The leg work of the repeal is being headed up by O.D.O.G.S, Oakland County Dog Ownership Group and Specialists. The group was founded by Mary Dunham after her dog was determined by Waterford officials to be a targeted dog. A DNA test was conducted after the township demanded it. The test determined that the dog, Keane, had no DNA from any targeted breed, and was mostly a lab.

O.D.O.G.S drafted a responsible pet ownership ordinance that would take the place of the current breed discriminatory law and has been working for some months now to educate the community about what a repeal would mean for everyone and to address concerns. The proposal was submitted on January 7th and officials have been taking their time reviewing all the information submitted to them.

The ban, which was enacted in 1989, includes any dog with even 1% of a targeted breed.  There are 3 breeds singled out, American Staffordshire Terrier Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Pit Bull Terrier.  The ordinance is extremely broad sweeping in its language.  From the ordinance:

“Pit bull or pit bull terrier means any dog which exhibits those phenotypical characteristics which:(1) Substantially conform to the breed standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers.(2) Substantially conform to the breed standards established by the United Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers. The standards of the United Kennel Club referred to herein as “Appendix A,” shall remain on file with the Township Clerk. Technical deficiencies in the dog’s conformance to the standards of this definition shall not be construed to indicate that the subject dog is not a “pit bull terrier” under this article.“

This definition, with the inclusion of the language about technical deficiencies, casts such a wide net that virtually every short-haired dog becomes a target.

The ordinance is an interesting study because they include the reasons for passing it. Two particularly interesting pieces are found in Section 3-078 item (g)”4. The pit bull terriers’ massive canine jaws can crush a victim with up to two thousand (2,000) pounds of pressure per square inch, three (3) times that of a German shepherd or doberman pinscher, making the pit bull’s jaws the strongest of any animal, per pound.

5. The breeds are almost impossible to confine without resorting to fortress-like measures; pit bull terriers can climb over high chain link fences and trees, tear metal sheeting with its teeth, attack through chain link fencing, tear loose its collars, and dig under fences and walls, requiring the adoption of breed-specific restrictions on the care and custody of licensed pit bull terriers for the protection of the citizens of this community.”

Thanks to Dr. Brady Barr, we now know that the bite force of a “pit bull” is weaker than other breeds of dogs and other studies have shown that jaw strength is directly related to the size of the dog’s head, the larger the head, the stronger the jaw.  Section (5) is an amazing example of urban legend in action within the law.

Waterford is utilizing the materials from the UKC to visually make the determination a dog is banned.  The UKC has publicly and repeatedly announced that the use of their standards  and literature to enforce a breed discriminatory law is a violation of their copyright and an abuse of the material.

There is really not much of anything else regarding dangerous dogs in the code of ordinances.  They have 2 classifications of nuisance dogs but none for a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog. Dogs that bark excessively and dogs that “habitually attack other domestic animals” are the same by classification.

Waterford’s current laws are the perfect example of a complete failure to address the issues that cause dangerous dogs in any meaningful fashion, while allowing people to have the feeling they are protected.  The thinness of the law should be extremely concerning to all residents. The responsible pet ownership proposal will cover the gaping holes in the current law and protect all members of the community.

The proposal can be viewed here.

Waterford residents: Please attend the meeting to urge officials to help make the community safer by enacting the proposal and repealing the ban. The information the ban was relying on is outdated and the current law insufficient to affect community safety.  A change is needed and now is that opportunity for change.

AB110 was introduced February 13 and sat waiting for the first committee meeting until April 9th.  It was amended during the second reading and passed the full House on April 15th with a unanimous vote.

When the bill was sent to the Senate committee it hit a road block. According to Laura Handzel of Best Friends Animal Society, the primary opposition centered around 2 issues. The first issue was a general lack of knowledge about breed discriminatory laws and how they impact the community both personally and financially. The second issue was about home rule. Simply put home rule is an amendment in a state constitution that grants cities, municipalities, and counties the ability to pass laws to govern themselves as they see fit. Several legislators expressed concern over telling municipalities what kind of dangerous dog laws they cannot pass. There was a general concern stepping on the rights of cities and towns to self govern. Once explain that the bill would protect citizens from the towns overstepping their rights this issue resolved in a vote that shock advocates involved. Some dissension had been expected but ultimately the bill passed the committee with a unanimous vote.

