No dog bred, raised or sold for illegal purposes !No dog sold in violation of the U.S. Animal Welfare Act of 1976!

Home
Males
Females
Puppies
Breedings
Produced
Family Photos
Web Awards
Application/Deposit
Sales Contract
APBT Books
APBT Videos
Inspiration
Responsible Owners
Kids & Dogs Safety
Breed Standards
APBT Dictionary
Origin of APBT
Historical Events
Famous APBTs
Gameness
I Bloodlines Stories
2 Bloodlines Stories
3 Bloodlines Stories
4 Bloodlines Stories
5 Bloodlines
Colby Dogs
Floyd Boudreaux
Maurice Carver
Blue BloodLines
Blue pitbulls
Illigitimate APBTS
I gamedog gallery
2 gamedog gallery
The Matches
The Keep
Dog Activities
Breaking Stick
Springpoles
Housing APBT
Dog Fighting
Animal Laws
BSL
APBT Facts & Myths
Positve Press
Positive Press 2
Media Lies
Issues & Epidemics
Rescue Organizations
Petey & Lil Rascals
Puppy Care
Health Care
Disease&Treatment
First Aid Kits/Emergemcy Care
Vitamins & Minerals
PrebreedingTests
Ear Cropping
Methods of Breeding
Tips-Whelp/Breeding
Breeding Info
1 Basic Genetics
2 Basic Genetics
3 Basic Genetics
4 Basic Genetics
Color Genetics
Size Genetics
Dog Training
Aggression&Testing
1 Weight Pull
2 Weight Pull
Supplies
Construcing Kennel
Other Bully Breeds
Other BullyBreeds2
Our Banner
Message Boards
Web Rings
Links 1
Links 2
Topsites
Topsites II

Contact: EMAIL Please Sign Our Guestbook Click Below to Pay With Credit Card.     Web was created by  law on 01/05. Website is maintained by the Rios family. ALL OF OUR AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIERS ARE ADBA REGISTERED.

BSL

Table of Contents

I. BSL Petitions

 II. BSL and Legislative Links

III. Animal Welfare Links

BSL & APBT Related Petitions

Click on each title to sign petition

The Petition for Texas                  The Petition for Indiana

The Petition for South Carolina     The Petition for Iowa

The Petition for Ohio                    The Petition for Washington State

The Petition for Oregon                 The Petition for Missouri

The Petition for Alabama               The Petition for Maryland     

The Petition for Georgia                The Petition for U. S. Congress

Petition for 96 Rock                       No Banning The APBT Petition

The Petition for California                 Stop the Ban on APBTs or look alikes

The Petition for Oklahoma               Stop Animal Abuse in Louisiana 

The Petition for New Jersey            Petition for Miami, Florida

Combat Dog Fighting In Louisiana                New Denver BSL Petition

The Petition for San Francisco                  The petition for Aurora, Colorado

Petition for Resignation of City Attorney in Colorado          Pit Bull Awareness Petition

BSL Alerts

State of Oklahoma

State Representative Paul Wesselhoft of Moore, Oklahoma

is trying to pass a bill that would require ALL pitbull owners,

CITY OR COUNTY to have the dogs spade or neutered,

and your property would require an 8 ft. fence {which is against most city ordinances} and here is the real kicker, a

$10,000 insurance policy for each APBT you own which would break all of us!!

GET THE WORD OUT... AGAIN!!!

Call him and or e-mail him!!

Paul Wesselhoft

Telephone: 1-405-557-7343  

Email:    paulwesselhoft@okhouse.gov

 State of Iowa

Davenport, Iowa is in the process of forming a Commission
which will look at banning pit bulls.
The Davenport Animal Commission is in charge so far.
The contact person is

Jackie Holecek
(563)326-6163
e-mail address
jet@ci.davenport.ia.us
OR

Craig Malin- City Administrator
(563)326-7763

Davenport City Hall
226 West 4th Street
Davenport, IA 52801
Phone: 563-326-7701
Fax: 563-328-6726

Council Members: (no email or phone numbers available at this time)

Jamie L. Howard-At Large

Steve Ahrens-At Large

Tom Engelmann-Eighth Ward

Barney Barnhill-Seventh Ward

Bob McGivern-Sixth Ward

Bill Lynn-Fifth Ward

Raymond A. Ambrose-Fourth Ward

Keith Meyer-Third Ward

Donna Bushek-Second Ward

Roxanna Moritz-First Ward

State of West Virginia

Wheeling West Virginia

Wheeling Councilman Crow intends to push for an all out ban of pit bulls.
He is planning to present the Cinncinnati, Ohio law and have it adopted in Wheeling.

