Total Pageviews

Monday 8 June 2015

Brian Richter-- BSL= Bullshit Legislation



What if citizens began to question a particular race of humans, because a few individuals of a certain background are featured on the news for kidnapping, murder, or assault? What if they began taking the few situations too far, and decided to ban this specific race? It’s completely disrespectful and immoral. No one should judge based on appearance, myths, rumors, or only a small number of stories. However, in our society today, much of that discrimination is displayed so unfairly. So, banning a breed of dog would be like banning a race of humans. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), is any law, ordinance or policy which pertains to a specific dog breed or breeds, but does not effect any other. It is in response to a certain amount of well-publicized incidents involving Pit Bull resembling dogs. The first Breed Specific Legislation was placed in the United Kingdom as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and then Ontario, a Canadian province, became the first to ban Pit Bull type dogs. BSL has been enacted in the U.S, Italy, Switzerland, Puerto Rico, Canada, and the UK (BSL Listings 2005). BSL has usually been against the Pit Bull type dogs. However, the term Pit Bull labels any type of short-coated large terrier with a wide skull, powerful jaws, and a muscular body. The American Staffordshire Terrier and Bull Terrier are often mistaken for the American Pit Bull Terrier, therefore Pit Bulls are generalized as a category.
The people who hold issues with this category are always in favor of banning breeding of the dogs and killing off what is left. The remaining people who are opposed to Breed Specific Legislation believe in alternatives such as strengthening and enforcing penalties to dangerous owners, more funding to terminate dog fighting, strengthening animal abuse laws, preventing criminals from owning dogs, and regulating breeders (Thomas 2005).
BSL should not be enforced as a solution to incidents of dogs harming people. There are more reasonable alternatives that are usually more effective in preventing dog attacks, and probably even more solutions.
Since Pit Bull type dogs are more discriminated against, the myths about them need to be discovered. Although American Pit Bull Terriers were genetically selected for fighting, it only means they are easily encouraged to be aggressive. With early socialization, a puppy will grow up to be a normal tempered dog. Also, a Pit Bull Terrier’s intimidating appearance attracts the wrong owners who cannot handle the dog, or they own the dog for the wrong reason. They may be seeking a macho dog, therefore encouraging aggression. With BSL at work, criminals will do what they are best at and habitually break the law. They will breed illegal dogs, and if the dogs are confiscated or killed, a criminal will not be concerned. Pit Bull Terriers are abused and sold to irresponsible owners, being favored by drug dealers, and street gangs. BSL affects innocent, responsible owners. A beloved family dog can be taken and killed only because of its appearance, not temperament. Though, the owners of real bad tempered dogs escape like a baby’s uncle leaving a trusted dog with an infant. When a Pit Bull type dog attacks and kills an infant, the dogs breed is blamed, but when a 10 pound Pomeranian attacks and kills an infant, the dogs owner is blamed. The American Temperament Test Society even conducted a test on Pit Bull Terriers (ATTS, Chesser). Pit Bulls have an average score beating the Golden Retriever a.k.a. the ultimate family dog. Pit Bulls are not as vicious as what the media makes them out to be. American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and American Bulldogs are dogs of the Canine Lupus Familiaris, as a Labrador Retriever or Maltese is. In 1965-2001, out of 53 million dogs in the U.S., only 92 fatal attacks were by Pit Bull Terriers and mixes (Mann 2006). Fatal dog attacks by dangerous dogs are almost non-existent. 20 a year out of millions of dogs, the percent estimate is .0000004% fatal dog attacks. The real victims are the dogs bred for the wrong reason. Pit Bulls are the victims of food and water deprivation, being hung, locked in closets, and rectums filled with gun powder to make them more aggressive when fighting (Santa Cruz, 2006).