And now AB110 has passed the full Senate with only one opposing vote.  This strong stand of almost complete agreement by all the Representatives and Senators is a wonderful thing to see. We know intellectually that support for breed discrimination is the small minority, but having such resounding legislative support shows concretely where the majority of people really stand on this issue.

The bill now moves to the Governors desk to be signed into law.

Nevada is the 14th state to enact this kind of protection for it’s citizens.

Congratulations to everyone involved in getting AB110 passed, for all the hard work put in to address the concerns of legislators.

This is by far the strangest inclusion of breeds in a definition of a “pit bull terrier” that I have seen so far. The very fact that the American Pit Bull Terrier is not the first on the definition, but Cane Corso is, is extremely telling about how much the officials understand about the topic.

The ordinance would require owners of targeted dogs to get a special registration, confine the dog according to the law, muzzle. Initially the idea of insurance was brought up but was rejected.

The director of public works has stated that they were “mirroring” other towns ordinances and that the changes are a cross-section of the laws of neighboring towns.

Mayor William Isely is showing some hesitation. He has said that he does not want to be premature in enacting this ordinance and thought that it needs more looking into.

The next work session was supposed to be on May 22 but needed to be cancelled because one of the members could not attend.  There is currently no date for the session, though it should come up soon.

Because they are still in the work session stage, it is extremely import to reach out and offer opposition to this ordinance. Politely ask that they institute a strong breed neutral ordinance instead and reject breed discrimination.  Showing that a breed discriminatory law would open them up legally and would not help the community, and then offering alternatives will go a long way. The Mayor and Council are putting work into this, let’s help them out to avoid the trap BDL creates.

Mayor William Isely: wisley@springvillealabama.org

Councilman Hugh Marlin: hmarlin@springvillealabama.org

Councilman Wayne Tucker: wtucker@springvillealabama.org

Councilwoman Katrina Hennings: khennings@springvillealabama.org

Councilman Chip Martin: cmartin@springvillealabama.org

Councilman David Jones: djones@springvillealabama.org

Councilman Larry Jones: larryjones@springvillealabama.org

The meeting will be held on Monday May 20th.

There is limited information at this time about what positions the council takes and this appears to be a residents request that is being considered. The Council will consider a ban on “pit bulls and other vicious dogs.“

The Great Bend City Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. Monday at the City Office, 1209 Williams, Great Bend, Kansas.

Residents and locals: Please attend the meeting to respectfully and factually support breed neutral laws. Alternatives to breed discrimination can be found here. Tips for contacting legislators can be found here.

If you cannot attend the meeting please write with your opposition to a ban.

The Great Bend staff directory can be found on the cities website.

There are no e-mail addresses available for the individual council members but you may write to the City Administrator City Howard Partington at
hdpart@greatbend.com with a note that the correspondence is for the council.

The change was requested by a resident, Jeanne Bailey, who had moved to town and was denied registration for her dog.  Though she had the dog for years without incident because the law in Darlington focuses on the appearance of the dog and not its behavior, this dog would have been classified as vicious. The dog was considered a pit bull and under the law at the time pit bulls were declared vicious by default.  The old code defined vicious dogs, in part, as:

Boston officials were extremely unhappy with this clause and as a result immediately filed S969 which would create an exemption in the state law prohibiting breed discriminatory laws.  The language of the bill states that a municipality would be able to institute breed discriminatory laws if

“a city or town deems a specific breed to be deemed dangerous through analysis of municipal attack data and by a majority vote of the city council with the approval of the mayor, in the case of a city with a Plan A, Plan B, or Plan F charter; by a majority vote of the city council, in the case of a city with a Plan C, Plan D, or Plan E charter; by a majority vote of the annual town meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose, in the case of a municipality with a town meeting form of government; or by a majority vote of the town council, in the case of a municipality with a town council form of government.”

The bill sets forth no clear rules for what constitutes proof in regards to data collection methods or data analysis.  The bills backers seem to want people to take their word on what they deem to be a “dangerous breed.”

Despite claims from the bills backers that they have data that would allow Boston an exemption under the proposed changes, no such data has ever been provided to any constituents that have made the request to see this data.

Pit Bulletin Legal News drafted a Freedom of Information Act Request, which can be viewed here, in an attempt to access the information that officials were relying on to make the determination that Boston should be allowed to re-institute their breed discriminatory ordinance.

This bill has been set for a hearing date.  The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government is set to hear this bill on June 4th.