Wheeling City Hall
1500 Chapline Street
Wheeling, WV 26003

City Clerk Janice L. Jones
(304) 234-3694
Fax: (304) 234-6419
jjones@cityofwheelingwv.org

Nicholas A. Sparachane, MAYOR
mayor@cityofwheelingwv.org
Phone: (304) 234-3604
Fax: (304) 234-6419

Mike Nau, VICE MAYOR
Phone -(304) 242-4803

CITY MANAGER(304) 234-3617

CITY SOLICITOR (304)234-3736

COUNCIL MEMBERS

council@cityofwheelingwv.org Council E-mail
Gloria Delbrugge
Robert E. "Herk" Henry
Brent Bush
Barry Crow

State of Michigan

Battle Creek, Michigan is planning ordinances against pit bulls.
Clyde Robinson, City Attorney said a proposed ordinance being drafted would require pit bulls to be kept on a 3-foot leash attached to a fitted collar while in public.
The leash would have to be held by someone 18 years or older and the dog would have to be muzzled.

Battle Creek City Hall
10 N. Division St., Suite 206
Battle Creek, MI 49014
It appears Commision meetings are on the 1st and third Tuesday of each month
although July did not follow that (maybe due to vacations)
Call to get a specific date this will come before the Commision…it is NOT on the agenda as of yet.

City Attorney: Clyde Robinson
10 N. Division St., Suite 207
Battle Creek, MI 49014
269-966-3385 (voice)
269-966-3612 (fax)

City Manager: Wayne Wiley
10 N. Division St., Suite 206
Battle Creek, MI 49014
269-966-3378 (voice)
269-966-6654 (fax)

Administrator: Dennis McKinley
10 N. Division St., Suite 311
Battle Creek, MI 49016
269-966-3387 (voice)
269-966-3659 (fax)

Mayor Godfrey jgjg625@aol.com
Godfrey Jewelers
Phone: W: 269-962-7928
H: 269-968-9574
Fax: W: 269-962-9151

Vice Mayor Tony L. Walker walkertl1@comcast.net
Laster-Walker Financial Services
Phone: H: 269-969-2593
Fax: W: 1-775-890-1613

Commissioner Susan Baldwin sbaldwin4bc@aol.com
American Computer Services
Phone: W: 269-963-8124
H: 269-963-6901
Fax: W: 269-965-6387

Commissioner Mark A. Behnke markbehnke@aol.com
Administrative Assistant
Behnke, Inc.
Phone: W: 269-962-4231
H: 269-965-8842
Fax: W: 269-966-5707

Commissioner Peter M. Bilbia pbilbia@worldnet.att.net
Retired Police Officer
Phone: H: 269-963-9188
Fax: H: 269-963-9212

Commissioner Samuel Bullock III samuel.bullock@53.com
Relationship Manager/Investment Analyst/Business Development Officer
Fifth Third Bank, Battle Creek
Phone: W: 269-968-2853
H: 269-274-9641
Fax: W: 269-968-3778
Fax: H: 269-979-5668

Commissioner Steve Franklin stevefranklin445@aol.com
Phone: H: 269-660-1957

Commissioner Ryan Hersha ryanhersha@yahoo.com
College English Instructor
Phone: 269-830-9116
Website: http://hersha.org

Commissioner Nancy Macfarlane Nancy_Macfarlane@hotmail.com
Director of Community Investments
United Way of Greater Battle Creek
Phone: W: 269-962-9538
H: 269-962-3106

BSL Article #1

BSL Article II

Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States

Linda S. Weiss

Michigan State University - Detroit College of Law (2001)
Publish Date: 2001
Place of Publication: Animal Legal and Historical Web Center


Introduction
Over the years, newspapers and broadcasts across the United States have reported on injuries inflicted by dogs on humans or other animals. The attacks have occurred in a variety of situations: organized dog fighting, responses of dogs to mistreatment, dogs acting as attack or guard animals, or the unexpected, random neighborhood altercation. In an attempt to curtail these types of attacks, government officials have adopted a number of measures, including licensing laws, statutes that outlaw organized dogfights, and leash laws.