Genetics do not prove much about the Pit Bull Terrier. It does not mean the cannot be around other dogs, or that they are unpredictably aggressive, or that they will fight to the death. Early socialization acts to prevent puppies against future unpleasant experiences. The attraction that many people have for these generalized dogs causes a growing demand, therefore causing uncaring breeders to produce puppies without maintaining a breed. Then, the law abiding owners whose dogs cause no harm have their homes invaded without a search warrant, and the dogs are dragged away in front of the children. For the Pomeranian who killed an infant, there was obviously a problem with the individual dog itself. Even the Center for Disease Control (CDC) support the position on irresponsible owners (CDC, Chesser). The most damaging part of the problem is the abuse of these dogs, selling, and breeding to people like drug dealers. The mistreatment of many dogs of this “dangerous” category are trained to be aggressive in the most inhumane ways. With media all around, people make the Pit Bull to be some sort of “super dog.”
Studies show that it takes less to arouse a Pit Bull than many other breeds to be aggressive towards other dogs. Puppies of all breeds need to be socialized with other dogs in order to learn how to interact, play, and communicate. LA Times featured an article titled, “Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog. (LA Times b-5)” Most people would accuse the dog of being a Pit Bull, however it was an aggressive Pomeranian. The mistreatment and neglect of proper training of Pit Bulls lead them to be notorious for redirecting aggression to their own owners. It is the people who have done this to such a loyal and affectionate dog. Is it the people or the Pits that are more vicious? The dogs who are treated affectionately in their families are innocently dragged away from home and killed. BSL would not be affective according to studies, because studies indicate that most dangerous breeds of dogs changes with popularity and reputation. The so-called super dogs may be super-athletic but they are still dogs. “Fatal Dog Attacks” by Karen Delise shows the number of fatal dog attacks by “dangerous” dogs. This category of dogs is not dangerous, but the fatal attacks of Pit Bulls are nothing compared to the inhumanity.
People may claim that American Pit Bull Terriers are the number one biting breed, but according to statistics, they were not the number one biting breed. For people who suppose BSL will lower the number of dog bites, overall numbers increased by an average of almost 50 for the next ten years after BSL was induced. The biting breeds who rose up to the top of the list began at German Shepherds, proving breeds do not matter. Although it is true that Pit Bull Terriers can be easily encouraged to be aggressive, it only proves that the more genetically aggressive dogs need to be put in the more experienced hands rather than the hands of irresponsible owners. Irresponsible owners are less likely to socialize, train or neuter/spay their dogs. For the people who follow the BSL laws, the irresponsible breeders may end up continuing this nonsense. They will continue with the next macho breed. The cause of BSL to be enacted is mainly caused by attacks by Pit Bull type dogs, but in a more logical sense, the situation is at the owners fault. A well raised, and socialized Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire, or American Bulldog, is capable of things like being a faithful companion of Helen Keller, serving as therapy a dog, working in search and rescue, narcotics, explosives detection, and police and sentry duty (ASPCA “What is a Pit Bull?”).
Banning specific breeds of dogs will simply result in irresponsible dog owners who seek to own large breeds to get their hands on breeds with a similar temperament such as Rottweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepherds. Dogs may have aggressive genetics, but with the right owner, it makes a perfect dog. Breed Specific Legislation only raises animal abuse and neglect, increases dog attacks, and increases amounts of irresponsible owners.
~Brian