Massachusetts residents: Reach out to the members of the committee and your legislators to offer opposition to S969. All members of the committee are listed below. You can find you specific representatives here.

Senator Sal DiDomenico: Phone: 617-722-1650 Email: Sal.DiDomenico@masenate.gov

Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz: Phone: 617-722-1673 Email: Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov

Senator William Brownsberger: Phone: 617-722-1280 Email: William.Brownsberger@masenate.gov

Senator James Timilty: Phone: 617 722-1222 Email: James.Timilty@masenate.gov

Senator Barry Finegold: Phone: 617-722-1612 Email: Barry.Finegold@MASenate.gov

Senator Richard Ross: Phone: 617-722-1555 Email: Richard.Ross@masenate.gov

Rep. Sarah Peake: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Sarah.Peake@mahouse.gov

Rep. Gailanne Cariddi: Phone: 617-722-2450 Email: Gailanne.Cariddi@mahouse.gov

Rep. Thomas Stanley: Phone: 617-722-2230 Email: Thomas.Stanley@mahouse.gov

Rep. Sean Garballey: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Sean.Garballey@mahouse.gov

Rep. Rhonda Nymann: Phone: 617-722-2210 Email: Rhonda.Nyman@MAhouse.gov

Rep. Wayne Matewsky: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Wayne.Matewsky@mahouse.gov

Rep. Kevin Kuros: Phone: 617-722-2460 Email: Kevin.Kuros@mahouse.gov

Rep. Cleon Turner: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Cleon.Turner@mahouse.gov

Rep. Timothy Madden: Phone: 617-722-2810 Email: Timothy.Madden@mahouse.gov

Rep. David Rogers: Phone: 617-722-2400 Email: Dave.Rogers@mahouse.gov

Rep. Peter Durant: Phone: 617-722-2060 Email: Peter.Durant@mahouse.gov

Members of the council cite complaints from their constituents about dogs at large as the reason for the change.  Once again, a municipality has instituted a breed specific ordinance that has failed to increase the overall safety of the community.  Instead of recognizing the ordinances failures and instituting strong breed neutral regulations, they choose instead to continue to waste resources on targeting dogs based on their appearance.

All dogs deemed to be a targeted dog would have to be removed 30 days after the passage of the proposal.  A fine of $250 accompanies the loss of the dog.

All members of the community should be concerned about the current state of animal control. Proper reform will finally begin with officials abandoning the breed discriminatory laws and instituting a strong owner based law that would provide hefty penalties for non-compliance and a more easily enforceable standard.  The community will find much more of the animal control resources available to address problem owners when they stop targeting dogs based on appearance.

Flemingsburg residents and locals: The second reading of the ordinance will be on June 10th.  Reach out, politely, to officials to offer breed neutral alternatives, that would increase public safety and keep animal control funds where they need to be.

Often officials do not know what they are doing in crafting these ordinances. It is up to those of us who are knowledgeable to help point them in the direction of effective laws.

Contact information for the council is spotty.  Some of the Council members have chosen to not provide contact information but others have.

City Clerk Joy Roark: joyroark@altiusbb.com

Council Member Meredith Story: MLSTORY@windstream.ne

Council Member Scott Manning: (606) 845-6301

Council Member Van Alexander: (606) 845-1531

The results of the vote can no doubt be linked to the hard work of representatives from Best Friends Animal Society. Last week on Pit Bulletin Legal News Radio, Laura Handzel discussed some of the issues that had been raised by the committee and how, through respectful and clear communication, the concerns of the legislators were addressed.  Most of the objections revolved around either the issue of home rule or a general misunderstanding of the bill and breed discriminatory laws in general. The efficacy of the approach is reflected in the unanimous vote.  Even those legislators who had the largest opposing voice voted in favor of ending breed discrimination in Nevada.

Nevada residents: The bill is almost there! The full Senate vote should come up soon so please contact your Senators to ask that they support this bill. After the vote it just needs to be signed into law. Reach out and ask your Senators to support this bill.

You can find your respective Senators here.

Or if you are having trouble with wording you can us the contact form Best Friends has set up. Click here for the Best Friends Action alert.

The current law allows mandatory spay/neuter to be passed but bars municipalities from enacting any other laws directed at the breed of the dog. In 2005, the law was amended to allow spay/neuter by SB861, which had initially been a proposal to allow any kind of breed discriminatory laws, but was amended down in committee.

