How to check dog breed bans

• Facebook
• Twitter
• WhatsApp
• SMS
• Email

The Capitol Building is seen Monday, Jan. 8, 2018 in Olympia.

Jared Wenzelburger / [email protected]

• Facebook
• Twitter
• WhatsApp
• SMS
• Email
• Print
• Save

As of Jan. 1, cities and towns in Washington that ban entire breeds of dogs or define them as potentially dangerous must create a “reasonable” process for exempting a well-behaved pooch.

That includes towns in Grant County, like Soap Lake and Quincy, which currently define certain breeds as “potentially dangerous.” Similar bans tend to focus on dogs believed for whatever reason to be more prone to aggressive behaviors, such as pit bulls and Rottweilers, and can range from onerous restrictions on ownership within city limits to an outright ban.

With the start of the new year, owners will be able to avoid such restrictions if their dog can pass the American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizen test or “a reasonably equivalent” behavior test, proving the dog is, in fact, a good boy or girl.

Though the new law will make ownership easier for those with restricted breeds, the underlying breed bans themselves should end, said Kelsie Einspahr, shelter manager with Grant County Animal Outreach. Einspahr called the bans ineffective, confusing and damaging to the animals involved.

“It keeps people from socializing their pits, and it increases public stigma that’s already not based in fact,” Einspahr said.

Moses Lake had adopted a similar ban breed several years ago, Einspahr said, but quickly removed the language from municipal code due to confusion, lack of enforcement and ineffectiveness.

It’s not just volunteers at the local shelter who think that breed bans are a bad idea. Quincy Police Chief Kieth Siebert, who owns a bull terrier mix named Brutus, said that the city has been looking to remove its breed ban.

Quincy’s municipal code currently defines a “potentially dangerous” dog not by the animal’s individual behavior, but as a “pit bull terrier, an American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier or American Staffordshire bull terrier” or any dog mixed with those breeds. While Soap Lake has additional restrictions based on behavior, a dog can similarly be considered potentially dangerous based solely on its breed.

Those “potentially dangerous” dogs can be confiscated and euthanized if owners don’t meet certain criteria, including registering the dog, maintaining liability insurance and keeping the dog in an enclosure of a certain size.

Breed bans are unfair and raise the risk of a challenge in court, Siebert said.

“Part of the problem is that it’s hard to single out a breed as a dangerous dog,” Siebert said. “That’s not right. It should be on an individual basis.”

Similar ordinances have been challenged in different states and other jurisdictions, Siebert added, and though some municipalities have won those cases, others haven’t. Siebert said Quincy should not put itself at risk of legal liability to defend an unfair law, and is instead moving towards defining dangerous animals by their behavior.

As for Brutus, Siebert said with a chuckle that the dog, adopted from the pound, was not dangerous. Nor were most other pit bulls he had run across in his career, he added — the only dog ever to have bitten him was a Pomeranian.

Is Banning Dog Breeds a Form of Legalized Discrimination?

Yes, but perhaps not in a civil rights sense. But there is legal discrimination when it comes to the dogs you can own. And it is practiced among many U.S. cities and counties. Unfortunately, many locales decide to censor certain dog breeds. In some cases, the cities even outright ban the types of dogs.

So the top dogs on top of the anti-dog list are dogs generally considered more aggressive. However, often the breed is not the issue but the owner. Poor training and treatment are more likely to cause injuries than the dog’s lineage, or birth parents.

Banning Dogs – A Widespread Phenomenon?

Perhaps. The New York Daily News reported that the shame of banning certain breeds of dogs continued into New York City politics. The city’s housing authority banned Pit bulls, Dobermans, and Rottweilers from public housing. Further research shows that dog bans are common nationwide.

Certain states are more likely to ban different breeds, especially at the local level. Statistics show that it is very common among many states, especially in the South and Midwest. Kentucky has 31 cities with breed bans, including 11 cities that ban put bulls. In Louisiana, six cities do the same.

In Michigan, many types of dogs are potentially banned, including the Akita, Alaskan malamute, pit bull terrier, and more.

Overall in that state, 36 cities ban or restrict dog breed types. The same goes for 40 cities in Arkansas. 46 cities do the same in Mississippi, including two cities that ban Shar-Peis. Wisconsin bans types of dogs in 62 cities, including one that bans wolf hybrids.

An amazing 89 cities do the same in Missouri, including the city of Pilot Grove, which bans six breeds. In Ohio, this is the case in 90 cities, including 55 that restrict pit bulls. Kansas does the same with 90 cites, including 77 with outright bans on breeds, especially pit bulls. Leading the nation in banning breeds is Iowa, with 91 cities with restrictions.

The City of Fairfield bans not only pit bulls, but also German shepherds, Rottweilers, and any dog weighing over 100 pounds.

These dog bans are likely unconstitutional and place an undue burden on both the dog and the dog owner. If you or your family faced discrimination due to your dog breed– especially if it was not involved in an attack, contact the Ehline Law Firm Personal Injury Attorneys, APLC today to discuss your legal options. Call us for a free consultation 24/7.

Why are some dog breeds perceived as “man’s best friend” and others as man’s worst enemy? Is the breed of the dog the sole factor in determining which dogs will behave aggressively and which ones will not? According to an American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) article, “A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention,” there are a number of factors that determine how a dog will behave: “…a dog’s tendency to bite depends on at least five interacting factors: heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), and victim behavior.” Only one of the five factors relates to the genetics of the dog. The rest are factors under the control of the dog owner. This is precisely why community breed bans are based more on fear, and less on fact.

Causes of Canine Aggression

• Lack of socialization and obedience training
• History of abuse/neglect
• Reinforcement of aggressive behavior (dogs taught to act aggressively as “guard dogs”)
• Failure of owner to spay/neuter

Dog Breeds Commonly Affected by Breed Bans

• American Pit Bull
• American Staffordshire Terrier
• Rottweiler
• Chow-Chow
• Doberman Pincer
• German Shepherd
• Dog de Bordeaux

Why Breed Bans Do Not Prevent Dog Bites

• Dangerous dogs come in all sizes, shapes, and pure and mixed breeds.
• Breed bans leave the community with a false sense of security.
• Breed bans do not penalize irresponsible owners, only owners of certain dog breeds.
• Breed bans fail to require responsible pet ownership practices.
• Dogs of every breed can bite, just as dogs of every breed can live harmoniously with people.

Take Action Against Breed Bans

• Support early spay/neuter programs through your local shelter.
• Gently encourage owners of dogs who are not spayed/neutered and those who live outside all the time to consider alternative, humane ways to care for their dog.
• Suggest canine educational programs through adult education classes, local animal shelters, schools, or other venues.
• Oppose legislation and local ordinances that ban dogs based on breed.

Does your dog have almond shaped eyes? A heavy and muscular neck? A tail medium in length that tapers to a point? A smooth and short coat? A broad chest? If you said yes to these questions, then congratulations, you own a “pit bull” …At least according to the City and County of San Francisco’s Department of Animal Care and Control.

The American Kennel Club takes exception to this generalization. In fact, AKC does not recognize the “pit bull” as a specific breed. However, across the country, ownership of dogs that match these vague physical characteristics are being banned – regardless of their parentage. The City of Kearney, Missouri, for example, only requires a dog to meet five of the eight characteristics on their checklist before they are banned from the city. Would your pug with its broad chest and short coat be in danger of getting banned under these requirements?

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) affects everyone.

According to the organization Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States, there are currently 75 banned or restricted breeds in the United States. Worldwide, the breeds of dogs banned or restricted is also surprising. In Ukraine there are 80 breeds banned and restricted, including one of America’s most popular dogs, the Labrador Retriever. In Bermuda, you will need to take extra precautions if you plan to walk your Australian Cattle Dog or Bouvier des Flanders in public. And in Ireland, you must be 16 years of age and have your dog muzzled if you plan on taking your Rhodesian Ridgeback off your property.

BSL is a slippery slope that can affect any breed of dog. Introduction of BSL is most common after a tragic attack or bite incident. While proponents have good intentions in trying to protect their communities from dangerous dogs, breed-specific bans ultimately punish responsible dog owners, while doing very little to actually punish irresponsible owners. A study published by the Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances found that owner behavior has a direct impact on dog aggression and personality (“Factors Links to Dominance Aggression in Dogs.” Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. 8(2): 336-342, 2009). The study of approximately 50 purebred breeds concluded that the time an owner spends caring for and training a dog is inversely correlated to the level of aggressive behavior the dog exhibits. Other studies, including one from the United States Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), support the premise that any dog can be exploited and trained to be aggressive, and when specific breeds are regulated, offenders will switch to unregulated breeds to exploit. Additionally, in 2003, Italy had a list of 92 banned and restricted breeds, a list that included the Bearded Collie and Corgi, until policymakers came to the realization that it is more effective to hold the owner than the breed responsible for the actions of a specific dog.

Many experts have also observed that public perceptions of which breeds are most dangerous have changed throughout the decades. In the 1970s, Doberman Pinschers were singled out. In the 80s, German Shepherds targeted. In the 90s it shifted to Rottweilers, and today it’s pit bulls. This begs the question, will your breed be next? Or can we finally put the responsibility for dangerous dogs where it really belongs—on irresponsible owners regardless of breed.

Although there have been many studies on the effectiveness of BSL, there is no evidence to support the notion that some breeds of dogs are more inherently dangerous than others or that banning ownership of certain breeds lowers the bite rate. In fact, the American Kennel Club, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the American Bar Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, and a host of other respected national organizations oppose BSL and recognize the inequities and inherent fallacies of such laws.

Why Does BSL fail?

First and foremost, it is difficult to enforce. Many Animal Control agencies use a very vague list of breed characteristics to determine whether a dog is considered a certain breed. The time spent on breed identification takes time away from important tasks that could impact the community for the better. It is also very difficult for public officials to enforce such provisions in a fair and effective manner.

Second, BSL is extremely costly to the community. According to the Best Friends Animal Society, Prince George’s County, Maryland spends more than $250,000 annually to enforce their pit bull ban. This money could be used more efficiently by addressing the root cause of the problem- irresponsible dog ownership. When BSL is implemented in a community, the shelter costs for that community increase when residents are forced to abandon household pets of the targeted breeds at shelters. Because adoptable dogs of the targeted breed cannot be adopted out, they are generally euthanized at the shelter at public expense.

Third, BSL provides a false sense of security. The time and money spent enforcing BSL means less time and money is spent on enforcing better alternatives to keeping a community safe. Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), generic guidelines on dealing with dangerous dogs of any breed, and increased public education efforts to promote responsible dog ownership are all better ways to protect communities from dangerous animals. Uniformly enforced animal control laws will force all owners, regardless of the breed of dog they own, to be responsible animal owners while also preventing irresponsible owners from simply turning to a different breed.

In the United States, more than 700 cities have enacted BSL, affecting thousands of dogs across the country, in addition to the many breeds affected worldwide. Enforcing laws that punish “the deed, not the breed” ensures that communities stay safe and individuals can enjoy their choice of breed and the best pet for their lifestyle.

For more information and talking points on this issue, visit the Breed-Specific Legislation Key Issues page in the AKC Government Relations Legislative Action Center.