Brian Richter --- I am an animal, not an object.



I am an animal, not an object. You can’t kick me around like a pair of old used shoes…
You know, I have super-sensitive feelings too.
And a sixth sense to boot – so I know when you’re feeling down in the dumps and blue.
I am an animal; I am not something you “just have”. I feel mental, emotional and physical pain.
Don’t tread on me; don’t be too hard on me, because the spirited spree from me you’ll immediately drain.
I am a “who,” not a “that; “you can’t starve me because you can’t or won’t buy food,
Just take me to a shelter where they can make some arrangements, and stick me with a bunch of like-minded friendly broods.
I am an animal, I am not a thing. I have emotions; I feel sensations, love, anger, and fear.
If you don’t love me, I can definitely tell, but I’ll still greet you every day with a smile from ear to ear.
I am a beloved pet; I am not a thing, I have a beating heart, I have working organs and lungs.
You simply cannot ignore me or neglect me… If you do, I’ll simply come undone… Ill unravel ‘til I’m on the last wrung.
I am an animal, not a thing. And that means it’s hard for me to take care of myself.
I really depend on you to help me out, to care for me, So don’t scream at me when I have an accident or deserve a small pat on the butt, that makes everything worse and I’ll only want to cower about.
I am an animal not a thing; you can’t just dump me when work and life become too bustled.
I don’t deserve to be taken on just a quick three-minute walk at night where I’m constantly being hurried and hustled.
I am an animal with natural instincts; I like to smell the grass and flowers and bushes and trees.
I was born of the same nature that I am sniffing so give me time to work my way through the pee-mails and the lovely scents in the breeze.
I am an animal; I have a big warm beating heart- the same as that child you just had.
Don’t forget me when there’s a new addition–I love her too, but if you suddenly ignore me I’ll become extremely depressed and sad.
I am a best friend, not just something you own, I speak with my eyes, my ears and my tail,
Look deeply into me and show me your love please because that’s what the very best part of my day entails.
I am your animal, not your thing – I breathe the same air and live in the same super nice or crappy area as you do,
So be good to it, and be good to me, because I promise right now all I know is to be good to you too.
I am your animal; I am part of your beating heart, and I show unconditional love…
Animals Sent To Earth to Bring Love
Show me how to grow, how to learn, how to be and you won’t be let down,
because all we animals,
you see, like white flying peace doves,
We’re on special missions sent directly from Heaven above.
We’re here to fill the Earth with much-needed Compassion, Devotion and Love.
~Brian
By Brian Richter,

For I am- by Brian Richter


For I am you -- whether winged or furry or water bound- I live and die, just as do you.
I see you because you can look at me as well and see that my blood runs through my body; a body given by the creator, just as yours was given to you.
You live as you choose and make your rules to suit your existence--yet your rules do not protect me, for I can not speak to protect my kind and our rights. Therefore, I do not live; I merely exist, because unlike you, I have no choice.
I hear you because you hear me; yet you choose not to hear my need for compassion to live as my creator intended; just as you do.
Your home is my home; yet you take mine away because you see my existence as trivial; however, in as much, you destroy your home as well for pleasures sake.
My legs were made to roam, my wings to soar, my feet however diverse were made to walk this earth.
Our laws were given by nature which we respect to the fullest for herein lies our survival. You do not respect the laws of nature--you punish her with your own laws which are born from greed and selfishness against your own environment and your own kind.. Stop...for a moment and see our existence--for in doing so you would learn the true meaning of being alive--untainted and innocent, we survive on instincts alone that you have thrown away. Stop ... and listen to the voiceless .... Stop and look at me. Do you not yet recognize me ... .... for I am you. You are my voice.
~Brian

It takes away good dogs from good guardians like me and you.. by Brian Richter


BSL does nothing but separate.
It is a word us pit bull guardians have come to hate.
It tears families apart,
And treats pit bulls as if they don't have a heart.
How awful to euthanize a dog because of its breed.
When it only asks to be love, but is misunderstood indeed.
I wish BSL wouldn't spread.
Hard to think one day this entire breed might be dead.
Yet thousands of pits are euthanized each day in shelters from overcrowding.
"Well then stop BSL" us pit bull guardians are shouting!
So what does BSL do?
It takes away good dogs from good guardians like me and you.
~Brian

