New video on breed-specific preemption bills
Below is a good video put together that highlights much of the testimoy in South Dakota and Utah for the passing of their statewide bills that preempt municipalities from passing laws targeting specific breeds of dogs.
The testimony tackles property rights issues and the state as a check of abusive local government policy. It tackles the issue of personal responsibility and accountability. And it tackles the issue of inconsistent laws that create scenarios where a person can be walking down the street with their dog and by the very nature of crossing the street and into another juristiction can then be subjected to criminal charges for simply walking their dog which is not legal on the other side of the street in the neighboring juristictions.
"Law and policy should be based on individual actions and individual merits, not on classes "- Representative Nielson, Utah.
Preemption laws have been passed in 18 states in the US. Learn more in the 8 minute video:
JUNE 09, 2014
Dearborn County, IN joins growing list of communities repealing breed-specific laws
Last week, Dearborn County, IN (Population 50,000) became another sign of progress after the council passed a new law that elminates breed-specific provisions in the county code.
Now, all dogs in Dearborn County are declared vicious based on their actions and behaviors, not on their appearance. In addition to pet owners benefitting by not being targeted based on how their dog looks (or how someone else thinks it may look), the PUBLIC benefits by improved public safety with the limited animal control resources now being focused only on dogs that really are potentially aggressive.
This is the second in a great line of news out of the Hoosier State recently. Just 2 weeks ago,South Bend, IN also repealed its decades-old law targeting specific breeds. These two communities represent a larger trend of communities around the nation removing outdated breed-specific ordinances and replacing them with breed-neutral, behavior-based laws -- which the expert professional community overwhelmingly supports.
Great news, and great job by the folks in Dearborn County, IN.
MAY 29, 2014
The ongoing wave of change -- this time in South Bend, IN
Last night, the South Bend, IN (population 101,000) city council voted unanimously to eliminate its 3 decade old law targeting specific breeds of dogs.
During the conversation, the city made a major overhaul to its entire animal welfare code and while I've not read the bill in detail (and the devil is always in the details), at first glance, it seems that they've added a lot of progressiving things:
1) Replaces breed-specific language with behavior based language for defining dangerous dogs
2) Provides for the practice of trap-neuter-return for controlling the feral cat population
3) Strengthens enforcement on repeat offenders
4) Eliminates pet limits
The momentum continues for cities to take a more favorable approach to animals in their community and focus their limited animal control resources on truly problem animals (based on their behavior) and problem pet owners. Cities are continuing to remove decades old breed-specific laws in favor of breed-neutral, behavior based laws as they continue to recognize that targeting laws based on behavior are more progressive and effective.
The new law reflects the trend of eliminating pet limits, and allowing for TNR, which are now the more current best practices in animal welfare laws.
It is great to see so many cities agreeing to change their outdated laws and replace them with smarter, more humane laws. And while this is happening all across the country right now, it is still happening too slowly, and in 19 cases now, states have stepped in and forced cities to make the changes by prohibiting breed-specific laws -- a trend I hope will also continue.
APRIL 02, 2014
Utah becomes the 19th state to prohibit laws targeting specific breeds of dogs
It's official, today, the Utah Governor signed their law which now prohibits any city or municipality from instituting any type of law or policy targeting specific breeds of dogs.
The signing of the bill joins them with South Dakota as two states that have passed such laws in this legislative session. Utah is now the 19th state to prohibit laws targeting specific breeds, joining South Daktoa, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Nevada, Connecticut, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Minnesota, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Colorado, California and South Carolina with similar laws.
Meanwhile, Missouri HB 1116/SB 865 is a nearly identical bill that has been passed out of committee in both houses and now await a hearing on the main floor of the council. Missouri has a chance to join these other progressive states in forcing communities to deal with dangerous dogs based on the behavior of the dogs, not breeds. Expert opinion overwhelmingly supports breed-neutral solutions to dangerous dog laws -- now nearly 1/2 of all US states do to.
Congrats to the state of Utah.
MARCH 14, 2014
Great news as South Dakota & Utah added to states that prohibit laws targeting breeds
Today, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB 75 into law. SB 75 essentially prohibits local governments from targeting laws or policies at specific breeds. Here's the text:
"No local government may enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance, policy, resolution or other enactment that is specific as to the breed or perceived breed of dog. This section does not impair the right of any local government unit to enact, maintain, or enforce and form or regulation tahat applies to all dogs."
It's short, and effective, and in the end was passed by two houses and signed into law today. Not only does the law prohibit any South Dakota communities from passing laws targeting breeds, but also will overturn any existing breed-discriminatory laws -- which I believe will impact about 8 cities with a total population of 16,000 people.
Meanwhile, in Utah, the Senate passed a nearly identical law 26-2 that prevented local governments from enacting laws and policies targeting breeds. The bill was similarly approved by the House, and now awaits the governor's signature. Given the overwhelming support for the bill by the legislature, the final signing seems like little more than a formality. Utah currently has 10 jurisdictions with breed-specific laws that would be forced to overturn their laws.
