Breed-specific legislation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Breed-specific legislation (BSL), is any law, ordinance or policy which pertains to a specific dog breed or breeds, but does not affect any others.

Some examples of BSL:

  • Restrictions in Australia prohibiting the importation of the Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and the Brazilian Mastiff. There is also a more stringent ban in Sydney, Australia restricting the sale, acquisition, breeding or giving away of any of the aforementioned breeds. [2]
  • Proposed legislation in some Australian states that would prohibit the breeding of any breed of dog not recognized by the Australian National Kennel Council, or restrict or prohibit breeding certain breeds.
  • The requirement that Greyhounds wear muzzles in public in some Australian states.

Contents

[edit] Pros and cons

This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time. This article has been tagged since December 2006.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Proponents of BSL usually cite the need to protect the public from dog breeds viewed to have inherent tendencies to aggressive behavior. Many tend to believe that dangerous dogs must be certain breeds in order to make them this way. Some proponents believe that a pitbull has superior jaw strength, different muscular ability, and the like.

Proponents point to specific studies done, particularly the CDC study (Center for Disease Control). On the other hand, certain evidence shows that where BSL has been implemented, there is no proof that it actually produced the intended effect. Recently, laws are being pushed for implementing mandatory spay/neuter ONLY for those breeds proven to be dangerous, such as the law in California (Senate Bill 861, codified under the dangerous dog laws)and currently being challenged in Federal court.

Opponents believe that many of the policies created by BSL have been randomly or illogically developed, and are often capriciously or inconsistently enforced. For example, though "Pit Bulls" are primarily the focus of BSL, there is no consensus on what a "Pit Bull" actually is. The term "Pit-Bull-Type-Dog" has been used to describe over ten very different breeds, including bulldogs, boxers, and bullmastiffs. Additionally, Rottweilers, though having shown a virtually equal propensity for dog attacks, are rarely included in dog bans or BSL. Dobermans, German Shepards, Great Danes, Huskies, Malamutes and Mastiff-Type Dogs also frequently injure people, but do not experience the same scrutiny as Bull Breeds. [4]

Some believe an alternative to Breed Specific Legislation might be the consistent enforcement of existing dog laws. Others believe that offending dogs and people should be judged on a case by case basis, as dog attacks happen infrequently enough to warrant careful attention to each instance.

[edit] Recent developments

Some cities are removing breed specific ordinances to comply with the Sixth District ruling. Others are waiting to see how the Ohio Supreme Court will rule in the appeal of City of Toledo v. Tellings. To see the Ohio Supreme Court docket in this case, search for case no. 2006-0690 at Ohio Supreme Court's Public Case Inquiry.

Pending Ohio HB 533 would remove the language from ORC 955.11 automatically defining pit bulls as vicious dogs. Any action on this bill awaits the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in the Tellings case. [5]

And currently in the Ohio Supreme Court, the ASPCA (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Society) filed an amicus brief in support of the Tellings decision, supra, in which it states " The trial court and the Sixth District agreed that the most current research indicates that dogs deemed to be pit bulls are not more dangerous than dogs of other breeds, so temperament cannot provide the rationale for the Ohio pit bull law and the other challenged statute, Toledo’s ordinance prohibiting ownership of more than one adult dog deemed to be a pit bull (T.M.C. §505.14(a)).

Surely, then, these laws regulating pit bulls as vicious dogs must have a positive impact on public safety, their touted purpose. However, this, too, is not the case: while in 1996, 14.6% of animal control agencies reported local problems with dogfighting, by 2004, the number of agencies reporting local problems with dogfighting had skyrocketed to 29%.

Further, Lucas County’s own data indicates a similar spiking in dog bite numbers (approximately 640 bites) in 2001 – more than a decade after the enactment of Ohio’s pit bull law and the Toledo ordinance.Given the absence of evidence to support the notion that dogs deemed to be pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs and should be regulated on this basis, as well as the failure of the Ohio and Toledo pit bull laws to address canine aggression in any meaningful way, these laws appear to have only two outcomes:

(1) the unavoidably arbitrary enforcement of irrational policy, including the unreasonably disparate treatment of different classes of persons, and (2) the consequent grievous harm to property and liberty that flows from such wholesale compromise of procedural and substantive due process rights." (Amicus brief submitted on behalf of the Tellings case by ASPCA attorney Debora M. Bresch, Pro Hac Vice, in the appeal of the Tellings case in the Ohio Supreme Court, November 28, 2006.)

Recently in Colorado, where pitbull dogs are banned in certain areas, an elderly lady owning a pitbull service dog was told her dog was banned, despite its service dog function. This is problematic if there is no exception for such dogs just because of its breed. The canine advocacy group working on legal cases there was asked to help, and will likely take issue with this shortly.Attorney Caroline Cooley in Colorado is handling this case for American Canine Foundation member.[citation needed]

As for discussion regarding any anti-BSL groups, there are many of them. However, few of them actually litigate legal cases, or succeeded in actually changing laws that exist; the Tellings case in Ohio, financed by the American Canine Foundation (ACF) is currently at the Ohio Supreme Court, and this group has had success in the majority of their cases. In some cases, the laws have been tabled before they could be implemented, due to grassroots lobbying. In others, different groups only made the situations worse or different, but did not change the law so it would constitutional. An example is the Badrap rescue group out of San Francisco; they claimed to co-author the California law (SB861) which anti-BSL proponents contend violates several constitutional provisions since it categorizes pitbull dogs as dangerous, and also affects other elements of the law involving the commerce clause and due process.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/dolafact.pdf Dog Legislation Council of Canada: The Dog Owners' Liability Act of Ontario, Information Sheet
  2. ^ From Sydney Morning Herald - http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Dangerous-dog-ban-met-with-delight-and-disgust/2005/05/03/1115092487393.html
  3. ^ http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/dogbite/
  4. ^ http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf Breeds of Dogs Involved In Fatal Attacks - Center for Disease Control
  5. ^ Cities are Collared by Rulings on Pit Bulls by Reena A. Koontz, The Plain Dealer, Sept. 5, 2006.
  • The Age, September 4, 2005, Crackdown on dangerous dogs [1]
  • Adam Morton in The Age, September 5, 2005, War on terrier given teeth as the law gets tough [2]

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/e/Breed-specific_legislation.html"