Thursday 28 May 2015

BSL in the Courts

BSL in the Courts

Court cases challenging BSL have focused on constitutional concerns such as substantive due process, equal protection, and vagueness. Most BSL will survive the minimum scrutiny analysis allowed by the due process clauses of the Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because there is no fundamental right at issue. This analysis requires that the law being challenged must be rationally related to a legitimate government goal or purpose. Because state and local jurisdictions enjoy broad police powers, including protecting the public’s safety and welfare, courts have not had trouble finding that BSL is rationally related to the goal of protecting the public from allegedly dangerous breeds.
Challenges based on equal protection arguments are similarly difficult to sustain. Here courts are looking at whether there is a rational purpose for treating pit bull breeds differently from other dog breeds. Dog owners have attacked the rational purpose requirement by arguing either that BSL is over–inclusive, because it bans all dogs of a breed when only certain individuals within the breed have proven to be vicious, or under–inclusive, because many types of dogs have injured people and the BSL fails to include those other breeds. However, again under minimum scrutiny review, BSL will survive as long as the government can establish that the BSL is rationally related to its purpose, even if the law is found to be over–inclusive or under–inclusive.
Claims that BSL is unconstitutionally vague have brought dog owners mixed success. Procedural due process requires that laws provide the public with sufficient notice of the activity or conduct being regulated or banned. Here owners of pit bulls or other banned breeds argue that the breed ban laws do not adequately define just what is a “pit bull” (or other banned breed) for purposes of the ban. Another argument is that the laws are too vague to help the dog–owning public or the BSL enforcement agency—such as animal control or police—to be able to identify whether a dog falls under the BSL if the dog was adopted with an unknown origin or is a mixed breed. In the Niko case it took a DNA test to resolve this issue, after which the charges based on the BSL were dropped.

Enforcement Issues

Enforcement of BSL naturally leads to the question: Who determines whether a dog is one of the banned or regulated breeds, and what is the procedure for that determination? Surprisingly, in places such as North Salt Lake, Utah, the city manager has sole authority to make that call. In other places it is the mayor or animal control officers. No special training in breed identification is required. Some jurisdictions have passed their BSL legislation without any input from a veterinarian, presumably the type of expert most capable of identifying dog breeds. Attorney Ledy VanKavage has spent the last decade studying BSL and is considered one of the country’s foremost experts on the subject. She is now general counsel for Best Friends Animal Society after working for years as the senior director of legislation and legal training for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). She calls BSL “breed discrimination laws” and asserts that with the advance of DNA analysis for dogs becoming more available, the days of mere “canine profiling” and arbitrary enforcement are numbered. VanKavage believes that because the government has the burden of proving that a dog is one of the breeds banned or regulated by BSL, cities will have to seriously weigh whether they should pony up the high cost of DNA tests or simply give up trying to enforce BSL.
http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/pitbull.html

Sunday 24 May 2015

Ignorance is Unbelievable Just now · The National Canine Research Council finds that BSL is on the decline nationwide: Utah's governor signed a BSL ban this past spring that goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2015.

The National Canine Research Council finds that BSL is on the decline nationwide: Utah's governor signed a BSL ban this past spring that goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2015. Nevada, Connecticut and Rhode Island enacted similar legislation in 2013. 
The law, which is short and sweet, provides that 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 a dog. This section does not impair the right of any local government unit to enact, maintain, or enforce any form of regulation that applies to all dogs."
Ledy VanKavage, senior legislative attorney for Best Friends Animal Society -- an animal welfare group which pushed for the legislative effort in South Dakota -- cheered the new law.
“July 1 is a declaration of independence for dogs in South Dakota,” said VanKavage in a news release. “This is an enormous victory for dogs and the families who love them."
Pit bull advocates will hereby know July 1 as "Dog Breed Independence Day" in South Dakota. On Tuesday, a law goes into effect that stops localities in that state...
HUFFINGTONPOST.COM

Friday 22 May 2015

Breed-Specific Policies: No Basis in Science

Neither science nor statistics support policies that discriminate based on breed or physical appearance
Laws and policies restricting certain breeds may break up families, but they won't make a community safer. Photo by Diane Lewis
Experts agree that breed-specific legislation (BSL) and similar policies that restrict dogs based on appearance do not reduce dog bites in communities or enhance public safety.