With the addition of Utah and South Dakota, the grand total is now up to 18 states that have laws that prohibit laws targeting specific breeds of dogs. These two states join Massachussetts, Rhode Island, Nevada, Connecticut, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,Virginia, Minnesota, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Colorado and California as states that have proactively prohibited breed specific policies.
More states may be on the horizon -- as both Missouri and Maryland are also hearing similar legislation and both states have had the legislation move out of various committees.
It is awesome to see the progress state governments are making in listening to true expert testimony about the ineffectiveness of breed-discriminatory laws, and are protecting their citizens from the tyranny of local governments who insist on trying to force ineffective laws on theri constituents.
Times are definitely changing.
Great news from out of South Dakota and Utah over the past 24 hours....as intelligence is taking precedence over hysteria in the decision-making about dangerous dog policies.
FEBRUARY 05, 2014
Garden City, KS joins growing list of cities to repeal breed-specific law
Last night, Garden City, KS (population 27,000) became the latest community to repeal it's breed specific law. The law had previously designated American Pit Bull Terrers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers as being "vicious".
The mention of breeds has been removed from the ordinance and now the definition of vicious is based solely on the behavior of dogs -- including dogs that have a propensity to attack or have bitten.
"Pit Bull" owners will no longer have to post "vicious dog" signs and can now walk their dogs without muzzles.
Congrats to Garden City on their wise decision and in joining 5 other cities so far this year in repealing their breed-specific laws. The tide really is turning.
FEBRUARY 04, 2014
Public Safety, Stat Tracking, and errors of Omission
More news from out of Aurora, CO, where they are now officially considering repealing its 8 year old ban on "pit bulls".
Many cities have already recently repealed their long-standing breed bans in favor of breed neutral, behavior-based, dangerous dog ordinances -- including five communities already this year.
So far, at least 2 of the city's 10 city council members (Barb Cleland and Renie Peterson) have spoken out in favor of a repeal.
In response to the movement to repeal, the Denver Post wrote an editorial speaking out against the move to repeal. In it they note:
"Since Aurora instituted a pit bull ban in 2006, the number of bites attributed to restricted breeds has gone down from several dozen to just a few a year. So the logical move would be to....recind the city's breed bans? No, it doesn't make sense to us either."
Errors of omission are common. It's a way to provide an accurate data-point to support your point of view and then brush past all of the data that completely opposes your viewpoint.
In this case, there is a pretty major error of omission.
Here is the reason Aurora is considering a repeal of its breed ban: It's failing.
If you look at the TOTAL number of dog bites in the community, they are actually INCREASING. And increasing at an alarming rate. From 2006 (when the ban was passed) to 2010, Aurora actually saw a 67% increaese in the total number of dog bites -- a number that based on news reports continues to grow. While the number of bites by "restricted" breeds has decreased, it has come at the expense of a 71% increase in bites by non-restricted breeds (which always made up 80-85% of bites in the community in the first place).
Meanwhile, the city has systematically rounded up and killed more than 1158 dogs at the shelter simply because of the way they looked.
That's right. 1158 dogs killed and an increase in dog bites. Everyone should be livid that this has gone on for as long as it has.
So it is this error of omission that the Denver Post is guilty of in trying to persuade public opinion that the ban in Aurora is a good idea. It's such a major error that might make one ask: why would they make such a glaring omission?
My guess is that they realize that Aurora repealing its ban would put even more pressure on Denver to repeal its ban. Denver continues to stubbornly holds onto even though they have ahigher a hospitalization rate (per capita) from dog bites than other communities in Colorado, they've suffered a long series of court legal battles over the ban at taxpayer expense, and overall have seen their pit bull ban fail also.
Of concern of course is that apparently, animal care staffers with city animal control wrote a memo to the city council that "The ban on pit bulls continues to effectively work as intended."
Um, what?
Was the intent to raise dog bites in the city? Was the intent to wholesale slaughter more than 1100 dogs at taxpayer expense? If that's their intent, they should all be fired.
People defending them might note that the law was only intended to impact pit bulls, and not the other 85% of the bites in the community. And of course, if you wholesale slaughter ever pit bull in a community, you'll have fewer bites by pit bulls because you'd killed them all.
But here's the deal: there are opportunity costs for enforcement. Every time an animal control officer spends time, money and effort to round up and kill an innocent pit bull, that same officer is not spending that same time on stray or aggressive dogs of other breeds. Meanwhile, as negligent dog owners replace their pit bulls with another type of dog, bites by those breeds go up because you didn't solve the actual problem of irresponsible and reckless dog ownership. This happens EVERY.SINGLE. TIME. a city passes a breed ban: see Sioux City, Council Bluffs &Omaha as prime examples.
It's a failed law. Based on a failed concept. That isopposed by every organization of experts in canine behavior in the nation.
Telling half truths through omission doesn't change that. And defining success as a decrease in one type of dog bites but an increase in all others doesn't change it either.
No comments:
Post a Comment