Dog attacks can be a real and serious problem in communities across the country, but addressing dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs can be a confusing and touchy issue. Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is the blanket term for laws that either regulate or ban certain dog breeds in an effort to decrease dog attacks on humans and other animals. However, the problem of dangerous dogs will not be remedied by the “quick fix” of breed-specific laws—or, as they should truly be called, breed-discriminatory laws.

Who Is Impacted by Breed-Specific Laws?

Regulated breeds typically comprise the “pit bull” class of dogs, including American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and English Bull Terriers. In some areas, regulated breeds also include a variety of other dogs like American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers or any mix of these breeds—and dogs who simply resemble these breeds.

Many states, including New York, Texas and Illinois, favor laws that identify, track and regulate dangerous dogs individually—regardless of breed—and prohibit BSL. However, more than 700 U.S. cities have enacted breed-specific laws.

Are Breed-Specific Laws Effective?

There is no evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer for people or companion animals. Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided to strongly oppose BSL. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). Breed-specific laws are also costly and difficult to enforce.

What Are the Consequences of Breed-Specific Laws?

BSL carries a host of negative and wholly unintended consequences:

Dogs Suffer. Rather than give up beloved pets, owners of highly regulated or banned breeds often attempt to avoid detection by restricting their dogs’ outdoor exercise and socialization—forgoing licensing, microchipping and proper veterinary care, and avoiding spay/neuter surgery and essential vaccinations. Such actions can have a negative impact on both the mental and physical health of these dogs.

In addition, breed-specific laws can create a climate where it is nearly impossible for residents to adopt and live with such a breed—virtually ensuring destruction of otherwise adoptable dogs by shelters and humane societies.

Owners Suffer. Responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breed are required to comply with local breed bans and regulations. This can lead to housing issues, legal fees or even relinquishment of the animal.

Public Safety Suffers. Breed-specific laws have a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. When animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed, the focus is shifted away from effective enforcement of laws that have the best chances of making communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, anti-animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating spaying and neutering and laws that require all owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed. Additionally, guardians of banned breeds may be deterred from seeking routine veterinary care, which can lead to outbreaks of rabies and other diseases that endanger communities.

Breed-specific laws may also have the unintended consequence of encouraging irresponsible dog ownership. As certain breeds are regulated, individuals who exploit aggression in dogs are likely to turn to other, unregulated breeds. Conversely “outlaws” may be attracted to the “outlaw” status of certain breeds. The rise of pit bull ownership among gang members in the late 1980s coincided with the first round of breed-specific legislation.

What Are the Alternatives to Breed-Specific Laws?

There is no convincing data to indicate that breed-specific legislation has succeeded anywhere to date.

The CDC has noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. Conversely, studies can be referenced that point to clear, positive effects of carefully crafted breed-neutral laws. A breed-neutral approach may include the following:

Enhanced enforcement of dog license laws

Increased availability to low-cost sterilization (spay/neuter) services

Dangerous dog laws that are breed-neutral and focus on the behavior of the individual guardian and dog

Graduated penalties and options for dogs deemed dangerous

Laws that hold dog guardians financially accountable for failure to adhere to animal control laws

Laws that hold dog guardians civilly and criminally liable for unjustified injuries or damage caused by their dogs

Laws that prohibit chaining, tethering and unreasonable confinement, coupled with enhanced enforcement of animal cruelty and animal fighting laws

Community-based approaches to resolving reckless guardian/dangerous dog questions that encompass all stakeholders, available dog bite data and recommended realistic and enforceable policies

Currently, 27 cities across the state of Washington have breed-specific bans in place, most commonly restricting residents from owning Pit Bulls. Under a newly signed law, those breed restrictive bans will end.

Under current law, cities in Washington state are allowed to prohibit residents from keeping certain breeds of dogs within the city limits. The usual targets of such laws are, of course, large and/or “fierce-looking” breeds such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, and German shepherds. But in actuality, a city has the power to ban any breed: poodles, Chihuahuas, beagles, even golden retrievers. If you have a member of the forbidden breed, your choice is to get rid of your pet, or move out of the city.

Those days are ending. Tuesday afternoon, Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law legislation sponsored by Rep. Sherry Appleton (D-23 rd , Poulsbo) that effectively ends such sweeping and, in her opinion, ill-informed prohibitions.

Under Appleton’s House Bill 1026, cities may not prohibit ownership of specific breeds of dog unless the city meets a number of conditions. Among them:

• There must be a process for exempting individual dogs who pass the AKC Canine Good Citizen test or its equivalent.
• Dogs who pass the good-behavior test are exempt from breed-based regulations for at least two years, and may retest to continue the exemption.
• Dogs who initially fail the good-behavior test can retest within a reasonable period of time.

“Washington is the latest state to get rid of this exclusionary and ill-considered prohibition,” Appleton said, “and I’m honored to have helped. I also want to applaud the cities in our state that have previously banned breeds but recently repealed those laws. We have effective dangerous-dog laws throughout Washington, and they work. We can now simply enforce those laws as intended, and stop persecuting people based on what breed of dog they’ve chosen to love and have in their family.”

Appleton, who was named 2018 Legislator of the Year by the Washington Humane Society, said the new law will affect some two dozen Washington cities and towns that currently have breed-bans on their books. HB 1026 will take effect on January 1, 2020.

Social Sharing

Alberta regulations centre on behaviour rather than breed

The mauling death of a Quebec woman in June has reignited the debate over pit bull ownership with two of the province’s largest cities considering banning the breed — but some Alberta communities take a different approach that’s drawn attention from as far away as Australia.

In the wake of the tragedy, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre announced he hopes to have a ban on new pit bulls in place by the fall — existing dogs will be allowed under certain conditions — while Quebec City Mayor R é gis Labeaume posted a video to Facebook declaring pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers and similar breeds will be banned outright beginning Jan. 1, 2017.

The announcements have fuelled online outrage and debate, so much so that police in Quebec City said they were concerned for Labeaume’s safety. The mayor later backtracked on his initial comments, saying he now wants to start a debate on pit bull ownership in the city.

Pit bulls are banned in all of Ontario as well as Winnipeg, and a handful of towns and cities in Saskatchewan and B.C.

But in Alberta, several municipalities have crafted language around vicious dog behaviour — chasing, attacking, biting or injuring a person or animal — rather than specific breeds.

“We encourage education, training, socialization,” said Doug Frizzell, superintendent with community standards for the city of Calgary.

“Any dog can and will bite so we found that it’s best to really focus on the education end of it and really have people understand what type of dog they’re getting and why they’re getting it. The majority of it goes down to knowing your dog and making sure your dog is under control at all times no matter what the breed is.”

The situation is a similar one in Brooks.

“Personally I think it’s down to the owner of the animal,” said peace officer Logan Grant.

“I’ve interacted with many pit bulls, German shepherds and rottweilers that are just as tame as any other animal. I’ve also dealt with shih tzus and Pomeranian that are just as vicious as any pit bull could ever be.”

Grande Prairie is the only municipality in Alberta with breed-specific language in its animal bylaw, where pit bulls, American pit bulls and Staffordshire terriers are considered restricted.

Any dog that bites or attacks a person or animal is also deemed vicious under the Grande Prairie bylaw, meaning owners must take added steps to own either, including:

• Paying an annual $100 licencing fee.
• Having $1 million in liability insurance.
• Muzzling the dog while out in public.
• Keeping it either indoors or in an enclosed pen when on their property.
• Ensuring the animal isn’t in the care or control of anyone under 16.

Edmonton rules eased

Pit bulls were restricted in Edmonton until 2012, when rules were changed to apply to any dog, which is considered vicious if it chases or attacks a person or animal or bites and causes an injury.

Owners there of any dog that has been deemed vicious also have to pay an annual $250 licencing fee and the dog has to be muzzled while in public and be kept indoors or an enclosed pen on their property. Vicious dogs can be on a chain while outside, but have to be muzzled and can’t go within two metres of the property line.

Similar rules are in place in Brooks, which has the added provision of requiring a sign warning that a vicious dog lives on a property.

There have been a “handful” of bites in Brooks over the last two years, said Grant, none requiring an animal to be put down.

“Typically the dog biting incidents we have are with smaller breeds,” he said.

Bites up in Calgary, but reporting has changed

According to numbers released by officials in Calgary, there were 243 bites reported in 2015, nearly the same as 2014 when there were 244. That’s a jump from 2013 when there were 198.

“There’s two things that’s going on, we’re really encouraging more people to report, so through 311 we made it easier,” said Frizzell on the increase.

“As well we’re now looking at and including in-house bites, so dogs that have injured people within their own home, so owners. Before those stats weren’t calculated.”

Herding dogs — such as shelties, Australian shepherds and collies — were responsible for the most bites in Calgary in 2015, being involved in 25 per cent of incidents.

They were followed by terriers — which includes American Staffordshires and Jack Russells — at 23 per cent. Sporting dogs — such as retrievers, pointers and spaniels — were third at 18 per cent.

Here is an interactive graph of Calgary’s dog-bite incidents over the past four years. Run your mouse over the graph or, on mobile, tap it to find more information:

The city defines “sporting” dogs as including pointer, retriever, setter, and spaniel breeds. “Non-sporting” dogs include bulldogs, poodles, shih tzus, chow chows, and dalmatians.

“Toy” dogs include chihuahuas, pomeranian, Pekingese and pugs. And “hounds” include greyhound, bloodhounds, daschunds, basset hounds, and Rhodesian ridgebacks.

Alberta model

The Alberta model one being looked at by other centres around North America.

“Right across Canada and into the States, we’ll have phone calls and the odd time, people will come up to see what we’re doing here and just see what the Calgary model is all about,” he said.

“Last year we spoke to the Australian government: they’re looking at putting in some breed-specific legislation.”

Last week I was called to the Massachusetts State House to testify about “dangerous dogs.” I agreed to go because it was just an information gathering session and anyway, Representative Vincent Pedone, who invited me sounded like a reasonable guy on the phone.

When asked about breed bans I lead off with the statement that the breed bans were odious. I guess I should have used the word hateful because a lot of people misunderstood and sent me hate email (“How could a person in your position …”etc).

One of the least eloquent dissenters was a pitbull owner who called me and in a pronounced Irish brogue proceeded to tell me I was completely mistaken about the history of the pitbull breed, which I had been asked to recount. He informed me they had been nothing to do with pits or bulls and were, in fact herding dogs that had been used to hunt deer. His own fine specimen, he informed me, had reverted to its roots and chased a deer one day.

Next he lectured me about the history of the Thoroughbred horse and was moving on to other subjects despite the fact that I told him I was at work and needed to “see a man about a dog.” Unperturbed he continued on and on until I insisted, at which point he became quite rude. “You had three hours to spend testifying …” he said. But before he got onto the next topic I was forced to hang up on him, a thing I almost never do to anyone.

What was reinforced for me though this experience was how emotionally charged the breed ban issue is and how careful one has to be in choosing words when talking about the subject. Some people listening to the testimony heard what they feared I might be going to say and not what I actually said. Fear not, fearful ones, the breeds are here to stay. It’s irresponsible owners who should be concerned.