American Veterinary Medical Association

“Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite. Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds.”

“Statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs cannot be responsibly used to document the ‘dangerousness’ of a particular breed, relative to other breeds, for several reasons.”Download the full report.

American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior

“Any dog may bite, regardless of the dog’s size or sex, or reported breed or mix of breeds. The AVSAB’s position is that such legislation—often called breed-specific legislation (BSL)—is ineffective, and can lead to a false sense of community safety as well as welfare concerns for dogs identified (often incorrectly) as belonging to specific breeds.” Download the position statement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The CDC recommends against using breed as a factor in dog-bite prevention policy and states: “Any dog of any breed has the potential to bite.”
Current Breed Specific ordinances have proven ineffective in reducing the number of pit bulls in Topeka or the number of dog bites. Breed Specific Legislation, i.e. targeting a particular breed such as American Pit Bull Terriers, has generally been discredited in actual experience of cities, professionals and academic research as being both ineffective and expensive.” — City Attorney’s Office, Topeka, Kan.

National Canine Research Council

“The trend in prevention of dog bites continues to shift in favor of multifactorial approaches focusing on improved ownership and husbandry practices, better understanding of dog behavior, education of parents and children regarding safety around dogs, and consistent enforcement of dangerous dog/reckless owner ordinances in communities. Effective laws hold all dog owners responsible for the humane care, custody, and control of all dogs regardless of breed or type.” Read more from the NCRC.

MC Residential

“Pets are part of people’s lives. As opposed to restricting pets, we look for better residents. Most fears apartment operators have are myths.” — Eric Brown, Vice President of Marketing for MC Residential, an apartment management company in Ariz., Okla. and Texas

Obama Administration

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation—research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources." Read the statement.

State Farm Insurance

“We do not ask nor do we care what breed of dog is owned by a person. So when we are writing home owner’s insurance, rental insurance, or renewing policies, it is nowhere in our questions what breed of dog is owned.” — Heather Paul, Public Affairs Specialist

Monday 18 May 2015

‘Dangerous’ Pit Bulls Are Still Banned in Aurora (But Assault Rifles and Glocks Are Not)

aurora colorado pit bull banVoters in Aurora, Colo., overwhelmingly decided yesterday not to repeal the city’s nine-year-old ban on Pit Bulls. As of 6 a.m. this morning, 66 percent of them had voted to keep the ban.
Yet you can still purchase assault rifles and Glock pistols in local sporting goods stores, as Aurora resident James Holmes did before shooting down moviegoers in July 2012, killing 12 and wounding 58 — however, Pit Bulls are “dangerous,” and continue to be banned from the city.
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) — laws that single out a particular breed instead of placing responsibility on dog owners — is opposed by every major animal welfare organization, including the ASPCAAVMA, HSUS, etc., etc., as well as by the president of the United States, who called it a “bad idea.” It is expensive to enforce and has not proven to increase public safety.
So why did the majority of Aurora voters decide to keep the city’s Pit Bull ban?
“I personally think it’s an uphill battle to win a repeal via a public vote, generally because if a ban is in place, most of the residents have had very little personal interaction with the banned breeds and thus, are more apt to have to rely on the media coverage as the basis for their opinions,” wrote Brent Toellner, co-founder of KC Pet Project, the nation’s third-largest no-kill shelter, on the Huffington Post.
“To this point, the area media has not been terribly accurate in their reporting.”
As always, leading the support of the ban — and bans everywhere — was DogBites.org (start typing that in Google, and what automatically pops up is “DogBites.org bias,” “DogBites.org bullshit,” “DogBites.org scam” — you get the picture).
This lobbying organization that spews twisted statistics is run by one woman, Colleen Lynn, who was bitten by a Pit Bull. (I wish she could meet Donna Lawrence, who was also bitten by a chained Pit Bull. Instead of bitterly wanting to ban the entire breed, Lawrence rescued an abused Pit mix named Susie, and they both helped each other heal — and Susie, now a therapy dog, continues to help others heal. Susie is this year’s winner of the American Humane Association’s Hero Dog Award.)
Lynn is by no means a dog expert, yet the mainstream media continues to report the “facts” she provides, without bothering to dig a little deeper to uncover the truth.
As Lynn points out, Pit Bull bites have decreased since the Aurora ban went into effect — but animal control officers have been ignoring bites by other breeds, which have increased, according to Juliet Piccone, president of Coloradans for Breed Neutral Dog Laws Inc.
“If the goal is to prevent dog bites, it’s not working,” Piccone told the Denver Post. “If the goal is to prevent dog bites from restricted breeds, they can say, ‘Yes, that’s happening.’ ”
City officials told the Denver Post that Piccone was incorrect — but they did not provide the actual statistics.
For the majority of us who feel BSL is unfair and ineffective, the good news is that the trend across the country has been to repeal breed-specific legislation.
“While disappointment is part of the game, it does not signal the end,” wrote the advocacy groupColoRADogs on its Facebook page last night. “Twenty-three thousand people voted NO to hysteria, NO to social disapproval and NO to discrimination.”
Photo via Facebook

