bad legislation that will stand until it is challenged, and then more tax money will be spent in the over-burdened court system.

Maybe the answer is to give the G-word only enough money to provide what the G-word is put in place to do. Shoot down every tax-increase, every levy, until the g-word is hurting, and has to really think twice before wasting tax money enforcing bad laws, or putting through bad legislation.

So now, in order to try not to get P-word, I will duck out.

[ILGHAUS]

Several areas around the county have passed these laws. Of course Fed. law says breed bans do not pertain to SDs, BUT some SDs have been confiscated and in several cases were put down before things could be sorted out.

[Mrs.K]

Originally Posted by ILGHAUS

Several areas around the county have passed these laws. Of course Fed. law says breed bans do not pertain to SDs, BUT some SDs have been confiscated and in several cases were put down before things could be sorted out.

I can't believe that is even possible. So much about having freedom.

If somebody can confiscate your dog and put it down without reasoning...

[wildo]

You know... if there was some certification to prove it was a service dog- then things like that might not happen. Just saying...

[Mrs.K]

Originally Posted by wildo

You know... if there was some certification to prove it was a service dog- then things like that might not happen. Just saying...

I did not want to say it first.

[wildo]

Originally Posted by Mrs.K

I did not want to say it first.

Honestly, I won't say anymore about it, at least not in this thread. We had that battle last night. I'm going back to the movie I'm watching...