I know some dog breeds are banned in certian states. What breeds are banned and in which state?

11 Answers

I don’t know if there are any states where an entire breed is banned through out the state. Often its up to individual cities or counties. I volunteer at a shelter and they have a whole list of surrounding cities and counties that have certain breed bans.

Quite simply, banning doesn’t work. All that happens is that the law-abiding citizens (who typically don’t have the problem dogs to begin with) are hurt and those with “dangerous” breeds label their dogs as something else and the problem continues, it’s just a different breed or mix being listed. Also, when you target specific breeds you tend to let other dangerous dogs slide – like Labs, or small breed dogs, because they aren’t banned so they aren’t “mean”. Not true, but that is the message that is sent. Yes, some legislation needs to occur. But it should be DOG specific, not breed specific. And it should actually be *enforced* instead of just on the books. That alone would solve some problems. And I don’t know about you, but I sure as h3ll wouldn’t want my breed of choice next up on the chopping block. You may say Aussies and Collies wouldn’t be targeted, but herding breeds have been before. And, just like APBTs, in the hands of the ignorant and bred by the ignorant, they could be considered a problem. ADD: But most BSL laws don’t simply require muzzles and good fences – no one would care if that were the case – most confiscate the dog and euthanize any that come into the pounds. I’m not saying the breed doesn’t need fixing – it absolutely DOES, as Greekman said, but simply talking about the LAWS, they won’t work. There will always be dogs at large, owned and bred by the irresponsible for bad deeds. Be they APBTs or some other breed. These are the people who won’t abide by any law, and these are the people who will simply lie or move on should their breed be taken from them. The law as is will do very little. Especially in America, were many live by the mantra “I’m gonna do what I damn well please”.

I am not sure and i think it is sad. I think certain people should be banned not the dogs. It is not the dogs training each other to go kill other dogs for sport it is people training them. So why can’t we ban the people doing this. I know plenty of eople with pits that are nice family pets that are friendly and well mannered. It takes monsters to make monsters.

Typically, it’s not 100% state wide. Breed bans are local, usually town-specific.

Table of content

What type of dog do you have?

Dogs come in all shapes and sizes- not to mention their personalities. We tend to make assumptions based on a dog’s look and behavior as to what breed it could originate from. Whether adopted from a dog sanctuary, the streets, or a friend, the origins of mixed breed dogs have remained a mystery. Have you ever wondered where your puppy gets its large paws? Perhaps one of the parents is Great Dane or a Labrador, but who knows it could be a Mastiff. Every owner of a mixed breed dog surely is intrigued and baffled by the question many strangers ask when stopping them to pat their dog “What breed is it?”

Seven main dog types

Generally speaking, there are seven basic dog types, which are: companion dogs, hybrid dogs, terrier dogs, toy dogs, herding dogs, sporting dogs, and non-sporting dogs, hound dogs and working dogs. Many other types and sub-types do exist although most dogs tend to fit into the top 7 categories.

But in which category or categories does your Dog fit into?

For all of you who ever wondered where your mixed breed dog comes from, the answer may only be in the genes. With the recent advent of dog DNA testing, it seems that it is now possible to determine your canine’s background.

What does your canine have to go through to get the DNA test?

Getting to know the mix of breeds inside your dog is now possible with dog breed verification testing. All that is required is a mouth swab sample of the dog in question to establish from where the breed of the dog has inherited the DNA.

The DNA samples are compared against the DNA of main breeds of dogs to assess the strength of the DNA match. Laboratories offering this test usually have access to vast databases which contain the DNA profiles of the most popular dog breeds.

Choosing a company that has a reputable name for performing dog DNA testing would be the right choice as the more breeds a company has in their database, the more accurate your results. The quality of the tests is not standardized, and not all companies offer tests that are equally accurate; therefore it is recommended you pick where to send your canine’s information for analysis.

Results of the testing, typically involve a breakdown of the critical breeds detected and their historical background, appearance, and behavior. Usually, the dog breeds that forms the most significant part of your dog’s DNA will is indicated as the primary breeds- your dog will also carry the most obvious physical and behavioral traits from the breeds which form the most significant part of its DNA. Those breeds which form a smaller portion of their DNA would be the secondary breeds, and then those dog breeds which constitute the most insignificant or most unimportant part of your mongrel’s DNA will be indicated as a tertiary breed. The tiers are not standard across DNA tests so some companies might offer more tiers whilst others might provide less.

The dog DNA test results then delve into the inheritance of genes and if detected, also the mixed breed signatures.

To get tested or not to get tested?

Like with anything else in life there are the pros and cons, here is a list of some doggy DNA testing topics one may want to question:

Curiosity: If you are curious about your dog’s background then why not go ahead and get your dog tested – confirm your guesses by using DNA testing.

Health reasons: By getting to know what type of breed or breeds your dog is, may allow you a better understanding of health risk associated with certain breeds of dog. You may want to ask your veterinarian for more information about dog health.

Legalities: There have been cases of dogs being put down for being deemed as having ‘Pit Bull’ in their blood. These dogs are reputed to be a dangerous breed, to the point that some jurisdictions mostly in the US and Canada have put into place legislation which is breed specific. Outlawing the breeding and possession of pit bulls – the authorities have even told some dog owners that they are unable to keep their dog as it appears to be a Pit Bull. To determine whether a dog has Pit Bull genes in their family tree, one may want to opt for a dog DNA test. An interesting article appeared in Time Magazine regarding Pit Bulls and the controversy surrounding this breed.

Accuracy: A dog DNA test can test for the above breeds. However, if your mixed breed pooch comes from a background of several breeds then it will be difficult to determine the exact nature of the predominant breeds. This basically will almost leave you speculating about your pooch as much as before. Therefore the more pure breed dogs there are in your dog’s ancestry, then the higher the accuracy.

Conclusion

DNA testing for dogs is still in its early days but seems to be the most advanced technology around to date for dog breed identification. Mixed breed dogs can be complex or simple, yet one of the ways to get to know your dog a little better is through purely performing a dog DNA test.

Across the country, entire communities ban or restrict dogs because of their breed or perceived breed. The HSUS opposes such public policies as inhumane and ineffective. There is no evidence that breed-specific laws reduce dog bites or attacks on people and they divert resources from more effective animal control and public safety initiatives.

Breed-based policies are based on myths and misinformation, rather than science or credible data. Their impact on dogs, families and animal shelters, however, is heartbreakingly real.

Learn the truth about breed bans and help your community become a place where dogs aren’t judged by their looks, but by their behavior.

Bad laws have high costs

Breed bans and restrictions force dogs out of homes and into shelters, taking up kennel space and resources that could be used for animals who are truly homeless. Underfunded animal control agencies bear the burden of enforcing the laws and are often called on to decide, based on looks alone, whether a dog belongs to a certain breed. Battles erupt between dog owners and local agencies—and often continue to the courts—costing the community resources that could have been spent on effective, breed-neutral dog laws and enforcement.

Some banned breeds, like German shepherds and pit bull-types, are among the most popular dogs in the U.S., reflecting just how out of touch these policies are. Many animal shelters are flooded with dogs who, because of breed bans, can’t be adopted to the people in their communities. Shelters in neighboring cities and counties often end up taking in the dogs.

Complicating the issue of breed bans and restrictions is the fact that about half the estimated 80 million American pet dogs are mixed breeds. Through canine genetic testing, studies have found that even people in animal-related professions can’t accurately identify the breeds in a mixed-breed dog’s genealogy. Tragically, breed-biased laws have caused the deaths of countless dogs whose only crime was to resemble a certain breed.

Wondering if Breed Specific Legislation (also known as the “pit bull ban”) exists in your area?

Breed bans don’t make sense

Experts have found that no breed is more likely to bite than another. The AVMA, the National Animal Control Association and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention oppose breed-specific legislation (BSL), along with leading animal welfare organizations.

Fortunately, more people and their elected officials are learning why breed bans don’t make sense, and BSL is on the decline. In recent years, 21 states have passed laws prohibiting BSL on the local level and over 100 municipalities have replaced BSL with breed-neutral policies. Repealing BSL has not resulted in more dog bites in these communities. In fact, after Ohio repealed its statewide breed-based law, State Farm Insurance reported a decrease in dog-related claims in the state.

The Repealing Breed-Specific Legislation toolkit was developed to help increase dialogue among advocates and address harmful breed-based laws. It provides comprehensive information, giving you the confidence to challenge BSL in your community, making it a safer place for both dogs and people. You can download it for free!

Over 900 U.S. cities have enacted breed-specific legislation or wolf-dog hybrid laws. Learn about these laws in your state and if a state preemption law prevents these public safety ordinances.

Municipalities with BSL

States with constitutionally upheld BSL

Appellate courts in fourteen states and the District of Columbia have upheld the constitutionality of breed-specific legislation. Learn more in the section: Constitutionality of Breed-Specific Laws.

International BSL

Many foreign countries have enacted breed-specific legislation as well, including: Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Ireland, Australia, and more. Please see a full list of these countries.

Find a Dog
Bite Lawyer

In the Attorney
Directory at
DogsBite.org

DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims’ group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks. Through our work, we hope to protect both people and pets from future attacks. | Make a donation today »

Page last modified: February 12, 2020 | Sitemap

A Michigan bill to prohibit local governments from dictating breed specific legislations has taken another step towards becoming a law with a 22-13 vote from the Senate chamber.

Supporters of Senate Bill 239 say breed restrictions violate the property rights of dog owners, and banning specific breeds has not proven effective in preventing dog bites.

At least 27 local governments throughout the state of Michigan currently have breed-specific laws, most of them aimed at Pit Bulls and Pit Bull-type dogs. Some statutes ban the “breed” outright while others require owners to neuter their dogs, muzzle them in public, carry additional liability insurance and/or build “secure fencing” around their property.

Despite these efforts, a 2014 report published by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) found little evidence that any breed of dog should be considered more dangerous than another. The study cited other factors such as behavior, number of dogs, and owner behavior or training as better predictors for aggression.

“These are dogs that not very good owners would get because they thought they were macho,” Dr. Emily Patterson-Kane, an animal welfare scientist at the AVMA said. “That’s part of what tells you it’s human behavior that’s weaponizing dogs. It isn’t that the dog is innately a hazard.”

Supporters of the bill also argue that breed-specific laws are difficult to implement and expensive to enforce, a waste of valuable resources. Additionally, most people cannot correctly identify breed on sight alone, resulting in dogs being inappropriately targeted, torn away from caring owners, or even euthanized.

The bill will now head to the House for consideration. Should it pass, Michigan will join at least 20 other states that already prohibit breed-specific legislation.

Read the backround, details and opposing arguments for Senate Bill 239 here.

This is a public service announcement and it’s long. The world is losing its mind, kids. Let us discuss breed bans and house-buying, both of which I am qualified to opine on. It is now a thing to write in to the bylaws/master deed of subdivisions restrictions on what kinds of dogs you can own and how many. We can leave for another date the relative wisdom of limiting the numbers you can have or the size you can have, but the breed ban list is out of control.