U.S. communities increasingly ditching pit bull bans

Three decades after officials in more than 700 cities throughout the country began passing bans and other restrictions to keep pit bulls out of their communities, state and local governments are increasingly reconsidering their approach to what not so long ago was America's most vilified pet.
Since June, at least nine communities in the Midwest have overturned pit bull bans that were on the books. Last week, Hallsville, Mo., became the latest to lift its ban after a family successfully appealed to the City Council for a change in law when it learned the family dog was a pit bull mix.
Over the past two years, more than 100 municipalities across the USA have overturned bans and other restrictions that target dogs in the pit bull family, the generic term commonly used to describe the American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and many mixed-breed dogs with square-shaped heads and bulky builds.
More communities could soon follow suit.
The unified government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., is considering lifting a pit bull ban that has been on the books for nearly a quarter-century, as part of a comprehensive overhaul of its animal control policies.
The push in Kansas City (pop. 148,000) comes as Roeland Park, Kan. (pop. 6,800) recently began reviewing its ban on pit bulls. The nearby community of Bonner Springsannounced this year that it was lifting its ban.
Advocates argue the bans have been ineffective in reducing dog bites and led to millions of dogs being euthanized. They say too often animal control officials, law enforcement and the media misidentify offending dogs as pit bulls.
"The only ones that are being affected by these bans are responsible dog owners,"said Janelle Holland, a pit bull owner who was forced to leave Roeland Park more than a decade ago after learning she was violating the ban.
There's been action on the statewide level as well.
This year, South Dakota and Utah joined 17 other states in passing laws to prevent local governments passing "breed-specific legislation," or BSL, making it illegal for cities to pass bans targeting pit bulls or any other breed. (The South Dakota law went into effect in July, and Utah's prohibition on pit bull bans will be law on New Year's Day.)
Breed-specific legislation began spreading in communities throughout the country in the mid-1980s after a surge in fatal dog bitings, including a disproportionate number of incidents initially attributed to pit bull-type dogs.
The pit bull was popular in illegal dogfighting rings, and the breed developed a reputation as a favorite accessory of drug dealers and gangsters.
This month, residents in the Denver suburb of Aurora, Colo.voted by a 2-to-1 ratio in a referendum to keep their pit bull ban on the books. The Aurora vote follows a vote in 2012 in Miami-Dade County, where voters opted to keep the ban by a similarly wide ratio.
Jeff Borchardt, an East Troy, Wis.-man whose 14-month-old son, Daxton, was fatally mauled last year by two pit bulls while being cared for by a babysitter, says government leaders should look to the Aurora and Miami examples before overturning bans.
"There's this pro-pit-bull movement that tries to paint these dogs as nanny dogs and sweet, lovely and kind," Borchardt said. "It's disgusting, it's dangerous, and it's irresponsible."
Some groups, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Humane Society and the American Bar Association, have suggested governments would be better off focusing attention on problem animals in a community rather than banning any particular breed of dog.
The push to end pit bull bans got a boost last year, when the Obama administration — in response to opponents of such laws petitioning the White House — said it was opposed to breed-specific legislation.