In recent years, however, many state and local governments have adopted a new tactic for eliminating dog aggression. This tool, Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL), has been embraced by some communities, shunned by others, and strongly opposed by a number of dog owners and canine organizations. The promulgation and implementation of laws that ban specific breeds from a state or municipality have become hotly debated topics, both in town hall meetings and in courts, and a number of Constitutional law issues have been at the forefront of the debate. A number of breeds have been restricted or banned, including Rottweilers, American Staffordshire Bull Terriers ("Pit Bulls"), Chow Chows, German Shepherd Dogs, and Doberman Pinschers, and the list is growing.

This paper will describe the purposes and results of BSL, the legal questions which have arisen surrounding this type of legislation, and proposals for addressing the problem of canine aggression without infringing on the rights of dog owners and community members.

History of Breed-Specific Legislation

Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) is, in simple terms, a statute or regulation that is directed toward one or more specific breeds of dogs. The majority of BSL is focused on breeds traditionally known as "dangerous," or those that have demonstrated particular propensities for aggression and violent behavior. In the early 1980s, a number of fatalities and serious injuries caused by certain breeds, including pit bull dogs, brought to the public's attention a perceived need for more stringent laws governing restraint of dogs.1 In 1980, for example, Hollywood, Florida's City Commission passed an ordinance that required persons who owned pit bull dogs to "complete special registration forms and prove the possession of $25,000 of public liability insurance."2 The regulation applied to several breeds, collectively identified as pit bulls. In 1984, a New Mexico town completely banned pit bulls and allowed county officers to confiscate and euthanize the dogs.3 Also that year, Cincinnati, Ohio enacted a regulation that "defined vicious dogs to include all pit bull terriers," and put special restrictions on the confinement, sale, and control of those dogs which were not applicable to other breeds.4 In each of these situations, one breed of dog has been singled out as "inherently dangerous to society," regardless of the individual dogs' present or past behavior.5

While this paper will focus on BSL as pertaining to dogs, it is important to note that similar laws have been applied to other animals.6 For example, historically some municipalities have banned potbellied pigs from the city limits or heavily regulated them, claiming that they are farm animals rather than pets.7 Goats have also been the target of restrictive legislation.8

Proponents of these laws cite a number of reasons for supporting breed-specific regulations. For example, Peg Jordan, an Oakland, California resident, was mauled by a dog recently, and spent several days in the hospital with more surgery in the future.9 Although she owns two German Shepherd Dogs, which are members of a breed that has been tagged "dangerous" by some, she argues that dog owners rationalize their dogs' conduct, and that she is fed up with dog owners who intend their dogs to be "fuzzy guns."10

In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a legislative committee is considering a bill that would allow Broward County locales to ban specific breeds of dogs from public areas.11 The Fort Lauderdale community has become concerned about "intimidating pit bulls" on the beachfront which are "scaring 'family' tourists." A state representative told committee members that in 1999, Broward County was the site of 115 pit bull dog bites. The bill's proponents view the legislation as a means for reducing the pit bull threat, while the opponents state that the law would be unenforceable and unfair . . . [and that] the bill doesn't limit the types of breeds that could be restricted."12

Opponents of BSL also make a number of arguments in support of their opposition. The American Kennel Club (AKC), one of the most prominent canine organizations in the world, recently issued a position statement on breed-specific laws:
The American Kennel Club (AKC) strongly supports dangerous dog control. Dog control legislation must be reasonable, non-discriminatory and enforceable as detailed in the AKC Position Statement.