This puppy (Cody, and sorry – he’s adopted) would be banned in several new subdivisions because he’s been labeled a dangerous breed. Cody is not dangerous to anything other than your shoes, but the developer decided huskies are dangerous and ergo, no huskies. That means if you move into a neighborhood with breed restrictions written into the master deed and/or recorded documents, it can be enforced and they can make you give up your pet. This is the trickle down from the lunacy of breed ban laws passed by many jurisdictions. Here’s the list I have seen of dangerous breeds listed in subdivision regulations:

Saint Bernards
Huskies
American Bulldogs
Pit Bull Terriers
Great Danes
Dalmations
Doberman Pinschers
Rottweilers
All the mastiff breeds
Great Pyrenees
Swiss Mountain Dogs
Bernese Mountain Dogs

And the list goes on. Everyone on the planet has heard the (ludicrous) claim that pit bulls are dangerous, but berners? What this tells me is that someone had a bad experience with a dog and threw it on the list, labeling one dog as representative of all which is how all stupid rules and laws get started. Then they throw statistics at you to support their claim, but statistics are widely misused and manipulated and it pays to think for yourself.

Any dog, especially a large dog, is capable of inflicting damage. Dogs bite for a variety of complex reasons, and breed alone is not one of them. Dangerous dogs do not belong in homes and neighborhoods, but the determination of how a dog gets deemed “dangerous” is unfortunately not always based on reason and logic.

So, kids, step up and say something when breed bans get mentioned. The next breed they come for may well be yours and it won’t be based on science or logic.

And now the free lawyer advice: don’t ever buy a house without 1) finding out if are there any local rules or ordinances prohibiting specific dog breeds or limiting numbers; 2) reading every last page of the master deed (sometimes collectively called codes, covenants and restrictions or CCRs); and 3) reading the bylaws and rules and regulations. It never hurts to get a copy of the subdivision plat and reading it, too. Hire a construction/real estate or land use lawyer to read all of this for you if you can’t figure it out. It may be the best couple of hundred bucks you ever spend when it comes to peace of mind on what you’re buying for your family and four-legged friends (and also tells you a boat load of other things like sinkholes, injection wells (scary), easements and so on). Read before you ink.

I know some dog breeds are banned in certian states. What breeds are banned and in which state?

11 Answers

I don’t know if there are any states where an entire breed is banned through out the state. Often its up to individual cities or counties. I volunteer at a shelter and they have a whole list of surrounding cities and counties that have certain breed bans.

Quite simply, banning doesn’t work. All that happens is that the law-abiding citizens (who typically don’t have the problem dogs to begin with) are hurt and those with “dangerous” breeds label their dogs as something else and the problem continues, it’s just a different breed or mix being listed. Also, when you target specific breeds you tend to let other dangerous dogs slide – like Labs, or small breed dogs, because they aren’t banned so they aren’t “mean”. Not true, but that is the message that is sent. Yes, some legislation needs to occur. But it should be DOG specific, not breed specific. And it should actually be *enforced* instead of just on the books. That alone would solve some problems. And I don’t know about you, but I sure as h3ll wouldn’t want my breed of choice next up on the chopping block. You may say Aussies and Collies wouldn’t be targeted, but herding breeds have been before. And, just like APBTs, in the hands of the ignorant and bred by the ignorant, they could be considered a problem. ADD: But most BSL laws don’t simply require muzzles and good fences – no one would care if that were the case – most confiscate the dog and euthanize any that come into the pounds. I’m not saying the breed doesn’t need fixing – it absolutely DOES, as Greekman said, but simply talking about the LAWS, they won’t work. There will always be dogs at large, owned and bred by the irresponsible for bad deeds. Be they APBTs or some other breed. These are the people who won’t abide by any law, and these are the people who will simply lie or move on should their breed be taken from them. The law as is will do very little. Especially in America, were many live by the mantra “I’m gonna do what I damn well please”.

I am not sure and i think it is sad. I think certain people should be banned not the dogs. It is not the dogs training each other to go kill other dogs for sport it is people training them. So why can’t we ban the people doing this. I know plenty of eople with pits that are nice family pets that are friendly and well mannered. It takes monsters to make monsters.

Typically, it’s not 100% state wide. Breed bans are local, usually town-specific.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• WhatsApp
• SMS
• Email

MOSES LAKE, Wash. — As of today, cities and towns in Washington that ban entire breeds of dogs or define them as potentially dangerous must create a “reasonable” process for exempting a well-behaved pooch.

That includes towns in Grant County, like Soap Lake and Quincy, which currently define certain breeds as “potentially dangerous.” Similar bans tend to focus on dogs believed for whatever reason to be more prone to aggressive behaviors, such as pit bulls and Rottweilers, and can range from onerous restrictions on ownership within city limits to an outright ban.

With the start of the new year, owners will be able to avoid such restrictions if their dog can pass the American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizen test or “a reasonably equivalent” behavior test, proving the dog is, in fact, a good boy or girl.

Though the new law will make ownership easier for those with restricted breeds, the underlying breed bans themselves should end, said Kelsie Einspahr, shelter manager with Grant County Animal Outreach. Einspahr called the bans ineffective, confusing and damaging to the animals involved.

Moses Lake had adopted a similar breed ban several years ago, Einspahr said, but quickly removed the language from municipal code because of confusion, lack of enforcement and ineffectiveness.

It’s not just volunteers at the local shelter who think that breed bans are a bad idea. Quincy Police Chief Kieth Siebert, who owns a bull terrier mix named Brutus, said the city has been looking to remove its breed ban.

Quincy’s municipal code currently defines a “potentially dangerous” dog not by the animal’s individual behavior, but as a “pit bull terrier, an American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier or American Staffordshire bull terrier” or any dog mixed with those breeds. While Soap Lake has additional restrictions based on behavior, a dog can similarly be considered potentially dangerous based solely on its breed.

Those “potentially dangerous” dogs can be confiscated and euthanized if owners don’t meet certain criteria, including registering the dog, maintaining liability insurance and keeping the dog in an enclosure of a certain size.

There are no bad dogs, just bad owners — Vote NO on Breed-Specific Legislation

Breed-specific legislation is a law or regulation directed toward specific breeds of dogs. No, your dog does not have to DO anything wrong—he just has to be alive and he will be put down because of his breed. Anyone who is for banning a specific dog breed truly does not understand our fellow canines. I am a true believer in the saying “there are no bad dogs, just bad owners.” Do you want living proof? Invest some time into watching Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer. The man can take the nastiest Chihuahua, Dachshund, German Shepherd, and yes, Pit Bull and in a day, and sometimes a matter of an hour or less, turn the dog around to where the dog’s demeanor is totally different. It is as if you are suddenly dealing with a totally different dog. The dog did not change, the handler did. Cesar then teaches the owner the proper way to handle the dog. He does this with no hitting or yelling. He simply understands what a dog truly needs. People who own out-of-control dogs are not giving their dogs what they truly need, and are almost always treating their dogs like humans rather than canines. To ban a specific breed of dog because “some” owners do not fulfill a dog’s needs is insane. If breed-specific legislation ever becomes an issue in your area, be sure to vote NO.

Many areas of the world are turning toward banning certain breeds of dogs, rather than dealing with the owners themselves. If this turns up on the ballot in your area, be sure to Vote NO to Breed-Specific Legislation.

Written by Sharon Maguire © Dog Breed Info Center ® All Rights Reserved

28 cities have ordinances that restrict or ban ownership of pit bull terriers.

By Emma Scher, WNPA Olympia News Bureau

Cities that ban certain dog breeds would have to provide an appeal process for owners under proposed legislation that makes exceptions for good dogs of an outlawed pedigree.

According to DogsBite, a nonprofit organization that advocates for victims of dog maulings, 28 cities in Washington state have ordinances that restrict or ban ownership of pit bull terriers, or declare the entire breed as “potentially dangerous” or “dangerous.”

House Bill 1026 originally aimed to prohibit a ban on specific dog breeds in local jurisdictions. But a substitute bill that passed through committee on Thursday would still allow the breed bans, but requires jurisdictions to implement an appeals process. “People make dogs dangerous, dogs aren’t born dangerous,” said prime sponsor Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo. “It’s discriminatory to tell someone that they can’t live in your town because of the member of their family.”

Through the appeals process, specific dogs may be exempt from the regulations if they pass a canine behavioral test. If the dog passes, it would be exempt to possession prohibitions for two years and subject to a retest to maintain the exemption. If the dog fails the test, it may retake the test within a reasonable period of time.

Rep. Jenny Graham, R-Mead, voted yes on the bill as it stands now, but supports local jurisdictions being able to create breed-based bans. “At one and a half, I was bitten by a German Shepherd—I bear the scars still—eight times in the head and face. I’m lucky to be alive, and that was a German Shepherd,” said Rep. Graham. “With the bigger dogs that are capable of hurting or killing, there needs to be some protection there.

The bill was voted out of committee 8-2 with a “do pass” recommendation, and has not been scheduled for a floor debate.

A bill that would put an end to breed bans in the state of Missouri passed out of a committee in the Missouri House of Representatives Tuesday.

HB 2244, and identical bill HB 2241, if passed, would prohibit “villages, towns, and cities from regulating dogs in a breed-specific manner.”

Currently nearly 50 municipalities have specific bans on pit bulls or other breeds deemed “dangerous” by city officials, and more carry additional restrictions on owners of “dangerous” dogs such as pet sterilization requirements.

KMIZ, in Columbia, Missouri, reports 16 committee members voted in favor of the bill Tuesday.

One of lawmakers is Hallsville representative and Republican Cheri Toalson Reisch. She told KMIZ her city used to have a ban on dogs with pit bull ancestry, but repealed it years ago.

Toalson Reisch called similar breed bans “discriminatory because it’s not the dog or the breed, it’s about the owner and how they were raised and trained.”

HB 2244 now heads to the House Rules – Administrative Oversight Committee. If passed out of that committee, the bill would then continue to the House floor.

HB 2244 sponsor Ron Hicks told KMIZ, if passed, cities could still pass laws on pet ownership such as leash laws. “We’re just asking that you do not make it breed specific,” Hicks said.

This is not the first time a similar bill has made its way through the House.

Hicks has proposed similar measures every year since 2013. The 2016 version of the bill made it out of the House, but failed in the Senate.

Opponents of the measure say the state should be leaving this issue to the local communities to decide.

In the wake of two deadly attacks by dogs in the last three months, German state governments have banned or restricted more than three dozens breeds of dogs.

In late April, an old woman was killed by a Rottweiler. In late June, a six-year-old boy was mauled to death by two dogs identified as an American Staffordshire Terrier and a Pit Bull Terrier. In the latter case, both of the dogs were illegally off-leash and one of the dogs and the dog owner had a record. The Pit Bull had bitten previously but was not wearing the required muzzle in public, and the dog owner had 17 convictions for robbery, dog fighting, and other crimes.

The dogs jumped a fence into a schoolyard to attack the boy in front of other children. Our Dogs, a canine newspaper in England, reported that neighbors had called police several times about the dogs with claims the owner trained them for aggression and fighting, but the police did not take action.