Stakeholders on opposite sides of the issue cast aspersions about the evidence the others use to back their arguments. A lack of recent government or third-party data on pit bull bites further muddies the national conversation.
The National Canine Research Council, which opposes breed-specific legislation, points to a 2013 study it partly funded that suggests a dog's environment has more to do than its breed with the likelihood of a dog making a deadly attack.
The study, published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, of 256 dog bite-related fatalities from 2000-2009 found co-occurring factors in more than 80% of the deadly incidents, such as the absence of an able-bodied person to stop the attack, a history of abuse or neglect of the dog and the failure by owners to neuter the dogs.
"It's becoming more and more obvious that breed-specific legislation doesn't improve public safety," says Janis Bradley, director of communication for the NCRC. "Its purpose is to reduce injuries from dog bites, but there is no municipality or state where it's enacted where they've been able to show that it's accomplished this."
The Center for Disease Control, which opposes BSL, notes that fatal attacks represent a tiny fraction of about 4.7 million dog bites Americans suffer annually and that it's difficult to accurately calculate bite rates for specific breeds.
DogsBite.org, a group that advocates in favor of BSL, points to its own research, culled from news reports of dog-bite-related fatalities, that shows 74% of incidents from 2005 to 2013 involved a pit bull or Rottweiler.
Colleen Lynn, founder of DogsBite.org, dismisses the suggestion from the CDC and others that BSL doesn't work.
"It's not designed to reduce all dog bites," said Lynn, who said pit bulls are an inherently aggressive animal. "It's breed-specific and meant to reduce pit bull maulings and fatalities."
Even as dozens of American communities abandon BSL, some ponder its merits.
This year, Riverside, Ala., a community about 40 miles outside of Birmingham, weighed enacting a pit bull ban after a 5-year-old boy was fatally mauled by neighbor's pit bull. City officials opted against it.
Mayor Rusty Jessup said he would prefer not to have any pit bulls in his community of 3,000. Jessup said he didn't think his community could enforce such a ban or even positively determine the breeds of dogs.
"We were just afraid that we were going to get situations where we're trying to enforce this and people are saying, 'That dog's not a pit bull, it's a boxer,'" Jessup said. " And doggone it, who are we going to have to make that determination?"

Recent Trends in Breed Specific Legislation: Logic Trumps Hysteria Posted on June 10, 2013

Ever wonder if the advocates who are working hard to stop Breed Specific Legislation are making an impact? The answer is YES they are!
YOU are making a difference. Here’s the proof:
Since January 2012, Breed Specific Legislation is consistently being repealed or rejected more than it is being passed or considered. That’s something to take note of and celebrate!
According to our exhaustive research, conducted and updated every month, here’s the breakdown:
Since January 2012 BSL is being considered, either actively or the issue remains unresolved, in approximately 33 locations in the United States. Here is a sampling of locations in that category:

-Covington, LA
-Riverside County, CA
-Woonsocket, RI
-West Memphis, AR
-Albany, GA
-Lawrenceburg, IN
-Panola County, MS
-Caledonia, MN
-Wareham, MA

Since January 2012 BSL has been passed in approximately 16 locations in the United States. Here is a sampling of locations in that category:
-Washington, LA
-Etowah, TN
-Caddo Valley, AR
-Bluefield, WV
-Schuyler, NE
-Terrell County, GA
-Elephant Butte, NM
-Portsmouth, OH
-Camp Lejune, NC – Marine Corps Base