“We’re going to go back to the state legislature and see if we can change that law, allow the local communities to make up their own minds with regards to breeds,” said Tony Bell, spokesman for Antonovich. “Pit bulls are a different breed of animal. They’re capable of incredible damage to humans, to other dogs, to horses.” (read more)

Interestingly, Antonovich himself points out that this has been the only fatal attack attributed to pit bulls ever in Los Angeles County. As it stands the ID of the breeds of dogs involved is spotty at best.  The attacking dogs were ID’ed by a motorist, and the dogs ran into the desert after the attack.  A group of dogs have been confiscate from a local man and will be DNA tested to determine if they were involved in the attack.  These results are expected Friday. The dogs in question have a history of aggressive behavior, the owner has a history of engaging in illegal activities and there is no doubt that the owner was not operating proper control of the dogs. If it comes out that these were, in fact, the attacking dogs, we have a long history of owner failure that the attack can be traced back to.

This does not just affect “pit bulls.”  Should the state law be changed to allow breed bans and restrictions there are many other breeds that are targeted, as well as dogs who are not those breeds but just happen to have some vague resemblance to them.  All dog owners are at risk when breed discrimination is allowed. This would also have sweeping consequences for people who utilize service dogs and members of our military.

California residents: It is extremely important that this never reach the legislature, so reach out now to oppose breed discrimination. Below are links to contact your legislators, as well as Supervisor Antonovich. Please reach out, respectfully, factually and unemotionally to oppose any form of breed discrimination because of its failure to make communities safer.

Los Angeles County residents: Constituents voices always hold more power. Please write Supervisor Antonovich to ask him to reconsider and offer your factual and professional opposition to breed discrimination.

If you are have trouble with what to say, please see our “What is BSL?” tab.

Supervisor Antonovich’s website has an e-mail contact form which can be found here.

You can find your legislators on the states website.

The changes to the law, should they pass, would ban any dog deemed to be a “pit bull” that is not registered in the city. Those that are registered would be subject to a list of requirements. Owners would have to be older than 21, unless the dog is being used as a service dog, dogs must be muzzled in public, spayed or neutered and microchipped and the owner must have a homeowner’s or renter’s liability insurance of at least $100,000.  It is interesting that Councilman Green has thought about the service dog issue but not surprising that he would not understand the breadth of the hardship such regulations would impose on a person with disabilities.

Unlicensed animals would be killed if the owner fails to remove the dog from the city immediately and the owners fined $500.

The dogs would be DNA tested to determine if they fall under the restrictions but there is no clarification at this time as to what breeds are going to be included. Officials say 50% would be considered restricted. Also not specified is what kind of DNA test is acceptable, since saliva is notoriously unreliable and even blood tests do not meet the standards to be admissible in court.

Councilman Green apparently is well aware that this law would be extremely expensive but according to a recent interview he plans on paying for it out of his discretionary fund.  An important question is what happens when the Council either no longer has the funds to pay for it, or is no longer willing to take that money out of the fund?  What happens when that fund is needed for more pressing matters than targeting dogs based on appearance? No doubt they have not thought that far ahead and in the end the tax payers will bear the burden of enforcing a law that Councilman Green wants to be strictly enforced.

Councilman Green acknowledges that the dogs themselves are not the problem. He stated that “The rationale is to control the pet owners, not so much the pets … We’ve got to do something to get their attention.”

What he does not seem to realize, though, is that he is doing exactly the opposite of what he intends. The things that he plans on introducing are targeting the dog, not the owner, and will not help to increase public safety.

Westwego residents and locals: Please reach out to the members of the Westwego City Council and if at all possible attend the meetings to voice opposition to breed discrimination. It is important to remember that the attack that happened was a terrible tragedy. Emotions are bound to run high, but nothing is ever accomplished by reacting emotionally.  Be factual and respectful in all correspondence. Offer strong breed neutral alternatives that would target problem owners instead of dogs. You can find alternatives to breed discrimination here. The Council is not interested in how much people love their dogs, they are interested in real effective ways to help make the community safer. Though the methods they are choosing are not the solution, their hearts are in the right place.

Councilman Glen Green: glenngreen@netzero.com

Councilman Ted Munch: TedMunch@cityofwestwego.com

Councilman Ivy Rogers: ivyrogers@cityofwestwego.com

Councilman Melvin Guidry: melvin.guidry@nov.com

Councilman Larry Warino: LWarino4westwego@aol.com