Newspapers featured the attack and called for breed-specific bans on aggressive dogs. Laws were quickly proposed to ban sale, breeding, or importation of Bull and Terrier breeds, and stories about ‘killer breeds’ stirred people into a frenzy. Nick Mays wrote in Our Dogs that dogs and dog owners have been attacked in the streets, and various reports on the “dog holocaust” mailing list [1] cited personal stories of harassment, threats, and assault.

The situation is fluid and confusing. Various jurisdictions in Germany apparently have passed breed bans and restrictions affecting more than three dozen breeds of dogs divided into three categories, and the Internet is buzzing with claims, contradictions, and frightening accounts of dogs kicked, beaten, and poisoned and dog owners harassed, jostled, and threatened.

The situation has focused national anger against Turks and other foreign residents who frequently own dogs of the banned and restricted breeds and brings comparisons with the early days of the Nazi regime in Germany, a time when people were targeted for specious reasons and made scapegoats for tyranny. Mays of Our Dogs compared the vendetta against breeds and owners with Kristelnacht, a night when Nazi sympathisers destroyed property belonging to Jews, and many Internet messages from Germany echo his assessment of the anti-breed hysteria.

The laws

Laws differ in Germany’s 16 states, but in Hesse, Lower Saxony, and North Rhine – Westphalia, they contain some version of the following provisions:

Category I dogs– dangerous breeds that cannot be imported, bred, or sold – includes the American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Neapolitan Mastiff, Spanish Mastiff, Dogue de Bordeaux, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasiliero, Roman Fighting Dog , Chinese Fighting Dog, Bandog, and Tosa Inu. These dogs must be registered and sterilized.

Category II dogs – potentially dangerous dogs that can be owned, imported, bred, and sold if they pass a temperament test and are free of aggressive actions for three years – include Akbash, Briard, Beauceron, Bullmastiff, Doberman, Komondor, Kuvasz, Maremma, Pyrenean Mountain Dog (our Great Pyrenees), Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Tibetan Mastiff, and more than 15 other breeds that are virtually unknown in the US.

Category III dogs – Those dogs that weigh more than 20 kilos (44 pounds) or are taller than 40 centimeters (15.75 inches). These dogs must be on a leash in developed areas and will be moved to Category II if they show aggression.

According to some stories, owners of banned breeds are required to place a red banner on their doors to identify their premises as harboring one of these breeds; dogs are being abandoned in the streets and killed by the dozens in animal shelters; and licenses to keep banned breeds cost $600-1000 in US dollars.

The temperament test given to the dogs lasts about three hours According to an eye-witness report posted on the Internet. [2] It includes an assessment of the dog’s attitude towards other dogs and people and to stimuli that startle (an umbrella opening, a mock attack), and about an hour of instruction to dog owners.

Opposition

Germany’s VDH – the German Kennel Club – will conduct the temperament evaluations of the dogs in some areas, and The Kennel Club in Britain has written to FCI and to German Chancellor Schroeder in opposition to the sweeping bans and controls on these breeds.

“We have now spoken to dozens of worried parties, including German dog owners, who feel that this situation is spiraling out of control, largely due to media hysteria and the determination of Government Ministers to ensure these breeds are effectively phased out,” wrote Roger French, chief executive of The Kennel Club, to Schroeder on June 30. [3]

“Our External Affaires Department has been contacted on a number of occasions over the past week by German television companies, who would appear to be of the view that these dogs are a liability and should be destroyed as quickly as possible.”

Dog owners have started world-wide protests promoted on mailing lists and websites on the Internet that range from boycotts on products made by German companies and German tourism to a campaign to display red and black ribbons in sympathy with the banned dogs and their owners and to draw attention to the situation in that country.

Potential

France has recently restricted pit bull dogs and is considering further breed controls, and there is also talk of expanding Germany’s breed bans and restrictions to all the countries of the European Union.

The original ban in Germany was proposed by a member of the Green Party, an organization with strong ties to animal rights and environmental causes. The 12-point platform [4> commonly called the animal rights agenda was originally drafted for inclusion into the 1987 US Green platform. The Greens are gaining notice in the US; Ralph Nader is getting some press coverage as the party candidate for President this year.

NAIA deplores actions taken against dogs simply because of their breed or mix. Communities do have a responsibility to enact and enforce laws that protect residents from dangerous or vicious animals. On the other hand dog owners have a right to own and enjoy dogs as pets when they raise, train and socialize their dogs appropriately and comply with all public safety laws.

We believe that responsible dog ownership is the key: Experience has shown that when laws are reasonable and dog owners take their obligations seriously, fear subsides, confrontations diminish, and the rights of both dog owners and their neighbors remain protected.

About The Author

Patti is a recognized expert and consultant on contemporary animal issues, most notably responsible dog ownership and the animal rights movement. She often appears on radio and television and her articles on canine issues, animal welfare, public policy and animal rights have appeared in major US news publications and in trade, professional and scientific journals. Patti and her…

All Authors Of This Article: | Patti Strand |

Wed., April 17, 2019

A pitbull named “Lucy” participates a the U.S. Postal Service “National Dog Bite Prevention Week” during an awareness event in at the YMCA in Los Angeles Thursday, April 6, 2017. Passed by the Senate Wednesday on a 25-23 vote, new rules on breed bans passed by the Legislature wouldn’t block breed bans entirely, but would require exceptions for owners who can prove their pets are well-behaved. (Amanda Lee Myers / Associated Press)

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Email
• Reddit
• SMS

OLYMPIA – Finding out just who’s a good dog is set to become the responsibility of local jurisdictions under new rules on breed bans passed by the Legislature.

Passed by the Senate Wednesday on a 25-23 vote, the rules wouldn’t block breed bans entirely, but would require exceptions for owners who can prove their pets are well-behaved.

Often targeting larger, muscular breeds including pit bulls and Rottweilers, bans have been an instrument of critics who say some breeds are innately dangerous.

The rules would allow owners to get around such bans based on completion of the American Kennel Club’s Canine Good Citizen programs, which includes tests of whether an animal will react aggressively to strangers, being petted, and interacting with unfamiliar dogs.

Local jurisdictions would be allowed to enforce breed bans, but would have to exempt dogs that passed the test.

The proposal now heads to Gov. Jay Inslee for consideration.

Local journalism is essential.

The journalists of The Spokesman-Review are a part of the community. They live here. They work here. They care. You can help keep local journalism strong right now with your contribution. Thank you.

In Fairfield, Iowa, a Pit Bull Terrier is classified as a “dangerous animal” — along with lions, jaguars, tigers, alligators, venomous snakes, and more.

Everyone has a different description of a dangerous dog. For some, it’s how a dog looks, for others it is how a dog acts. Dog ownership laws governing the care and management of so-called dangerous dogs usually fall into one category or another, but rarely both. While an animal with a history of aggression should absolutely be given restrictions and penalties, what about dogs who are beloved, socialized, well-trained family pets, but look a certain way? Should those dogs be subject to restrictions too?

It is a common misperception that only Pit Bull-type* dogs are subject to breed bans around the world, but that simply isn’t true. Tragic circumstances can occur with dogs of any breed, from Shiba Inus, to Saint Bernards, and laws that impact dog ownership based on the appearance of a dog have been proven not to reduce dog bites. Spay and neuter, licensing, leash laws, and education to support responsible pet ownership are far more important (and more effective in promoting public safety) than forcing people to hide their cherished pets from the law. Still, think that only Pit Bull-type dogs are subject to such laws?

Here are three examples of “Dangerous Dog” laws based on a dogs’ appearance or breed. As you read these laws, think about what type of dog they might be referring to:

Not only can a person only walk two of these breeds of dog in public, but also:

“A person shall not exercise or lead or cause or permit to be exercised, led, or at large a [this breed of dog] in any street, road, highway, or other public place or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access…unless such dog is both under control and muzzled.”

In addition to special licensing, microchipping, fencing, and “Beware of Dog” sign requirements, owners of this breed (and five others) must:

“Carry a policy of insurance of at least $100,000…insuring the owner…against liability for any personal injuries inflicted by the dog.”

Fairfield, Iowa, current law (amended to add breeds in 2004):

This locality has 13 breeds and mixes listed in the same “dangerous” and prohibited category as tigers, gorillas, and alligators, but at least these dogs can be walked in public,

“provided such animal is secured on a leash four feet or shorter.”

So what breed of dog has to wear a muzzle in public in Northern Ireland? The Greyhound.

What breed will cost their owner a pretty penny in insurance in College Park? The German Shepherd.

And which breeds are as dangerous as captive tigers? According to Fairfield, Iowa, it’s the Siberian Husky.

Approximately 100 dog breeds have ownership restrictions in our country, from kenneling or care requirements to outright bans, including Chihuahuas, Chow Chows, Great Danes, and dogs who appear to be a mix of a banned dog (even if they are proven with DNA testing to not be a dog of that breed).

History has shown that breed bans and restrictions don’t keep our communities safe — responsible ownership laws do. So, the next time you think “a breed ban won’t happen to my dog,” please realize that history shows it could. Let’s keep our communities safe and informed. Let’s do what has been proven to work. Let’s say goodbye to breed restrictions and hello to strong, enforceable dog laws that protect pets and people, no matter what they look like.

*In my columns, I often use the term “Pit-Bull type” to describe a group of dogs who share a basic appearance, but may not actually be American Pit Bull Terriers because that is how these dogs might typically be described by the public. The description of “Pit-Bull type” dogs can vary by jurisdiction to include breeds that are completely unrelated to the American Pit Bull Terrier such as purebreds or mixes of Boxers, Mastiffs, Bull Terriers, and Bulldogs. “Pit-Bull type” is really no more accurate in describing a dog’s behavior than saying that all dogs with floppy ears are “Retriever-types,” and I look forward to the day when our communication about dogs can move past their appearance and focus on their behaviors.

Social Sharing

Dozer the dog had to leave Manitoba because of a ban on pit bulls

Dozer loves to play and go for walks and he really likes being the centre of attention. But he’s also not allowed in Thompson, Man.

The Lab Mastiff Staffordshire terrier-mix was sent to the Saskatoon SPCA for adoption because Thompson is one of several communities in the country that has breed-specific legislation which bans the ownership of certain types of dogs.

The Saskatoon SPCA takes several transfers of breeds that fall under the pit bull label because of these bans.

“We’ve always taken dogs for that reason,” Lindsay Royale with the Saskatoon SPCA, said.

The SPCA put Dozer, along with his story, on their Facebook page and he was adopted into a new home this week.

That process isn’t easy, Royale said. Often, it is the humane societies in regions with a breed ban that foot the cost to ship the animal elsewhere. There are breed bans in all of Ontario, Winnipeg, and other regions across the country.

“I know that currently we have two dogs that were transferred from Kitchener because of breed bans. It seems to be becoming more popular, more frequent,” Royale said.

“Due to the breed ban, they don’t have any options. Those animals can’t exist in those cities. It is illegal.”

Royale said the bans come because of a misunderstanding around the dogs. She said pit bull is not really a breed but a description of a mix which is larger, with an intimidating stance. She added that previously, the pit bull type of dog was a poster breed for the Second World War because of their bravery and was used as a nanny or therapy dog.

