February 22nd, 2013 by Editor

Feb. 27, 2013 update: Broward is now backing off their “pit bull” proposal and, according to BrowardNET,

“…will instead bring together a group of Broward residents, animal experts and other interested parties to discuss and bring forward solutions to Pit Bull attacks that are have occurred in [the] district and communities through out Broward County.  Nearly 60 residents spoke at Tuesday’s Commission meeting and many of them will participate in the group discussion.” [Broward is also considering stiffer penalties for dog fighters.] 

Another thing they could do is instead of treating dog attacks as “pit bull” attacks, they could simply view their problem as a free-roaming dog problem, which is of course not limited in scope by breed, and address irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to free-roam with escalating fines and punishments. 

***

Broward County, Florida and perhaps Hollywood, Florida, may be considering breed-specific ordinances in stark defiance of the statewide prohibition of breed-specific legislation (BSL).

If you live in Florida, please contact the Broward County, Florida Commission here and the Hollywood, Florida City Commission here and politely tell them that not only is BSL unconstitutional, but it’s prohibited by state law.

February 22nd, 2013 by Editor

Nevada’s AB 110 would prohibit Nevada cities and counties from passing breed-specific laws (BSL) within the state via the following amendment language (This is the PDF version of the bill):

“A dog may not be found dangerous or vicious…Based solely on the breed of the dog…”

“A local authority shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that deems a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on the breed of the dog.“

Yet AB 110 still has some questionable language. For instance, the bill states that a dog may be considered “dangerous” if,

“Without provocation, on two separate occasions within 18 months the dog behaved menacingly, to a degree that would lead a reasonable person to defend himself or herself, or a domestic animal, against substantial bodily harm…” [Existing law is in black font; amendment language is in blue.]

Please note that the “without provocation” language is already part of Nevada’s existing law (which you can see because it’s in black type).  The amendment language in blue adds that dogs may be deemed dangerous if a person must defend their domestic animal against another dog.  Read the rest of this entry »

February 19th, 2013 by Editor

HB 6311 would prohibit municipalities from adopting breed-specific dangerous dog ordinances statewide in Connecticut.  A public hearing to consider the bill will be held on February 20, 2013.  If you live in Connecticut please continue to monitor the status of this bill and offer support for its passage.

February 19th, 2013 by Editor

New Mexico’s H. 63, which would prohibit municipalities and counties from passing breed-specific laws (BSL) in the state of New Mexico, has cleared the House.  If you live in New Mexico, please keep supporting this legislation, and thank sponsor Representative Yvette Herrell for sponsoring and advancing this bill.

H. 63‘s amendment language states that,

“Municipalities, including home rule municipalities, and counties shall not regulate by ordinance or  rule or in any other manner regulate dangerous dogs in a manner that is specific to breed.” (Emphasis mine.)

Notice that Representative Herrell’s bill would prohibit the invocation of ‘home rule’ as a reason to pass BSL, meaning that since there has been no proof offered that that non-existent “breed” “pit bull” represents a danger to the public, cities and counties could not invoke their ‘home rule’ status and therefore the so-called “rational” basis — i.e. public health, welfare, and safety — to end around the Constitution.  And yes, home rule or not, breed-specific laws are unconstitutional.

January 21st, 2008 by Editor

If you live in Missouri, please support Missouri senate bill 886 which “Allows any municipality to adopt ordinances, orders, or regulations to control dangerous dogs, provided that no such ordinances, orders, or regulations are specific to breed.”