Wait…Here’s the good news.
Since January 2012 BSL has been rejected in approximately 32 locations in the United States. Here is a sampling of locations in that category:
-Bronwood, GA
-Royal Oak, MI
-Ionia, MI
-Yalobusha County, MS
-Waterbury, CT
-Cridersville, OH
-Sioux Falls SD
-Ramona, KS
-West Fork, AR
-Hammond, LA
-Hobart IN
-Camanche, IA
-Dunn, NC
-Slater, MO
-Fund du Lac, WI
-Crab Orchard, KY
-Hagerstown, MD
-Bloomington, IL
Since January 2012 BSL has been repealed in approximately 24 locations in the United States. Here is a sampling of locations in that category:
-Town & Country, MO
-Ohio STATEWIDE
-Worcester, MA
-North Beach, MD
-Allen Park, MI
-Dekalb County, GA
-Morris, IL
-Darlington, WI
Since January 2012 BSL is being considered for  repeal in approximately 17 locations in the United States. Here is a sampling of locations in that category:
-South Bend, IN
-Dodge City, KS
-Wilmington, DE
-Manly, IA
-Parma, OH
-Clayton, MO
-Waterford, MI
Since January 2012 BSL has been preempted in at least 3 states:
Nevada
Connecticut
Massachusetts
This brings the total to 15 for states with BSL preemptions in place. More are pending.

In case you weren’t counting, that’s:
49 locations with BSL passed or being considered
76 locations with BSL rejected, repealed, preempted

See? We told you that you’re doing great work! Keep it up. Discriminatory, ineffective laws are being replaced with fair, humane, and effective laws: one town, one county, one state at a time.

Looking for more? Check out our BSL map which is updated once a month:
BSL Map
View Breed Specific Legislation Map in a full screen map

Banning Breed-Specific Legislation: Good News For All Dogs

The recent announcement that six states are considering permanent bans on breed-specific legislation (BSL) isn’t just good news for pit bulls and their owners -- it’s good news for all dogs and dog-lovers. BSL, which singles out specific dog breeds and places restrictions on ownership in certain areas, most often targets pit bulls, who have attained immense social stigma largely because of such laws. According to one report, the breed has an overwhelming 93% euthanasia rate, and approximately three-quarters of rescued pit bulls are put down before having a chance at adoption.
But, as BSL opponents -- including the American Bar Association, Best Friends Animal Society, and President Barack Obama -- will argue, pit bulls are not inherently dangerous. Neither are Dobermans, rottweilers and German shepherds, who were all also considered America’s most-feared “tough dog” at one point or another. According to Jennifer Brause, the executive director of Baltimore Animal Shelter, BSL could just as easily have targeted those breeds -- and it could just as easily target others.
“Unfortunately, we’re in the decade of the pit bull,” Brause told the Humane Society. “And it’s going to be another dog after this.” That is, unless Maryland, Vermont, South Dakota, Missouri, Utah, Washington and eventually other states do opt to block BSL permanently. And, according to a poll by Best Friends Animal Society, that’s exactly what the people want:
A new national survey commissioned by Best Friends Animal Society reveals that 84 percent of those polled believe that local, state or federal governments should not infringe on a person’s right to own whatever breed of dog they choose.

This survey, conducted by Luntz Global, is consistent with a growing trend by many state and local governments that have repealed breed discriminatory provisions and enacted behavior-based, breed-neutral dangerous dog laws. Of the 850 polled, 59 percent were dog owners. Only four percent of those polled believed the federal government should dictate what breed of dog a person could own, while six percent supported state government restrictions and 11 percent local government limits.
According to Ledy VanKavage, an attorney for Best Friends, widespread opposition to BSL indicates a positive step toward accepting all dog breeds -- even the ones that are perceived as dangerous. “People view dogs as members of their family,” VanKavage told Huffington Post. “In America, responsible dog owners should be able to have whatever breed of dog they choose.” Soon, that might be the case across most of the country -- and that’s good news for everyone.