“It’s really unfair to certain kinds of dogs to say that one breed is a certain way,” Royale said.

Instead, she said the animal’s temperament is more related to their owner.

Her advice for owners is to make sure you spend time with your animal and to socialize them. Positive reinforcement classes also help, she added.

There are no breed bans — that Royale is aware of —in Saskatchewan.

A Miniature Poodle bites a child, breaking the skin, and the media hype is non-existent. There is not even a hospital visit over the incident. A pit bull bites a child, does not break the skin, and the media swarm the home like a nest of aggravated hornets.

Considering neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) nor the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have ever issued a report or press release naming the types of dogs most likely to bite, it seems breed bans are a knee jerk reaction to what experts say is not actually the cause of the problem.

The AVMA report published from the research collected by the AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression states:

“There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete.‘

If this is true, do breed bans work?

It seems every decade or two a new breed must be demonized. In the 70’s, it was the German Shepherd. In the 80’s, it was the Doberman pinscher with the hype somewhat fueled by the TV show Magnum P.I. where two male Dobermans, Apollo and Zeus, did an admirable job of keeping Tom Selleck on his toes. With the 90’s came the pit bull and bull breeds. Breed specific legislation (BSL) quickly followed but do breed bans work?

BSL ranges from requiring certain breeds to be spayed or neutered to outright banning the breed entirely. Many countries added to the list of breeds to be banned, including Rottweilers, Japanese Tosa Inu, American Bulldogs, Cane Corso, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, Presa Canario, and Presa Mallorquin.

Since the implementation of breed bans, many countries have repealed the legislature after realizing that it did not actually lower the incidents of dog bites or attacks. In fact, in the United Kingdom, one of the first adopters of BSL in 1991 with the strictest rules reported in 2008 that dog attacks increased by 50% in the previous decade. If anything proving that breed bans do not work and actually lowered public safety. Considering the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is nicknamed the ‘nanny dog’ in the UK because of how good the breed is with children, you would think they would look at the history of the breed in their own country, not the hype created over a single incident.

A 2006 study in Australia titled Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified? Concluded that ‘the evidence does not sustain the view that pit bulls are a uniquely dangerous breed, and breed-specific laws aimed to control it have not been demonstrated by authorities to be justified by its attack record’.

Unfortunately, breed bans paint every member of the breed with the same brush meanwhile ignoring the actual problem the lack of responsible ownership. The majority of pit bulls and banned breeds are perfect members of canine society loving, playful, well-behaved, endearing pets much loved by their people.

Owned by an irresponsible owner, any dog can become dangerous. Ask the Californian family of the two-month-old baby who was killed by their 5lb Pomeranian or the Canadian mail carrier who was seriously mauled by a pack of Chihuahuas. Conscientious pet owners understand what it takes to keep their pet happy, healthy, socialized and safe.

Thankfully many countries have repealed their breed ban laws and adopting responsible pet ownership models. Educating pet owners is one side of the coin, the other is working with parents to educate their children on how to behave around dogs. On average, 70% of reported dog bites are in children 12 and under. Never leave a child alone with any pet and teaching children how to approach and behave around dogs is the most effective way to lower dog bite incidents in any community.

Do breed bans work? No. Responsible pet ownership is the only solution to preventing dog bites and attacks.

January 16, 2011

Wherever they’re tried, breed bans don’t work

By Jerry Tuccille

If, like many people, you pick up stakes and move yourself, your pets and your possessions into a new home in a new town, you may find that you’ve unexpectedly run afoul of the law. In fact, you may face a choice between surrendering a beloved dog to be put to death by the authorities, or else reversing that change of address.

That’s because many jurisdictions throughout the United States – and elsewhere – limit the breeds of dogs you are allowed to have, and even completely forbid some breeds. Pit bulls rank prominently among such forbidden pooches.

Pit bulls have been targeted because of mistaken perceptions that they are temperamentally more aggressive than other breeds, or physically more dangerous. Some of the bans have been premised on claims of extraordinary biting power or “locking” jaws supposedly possessed by pit bulls.

How pit bulls compare with other dogs in temperament tests

But the American Temperament Test Society, a national non-profit organization that uses uniform standards for evaluating the temperament of dogs and then breaks the results out by breed, reports that 85.3 percent of American pit bull terriers and 83.9 percent of American Staffordshire terriers have passed its tests. Compare that to 81 percent of beagles, 79.4 percent of collies, 76.6 percent of old English sheepdogs and 71.1 percent of Chihuahuas (but 90 percent of Irish setters!).

In an affidavit submitted to a Canadian court, Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia, who has researched the jaws of various dog breeds, said, “…there were no mechanical or morphological differences between the jaws of American pit bull terriers and those of any of the other comparable breeds of dogs which we studied. In addition, we found that the American pit bull terriers did not have any unique mechanism that would allow these dogs to lock their jaws.”

Basically, there’s no evidence that pit bulls are especially mean or dangerous. Nothing in particular distinguishes them from other dogs.

But don’t expect facts to stand in the way of a good panic.

How the bans work

Pit bulls are banned in Britain, Denmark, Germany and other countries.

Australia requires that pit bulls be neutered and bans their import, with the ultimate intention of eliminating such dogs.

Singapore permits pit bulls only if the dogs are sterilized, muzzled and covered by $100,000 liability insurance policies.

In Florida’s Miami-Dade County, “any dog which substantially conforms to a pit bull breed dog” is banned.

Council Bluffs, Iowa, forbids “any dog that is an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds.”

Prince George’s County Maryland also bans “Staffordshire bull terrier; American Staffordshire terrier; American pit bull terrier; or dogs that exhibit the characteristics of a pit bull more than any other breed of dog.”

Enforcement can be harsh, with fines for people, and exile or even impoundment for animals. In Denver, where dogs are identified by city workers according to a checklist of visual cues (with a high rate of mistaken IDs), thousands of dogs have been killed by animal control officials. This has resulted, at times, in piles of bodies that have accumulated faster than they can be shipped out for rough disposal.

All of this, remember, for dogs that are not especially aggressive or dangerous – dogs just like Petey from the popular Our Gang/Little Rascals movies and Tige, the mascot of the Buster Brown brand of shoes. Although mostly forgotten today, one pit bull, Sergeant Stubby, became the only dog promoted in rank in American military history in recognition of his efforts in warning his unit of poison gas attacks and incoming artillery shells, locating wounded soldiers and capturing a German spy.

Other breeds, other times

The fact that pit bulls have more of a history of affection, entertainment and heroism than aggression isn’t just a triumph of panic over reason; it’s a repetition of a sad historical cycle. Dog breeds vilified as especially vicious in the past have included bloodhounds, German shepherds and Weimaraners. Each, in its day, was seen as especially dangerous – only to see the mantle of canine pariah eventually pass to a new, unfairly targeted breed.

In 1887, the Rochester Union newspaper ran an unsigned column defending the bloodhound against “a bad reputation, which he never earned himself, but was given him by persons who know not what they are talking about.”

Having Wisconsin adopt the Massachussetts No Breed Ban Legislation that states:

“No city or town shall regulate dogs in a manner that is specific to breed,” “no dog shall be deemed dangerous … based upon the breed of such dog.”

The Summary of the new law:

• Creates a statewide spay/neuter program to reduce the number of homeless animals in the Commonwealth and will, in turn, also reduce the cost to cities and towns for housing and sheltering these animals. This is funded by a voluntary tax check off.
• Adds enforcement provisions to section 139A (the spay/neuter deposit law for animals adopted from shelters and animal control facilities) to ensure these animals can’t reproduce.
• Requires animal control officers to receive training. People are often surprised to learn that their local animal control officer is not required to receive training for the complicated work they do to keep the people and animals in their community safe. This is funded by the tax check off.
• Prohibits carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide gas as a means to “euthanize” dogs and cats.
• Reduces dog bites by improving the dangerous dog law in a breed neutral manner.
• Allows pets to be included in domestic violence protection orders to protect both animals and people.

It is important that Wisconsin adopt this bill to help ensure a safe, stable future for our K9 friends. With more and more cities allowing breed bans, more dogs will go without homes, more shelters will have less room and more dogs will be put to sleep.

Save our canine companions and help convince Wisconsin that we need legal support to ensure our faithful friends a long, happy life.

Good morning Dawn,
I really appreciate you taking the time to contact me expressing your thoughts about the Massachusetts bill regarding the banning of dogs.
I will share it with my fellow legislators and collaborate with them on the issue. Also, I saw yesterday there was an article in the Beaver Dam Daily Citizen about your advocacy to end breed bans. I enjoyed reading it and I congratulate you on the press coverage.
Warmest regards,
Rep. Ripp

(Picture Credit: damedeeso/Getty Images)

Emotional support animals (ESAs) are more than just companions. They also comfort those who suffer from different illnesses and conditions. Some can’t be without their support animals, which can make traveling difficult, especially by plane. Fortunately, new airport guidelines may help with that.

Some airlines have banned certain types of dogs in the past, even if they’re ESAs. Pit Bulls usually receive the brunt of this discrimination, as many continue to believe that they are aggressive dogs.

Rules like this force some people who rely on ESAs to choose breeds like Labradors, Golden Retrievers, or German Shepherd Dogs, even when Pit Bulls are just as great and capable of providing emotional support.

But new regulations from the U.S. Department of Transportation may put an end to breed discrimination on planes when it comes to ESAs. Here’s what you should know.

All Dogs Now Allowed For Boarding

The U.S. Department of Transportation released a statement that says airlines may no longer discriminate any breed of support animals. This addresses policies that continue to discriminate certain ESAs on planes solely on the basis of breed.

“The Department’s Enforcement Office views a limitation based exclusively on breed of the service animal to not be allowed under its service animal regulation,” the new guidelines state.

The guidelines enumerate limitations for support animals to qualify under the new policy. Owners may need to submit documents for vaccination or training history of their pet.

However, this development holds a lot of potential to help keep persons with emotional support needs safe and comforted during long flights regardless of which breed their ESA might be.

Delta’s Enduring Ban On Pit Bulls

Unfortunately, not all airlines are accommodating the new guidelines. Delta decided to uphold its rule on Pit Bulls, effectively banning them from boarding flight. The airline claims that the policy ensures the safety of customers and employees to prevent instances of aggressive animal behavior.

The Department of Transportation’s new guidelines clash with the airline’s policy on ESA dog breeds. However, the airline has yet to announce how it will deal with these changes. For now, the management focuses on its crew and customers while inside the plane.

“Our 25,000 flight attendants are my greatest responsibility, and I will do everything I can to keep them safe and send them home to their families in the same condition they came to work,” said Allison Ausband, senior vice president of in-flight service for Delta in a statement.

Thankfully, it is not all bad news. Delta recently reversed its policy on the eight-hour flight limit for emotional support animals. Now, those who need ESAs may feel a little less anxious on their next plane ride.

What are your thoughts about the ban on Pit Bull emotional support animals? Do you think all breeds of ESAs should be allowed on planes? Let us know in the comments below!

Breed Specific Legislation is wrong in general, but now “aggressive” breeds are being banned on all military bases. Military families who currently own these dogs can get a waiver, but this is only a temporary solution. The waiver expires in 2012, and if they want to keep their beloved family member(s) they have to purchase a residence that is off-base and is unaffiliated with the military.

My hope is, that we can get this decision reversed, and in its place have some sort of temperment test instituted. Dog attacks are a serious matter, but we cannot continue to place the blame on the dogs. The owners are the ones who are responsible. A temperment test (performed by a trainer, vet, or another professional) would ensure that animals that are unfit to be around people would not be allowed on base.

Dogs are just like people in the way that they all have different personalities and temperments. It’s unconstitutional to ban certain breeds. How can we ask these people to abandon their dogs? Please sign this petition and join me in the fight to put an end to military Breed Specific Legislation!

Dear Mr. President,

We the undersigned are urging you to consider the reversal of the ban on specific canine breeds on military bases. We feel that this ban should be replaced with a temperment test, which would screen each dog individually for aggression. We believe this approach will be more effective in keeping our military families safe and happy. We also believe that breed specific legislation is unconstitutional, and will cause many families to have to abandon their canine family members.

NEW YORK CITY (WABC) — There is a new effort to protect dogs and their owners from discrimination, with legislation being pushed by a New York state Assemblyman who wants to prevent landlords from banning certain breeds.

If you live in a NYCHA development and you want to get a dog, consider the current regulations. “Specifically prohibited dogs,” either full breed or mixed breed, include Doberman Pinschers, pit bulls and Rottweilers.

“Because they very dangerous, they could hurt somebody,” NYCHA tenant Awilda Torres said. “A kid or something, you know, I mean it’s dangerous.”

Assemblyman Ken Zebrowski believes NYCHA’s dog ban is discriminatory, and so the Rockland County lawmaker and pit bull owner has proposed legislation prohibiting landlords from enacting breed-specific bans.

“You can have no dogs, you can have a restriction on the number of dogs, you can have some sort of subjective criteria to evaluate the dog, make sure they are not dangerous,” he said. “You just can’t banish all of one type of breed.”

Sharon Needelman is a pet care professional and the president of the Hi Tor Animal Care Center in Pomona, where 90 percent of the incoming dogs are pit bulls.

“Of all the issues I’ve had with dogs over the years, rarely has it been at the hands of a pit bull,” she said.

Dog owners seem to agree.

“I think pit bulls got a raw deal, but I think they’ve proven, if they are with the right people, they’re great,” dog owner Jeff Goldberg said. “If they’re not with the right people, stay away.”

As for the city, NYCHA issued the following statement in reaction to the proposal:

“The Authority’s current pet policy was crafted with the input of residents, and continues to be informed by statistical evidence and our experiences with animal-related injuries.”

Zebrowski said his proposal is on the housing committee agenda next week, and he’d like to get it to the full Assembly and then on to the Senate within the next few months, all with the hopes of having the new law in place by the fall.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• WhatsApp
• SMS
• Email
• Print
• Save

SIOUX CITY — When the puppy peered up with such a loving look from inside a cage at Sioux City Animal Control, Nicole Rochester and her kids were hooked.

“We went to the shelter to look at puppies for a size that would work well for our family. It was just the way she looked at us. She was about four months old,” Rochester said of the pit bull-mix her family adopted in March.

She was not looking to adopt a pit bull and had not owned a dog before. Now around eight months old, Mocha is a member of Rochester’s northside Sioux City family.

The Rochesters have enrolled Mocha in a dog obedience classes. Rochester said her children, Zachary, 11, and Jordan, 9, also take the lessons to learn how to work with Mocha.

“She loves people and loves other dogs,” Rochester said of the breed that has been banned in other Siouxland communities.

She said she doesn’t think the City Council should ban certain breeds because some cause problems. Her brother-in-law, Councilman Aaron Rochester, has asked city staff to prepare recommendations on how to make pit bull owners more responsible. He has not proposed the city ban the breed. No date has been scheduled for the council to discuss the issue.

Attorney Hughes Bagley, Jr., concurs, even though his 10-year-old Rottweiler was viciously attacked by an American bulldog on May 10 while they were walking near 20th and Douglas streets.

“I hit that thing with six shots of pepper spray,” he said. “It didn’t slow him down.”

The bulldog had his jaws in his Rottweiler’s throat. A woman who saw the attack kicked the bulldog three times to help Bagley pry the bulldog’s jaws off Sert’s throat. His dog required medical treatment for the puncture marks.

Since then, he and his wife, fellow attorney Martha McMinn, have filed suit in Woodbury County’s small claims court seeking $5,000 in damages against the other dog’s owner.

The bulldog remains in a cage at Sioux City Animal Control’s shelter waiting disposition of its case as a vicious animal. Under a revised animal control law, any animal declared vicious in Sioux City must be euthanized.

“I do not believe in breed restrictions,” Bagley said. “Many pit bull owners take care of their dogs. . It’s a matter of not letting dogs run loose.”

In the meantime, he said Sert has recovered. Now, on their daily walks, Bagley said, “I’ve upgraded from pepper spray to grizzly bear repellent. It’s in a spray can and I’m wearing it on my belt.”

Banning breeds

Both Rarrat and Jerry Dominicak, executive director of the Siouxland Humane Society, oppose banning specific dog breeds.

“We’ve always said it’s not the breed of the dog, it’s the way the animal is brought up and trained,” Dominicak stated. “If you go back 20 years, it was Rottweilers everybody was afraid of. Then it went to Dobermans who were vicious.”

Rarrat added German Shepherds were on the list years ago. Right now, they agreed, pit bull is the breed of choice. Rarrat said the majority of dogs at her shelter are pit bulls or pit mull mixes.

Since July, Police Capt. Pete Groetken has held 27 hearings on allegedly vicious or high-risk animals. Of that number, he said 11 of the 14 dogs that were determined to be high risk or vicious were pit bulls or pit bull mixes.

Pit bulls or mixes remain in the news. In March, a police sergeant shot and killed two pit bulls who had attacked a man walking his black lab on South College Street, On May 11, a pit bull scratched a 13-year-old girl and bit her on the arm while she was visiting her father in Sioux City. Rarrat said her father owned that dog, which has been out to sleep.

If pit bulls were banned, Dominicak concluded, “People are who irresponsible owners who want the mean dog will go pick out another breed.”

Rarrat added, “I think there has to be stricter regulations on any dog that will bite unprovoked. How do you make a pet owner more responsible? A lot of people won’t even vaccinate their pets or put ID tags on them, let alone license them.”

Councilman Rochester said he wants to receive recommendations from Rarrat, the Animal Control Advisory Committee and the police department before drafting proposals to present to the council.

Mayor Mike Hobart said he understands Rochester’s attempt to strengthen the law. However, he said, “Let’s give it some time to work.”

Councilman Brent Hoffman said he does not favor banning specific breeds, but said the challenge is finding a way to make pet owners more accountable. “Often the problem isn’t bad dogs, but bad owners.”

Dee and Terry Coon of McCook Lake, S.D., acknowledged finding ways to impose restrictions on pet owners will be difficult. Last fall, they adopted a pit bull who had been severely burned with boiling water or a chemical. They heard about that dog’s plight in the news and went to the humane society’s shelter to look at him.

“He was so affectionate and friendly,” said Dee Coon, whose family had owned pit bulls. “We have a 3-year-old granddaughter who loves to play with him.”

The family hasn’t taken the dog, Jimmie, to obedience classes because, they discovered, he already had been trained. “It’s all how they are raised. Making the dogs mean is just like giving a child a loaded gun,” Dee Coon said.

Lexi Stringfellow, behavior coordinator at the Human Society of Utah, holds Shylo, a six-year-old pit bull, who is available for adoption, in Murray, Utah. Under a new law, cities and towns are no longer allowed to ban specific dog breeds within their limits. The law’s author, Salt Lake City Democratic Rep. Brian King, said at least 10 cities have restrictions that ban ownership of specific breeds such as pit bulls. (AP Photo/The Salt Lake Tribune, Steve Griffin) DESERET NEWS OUT; LOCAL TELEVISION OUT; MAGS OUT (Photo: AP)

SALT LAKE CITY – A new law that took effect Thursday prevents cities and towns from banning specific dog breeds, a move Utah animal welfare advocates say ends one form of legal discrimination.

“Any dog breed has the potential of being vicious,” said Gene Baierschmidt, the executive director of the Humane Society of Utah.

State Rep. Brian King, a Salt Lake City Democrat who authored the law, said 10 Utah cities had bans against owning dogs such as pit bulls, a breed perceived to be more aggressive.

The new law, which took effect Jan. 1, nullifies those laws and prevents new ones from being adopted.

“It moves us away from stigmatizing a specific breed of dog,” King said.

At one time, German Shepherds were thought of as attack dogs, but King said that reputation has faded, and now, pit bulls face a similar stigma.

King hopes the new law will shift debate to owners and the way they raise their animals.

“If you ill-treat an animal or you teach them to be aggressive because you want to breed a junk-yard dog, that’s not right,” King said. “You’re doing the dog a disservice, and you’re doing your neighbors a big disservice.”

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the 10 cities that had bans were: South Jordan, North Salt Lake, Springville, Delta, Duchesne, Fillmore, Garland, Honeyville, Morgan and Smithfield.

South Jordan, which opposed King’s law, banned pit bulls after a girl was attacked while walking home in 1997.

Paul Cunningham, the South Jordan city chief of staff, said citizens had requested the ban following the attack.

To comply with the new law, the city repealed its ban in November and passed a new ordinance that focuses on dog behavior.

“If someone has a dog that becomes a danger to the community, we put some pretty restrictive kinds of things, including some insurance requirements and signage requirements to try and protect the public,” Cunningham said.

Cathy Boruch, the executive director of Heber City-based pet rescue Paws for Life, said pit bulls can make great, loyal pets and don’t deserve a bad reputation.

“It’s all based on how they are trained, how they are treated and how they are understood by members of the family,” Boruch said. “They are no different than other breeds of dogs, except in the sense that they often need strong leadership.”

Shylo, a six-year-old pit bull, who is available for adoption, sniffs the camera at the Human Society of Utah in Murray, Utah. Under a new law, cities and towns are no longer allowed to ban specific dog breeds within their limits. The law’s author, Salt Lake City Democratic Rep. Brian King, said at least 10 cities have restrictions that ban ownership of specific breeds such as pit bulls.

(AP Photo/The Salt Lake Tribune, Steve Griffin)

• Facebook
• Twitter
• WhatsApp
• SMS
• Email
• Print
• Save

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A new law that took effect Thursday prevents cities and towns from banning specific dog breeds, a move Utah animal welfare advocates say ends one form of legal discrimination.

“Any dog breed has the potential of being vicious,” said Gene Baierschmidt, the executive director of the Humane Society of Utah.

State Rep. Brian King, a Salt Lake City Democrat who authored the law, said 10 Utah cities had bans against owning dogs such as pit bulls, a breed perceived to be more aggressive.

The new law, which took effect Jan. 1, nullifies those laws and prevents new ones from being adopted.

If you visit a local shelter or large rescue organization to check out the dogs available for adoption, you have probably wondered, “Why do I keep seeing that breed? It’s in all of the shelters?”

The assumption may be that dogs of that particular breed may not make a good pet, or maybe it reinforces stereotypes in the media.

Emily Weiss, vice president of research and development for the ASPCA cautions potential adopters not to make those assumptions. “The reason you will see any type of dog more than the others is because it is a tremendously popular breed,” says Weiss.

Weiss says that potential adopters should also always be aware that shelters and rescues sometimes don’t know the breed history and will list a dog by what predominant breed they believe the dog to be. “We know that visual inspections are not very good, a dog may look like one breed, but be another,” says Weiss. “I have a dog from a shelter that looks just like a Jack Russell, but is actually a mix of a poodle and Chihuahua.”

Pet Central put together a list of 10 of the dogs most commonly found in shelters based on data from Petfinder.com. Weiss cautions that although there are certain traits for many breeds, all dogs should be judged as individuals with their own unique personalities. And we believe any of these breeds make awesome adopted pets.)

American Pit Bull Terrier

American Pit Bull Terriers are lumped into the Pit Bull or bully breed family. This may be part of the reason it is seen in shelters in such high numbers. This dog is extremely popular and also has the misfortune of being abused and misused. Some municipalities have even enlisted discriminatory breed bans on Pit Bulls, which causes them to be relinquished. Pit Bulls are generally a very athletic, loyal and loving dog that can be protective of its humans.

Labrador Retriever

Labs often suffer from Big Black Dog (BBD) syndrome in shelters—a theory which argues that big black dogs are adopted less often than other types of dogs. Others say fewer are adopted just because there are so many in shelters and rescue. Whatever the reason, the Labrador is a hugely popular dog, subject to overbreeding by irresponsible breeders. Labs are highly energetic, loyal and loving dogs that make great family companions.

German Shepherd

Once used by people with less than good intentions, much like the Pit Bull is today, the German Shepherd remains a very popular dog for its guarding abilities. Weiss says this is one of the most commonly misidentified dogs in the shelter. “People see black and tan and assume it’s a German Shepherd,” she says. This breed is very active and can be very loyal and protective of its humans and home.

Dachshund

“Weiner dogs” or “hot dogs” as they’re sometimes called come in all colors, can be smooth coated or long hair and be standard or a mini. What many people don’t realize is that these dogs were initially bred in Germany to hunt badgers, so they may possess a strong prey drive toward smaller animals in the home such as cats. Dachshunds are very smart and loveable towards their people, but can sometimes can be considered a “one person dog.” They’re also insufferable snugglers and like to burrow under covers.

Jack Russell Terrier

The Jack Russell is an extremely popular breed that grew in popularity after the television series “Frasier” spotlighted a Jack Russell named Eddie. “People saw Eddie and it might not meet that expectation,” Weiss says. These dogs are usually very active and need to be in a household that can provide a lot of stimulation. They also typically like to bark and play, as well as sometimes chase cats and squirrels.

Chihuahua

These dogs are extremely popular, especially in urban areas, because of their small size. Weiss says that although they can be found in shelters and rescues across the country, they are more likely to be found in high numbers on the west coast and Arizona. Weiss theorizes it is because access to spay/neuter services is different in that part of the country. Certain celebrities using Chihuahuas as purse accessories have also made the tiny dogs hugely popular.

Although adorable and loving, this breed does generally have a nervous personality which can make them unpredictable and aggressive with small children and strangers. The Chihuahua frequently barks and is known to be a “fear biter,” which may cause them to snap at kids and strangers that try to pick them up.

Boxer

The boxer is a large muscular dog with a square blocky head and it is sometimes mistaken for a Pit Bull. This dog became hugely popular in the late 1990s and its popularity has yet to subside, which makes it a prime candidate for overbreeding. The boxer is a very active breed and needs a home that can handle his activity level. The dog makes a great family dog and generally gets along well with children.

Beagle

Since the arrival of America’s most famous beagle, Snoopy, the popularity of this breed has not waned. Beagles are loving, docile and very tolerant of people and unfortunately, this is why they’re targeted by the scientific community as research animals. As a family pet, they are a hunting breed, so they require a lot of exercise. They are also known for their mournful baying, which might not bode well if you have close-by neighbors.

American Bulldog

Known as one of the dogs in the family of “bull breeds,” the American Bulldog is the tallest and among the heaviest in the bulldog family. American Bulldogs weigh between 75 and 125 pounds. They are more athletic than most bulldogs and therefore make good guardians and protectors. Once again, these dogs can be very loyal and loving, but people need to check to make sure they are not banned as a part of the overall lumping of “bull breeds” by their jurisdiction or their insurance company.

American Staffordshire Terrier

Another of the dogs in the bull breed category, these dogs are sometimes lumped into breed discriminatory bans. The American Staffordshire Terrier has a large muscular build with a large head and pronounced jaws. Originally bred to be a farm dog, it has massive strength and is known for its courage. When in the proper home, these dogs are very loyal and can be very playful and good with children.

Kerri Fivecoat-Campbell is a freelance journalist and author who lives in a tiny house with her 5 dogs and husband.

Texas is in the process of enacting breed bans on pit bulls, Doberman Pinchers and Rottweilers.

The issue of enacting laws to ban or regulate pit bulls, Doberman pinchers and Rottweilers in Texas has landed on the Texas state attorney general’s desk. A request for an opinion on whether cities and counties have the power to target certain dog breeds through legislation was made by Republican state Rep. Tony Goolsby in a letter to Attorney General Greg Abbott. Lawmakers are set to consider the topic in the next legislative session in Austin.

Measures commonly known as breed-specific legislation, or BSL, have been proposed in municipalities across the United States. In Sioux City, Iowa, the city council recently voted 5-0 in favor of a pit bull ban.

In Texas, several cities have expressed interest in enacting similar laws, Goolsby wrote in his letter to Abbott. Members of the state’s pit bull clubs, however, oppose BSL and instead are in favor of improvement and enforcement of existing laws.

It’s simple: once-a-month Simparica Trio (sarolaner/moxidectin/pyrantel) Chewables help dog owners provide the critical protection you recommend.

Article share options

Share this on

Send this by

The peak body representing vets in Australia is calling on governments to ditch bans on dangerous dog breeds.

The Australian Veterinary Association (AWA), which has launched a new strategy to deal with dog bites, says the latest research shows banning particular breeds does nothing to address aggression in dogs, and nothing to increase public safety.

The vets say a focus on registration, education and temperament testing would be more effective.

But a critic says they are advocating a risky strategy that allows every dog at least one free bite, and that bite could be fatal.

In the past five years or so, each of the Australian states has moved to ban a selection of dog breeds considered to be dangerous.

Among them, the American Pit Bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa.

In each case, the ban followed a ferocious attack, and a brief debate about whether the dog or its owner was to blame.

Veterinary behaviourist and AWA spokeswoman Dr Kersti Seksel argues breeds-specific legislation is not the answer.

“It hasn’t decreased the number of dog bites,” she said.

“Regardless of breed, dogs are capable of biting, just like people are capable of fighting regardless of our origin either.”

Size does not matter

Dr Seksel says all dogs have the potential to cause serious harm.

“If you’re a Great Dane and you bite someone, the sheer size of you is going to make more damage than a Chihuahua will,” she said.

“But there are three kilo Yorkshire terriers that have also killed human beings. So it’s not just about size.”

The AVA points out the vast majority of dog bites are caused by family pets that are known to the victim.

And that victim is usually under 10 years of age.

“Not all aggression is actually always the dog’s fault,” Dr Seksel said.

“You know if the dog hasn’t been fed for 24 hours and someone gives the dog a bone and then tries to take it away from it, then that would be. some would consider to be perfectly appropriate behaviour.

“If you’re hungry and you take the bone away well the dog is going to react in some way and the dog can’t say ‘please don’t do this’.”

The vets are proposing an alternative framework to dog breed bans.

They want to see all dogs identified and registered; a national mandatory reporting system for dog bites; temperament testing when a dog is sold; and a community-wide education campaign on bites for pet owners, breeders, parents and children.

“We know that owning pets and owning dogs is good for us,” Dr Seksel said.

“There’s been lots of studies to show that they decrease blood pressure, decrease cholesterol and there’s even been studies showing that we could save millions of dollars in the annual health budget in Australia if people actually owned pets.

“And dog bites, on the other hand, do cost the health budget a lot of money so in fact the way that I would see one way of getting it on the national agenda is to get the Federal Minister for Health on board.”

‘Backward step’

RSPCA Victoria president Hugh Wirth was once a supporter of banning dangerous dog breeds.

He advocated for the breeding out of the American Pit Bull Terrier, saying they were “lethal” and “time bombs waiting for the right circumstances”.

But not anymore.

“The truth about breed-specific legislation is that it doesn’t work, you don’t decrease the numbers,” he said.

“In fact you send the breeding of that particular breed of dog underground.”

Mr Wirth says his change of heart was brought about by the latest veterinary and dog behaviour research.

“What I believed years ago, when I made those statements. was the common approach that even the veterinary profession was using,” he said.

“Now that this research has been done and it’s quite widespread we’ve discovered that our understanding of dogs and their behaviour was completely wrong.”

Graeme Smith of Victoria’s Lost Dogs Home says the AVA’s recommendations are a backward step.

“The old system of ‘deed not breed’ is a system that allows dogs one free bite,” Mr Smith said.

“In the case of American Pit Bull terriers one free bite can often be a fatal bite.

“Ten years ago I wouldn’t have been a breed specific person myself but I’ve seen what American Pit Bull terriers do and people are fearful of them and we need to protect the community from these dogs.”

The AVA will send a copy of the new strategy to each level of government in an effort to have the plan adopted nationally.

Emmett caught mid-yawn!

Dog bites. Not a cheery topic. Same with breed bans, which are inexplicably linked to dog bites. I’ve written a lot about my bully-mix Emmett and some more general bully love and rants (click on the Animal Rights category on the left side for previous posts). And though I’m sure most people who come read this blog (hello!) are of a similar dog-drool-loving mindset, I recently started tracking keywords that lead people to the site… I discovered a surprising number of dog-fight and pit bull related keywords. Hmm.

However, I don’t want to belabor the points (i.e. “pit bull” is an extremely misleading term, pit bulls take the fall for bad, irresponsible owners, etc.) So I thought it would be worthwhile to share some really good info I’ve recently discovered through the internet link-clicking rabbit hole!

2009 Dog Bite Fatalities Final Report: Read this! If only I could get a copy of this to every legislator who feels breed bans are the way to curb dog fights… If you read each incident thoroughly, several trends emerge. Which leads to the next article, also from the same site.

Dog bites vs dog attacks: Great article that goes into the dog bite epidemic (totally different from fatalities) with an awesome list of sources at the end.

Also, some major pit bull rescue love on The Brown Dog Blog, which I only discovered through The 2010 Brody Award page. Which led me to discover

Pinupsforpitbulls.com for which I have fallen madly in love and will be ordering a calendar ASAP!

Those are just a handful I’ve bookmarked in the last week… What about you? Any good links or resources to share?