To provide communities with the most effective dangerous dog control possible, laws must not be breed specific. Instead of holding all dog owners accountable for their behavior, breed specific laws place restrictions only on the owners of certain breeds of dogs. If specific breeds are banned, owners of these breeds intent on using their dogs for malicious purposes, such as dog fighting or criminal activities, will simply change to another breed of dog and continue to jeopardize public safety.
Strongly enforced dog control laws such as leash laws, generic guidelines for dealing with dangerous dogs and increased public education efforts to promote responsible dog ownership are all positive ways to protect communities from dangerous dogs. Increasing public education efforts is significant because it helps address the root cause of the problem --- irresponsible dog owners.
The AKC and the purebred dog fancy have worked together to promote non-breed specific dangerous dog control legislation throughout the country. Concerned dog lovers are encouraged to serve on or start animal control advisory boards to monitor problems and help develop reasonable solutions to dangerous dog issues. The AKC can help by providing model legislation that can be tailored to the needs of individual communities.

American Kennel Club, American Kennel Club Statement On Dangerous Dogs, available at http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/dangerous.cfm (last visited March 10, 2001). [Emphasis added.]

Entire organizations have been formed solely to challenge BSL. One such organization, the Endangered Breed Association, was formed in 1980 and has focused on the preservation of the American Pit Bull Terrier breed, one of the breeds that has been deemed "dangerous" by some legislatures and courts.13 The American Dog Owners Association opposes bans on "dangerous breeds," including those affecting Rottweilers.14 These organizations argue that the constitutional rights of the dogs' human companions are being violated by the application of special restrictions to certain dog breeds, in the absence of any injury or illegal conduct on the part of either the dogs or the dogs' owners.

Although BSL has focused on a few breeds such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, and chows, statistics show that serious attacks have been inflicted by a variety of dog breeds, including many which have not been subject to BSL.15 In addition, opponents of BSL have pointed out that those in charge of law enforcement do not always accurately identify breeds, and that the imposition of penalties on dogs and their owners merely as a result of breed identification can be unjust and arbitrary.16

One organization that opposes BSL, the Ohio Valley Dog Owners (OVDO), suggests several reasons why breed-specific ordinances are an ineffective method for regulating dangerous dogs and protecting the public:17
Dog control problems are people problems, and are not limited to a breed or mix.
Banning a breed or declaring it inherently vicious punishes those responsible dog owners who are the type of citizens that communities need to keep, not drive away.
Communities that have instituted such bans often find that the irresponsible owners and the criminals who use dogs for illegal purposes simply switch to another breed.
Banning a breed or particular mix of breeds punishes those dogs that are reliable community citizens, therapy dogs, assistance dogs for handicapped owners, search and rescue dogs, drug-sniffing dogs, police dogs, etc., and drives them out of the community.

Breeds and mixes are often difficult to identify.
The "pit bull" is a type of dog bred for fighting, not a specific breed.
Passage of laws that are only enforced on complaint cause two problems: they create disrespect for the law if the authorities require compliance only upon complaint, and they provide ammunition for neighborhood feuds.18
Officials in Prince George, Maryland are considering a repeal of the community's BSL, arguing that the legislation has simply encouraged owners of vicious dogs to either "go underground" or "get fighting dogs not covered by the ban."19

Some opponents of BSL, such as the American Medical Veterinary Association, American Dog Owners Association, American Kennel Club, Westminster Kennel Club, and National Centers for Disease Control, claim that dog owners bear the burden for properly training and socializing all dog breeds and properly confining and leashing dogs.20 They argue that the breed itself is not the problem - but the lack of socialization and training, and owner responsibility, is.21

Opponents also claim that identifying one breed over another as more "dangerous" is meaningless, because from year to year the breed of dog responsible for the most serious bites and attacks often changes, frequently in proportion to how popular the breed is overall.22 Accurate information on dog bites and the proportion of bites to breeds is difficult to determine at best, because accurate statistics would require "comprehensive reports of all bites, reliable breed identification, and detailed information about the demographics of the entire dog population of the area in question. Such numbers are often unreliable since compliance with local dog licensing or registration requirements is usually below 20% in most U.S. communities.23 While a few dog bite statistical studies have been attempted, bite-rate analysis cannot be accurate without a comprehensive census of dog population in the United States. One study reported, however, that, of 101 animals in the study, pit bulls and put bull mixes were responsible for the largest number of bites, followed by German Shepherd Dogs and mixes, Siberian Huskies, Malamutes, Dobermans, and Rottweilers.24 Until more extensive statistical studies, using comprehensive counts of dogs and reliable breed identification, can be conducted, dog bite study results will not be certain enough to form the foundation for BSL, and even then the wisdom of BSL is suspect.

The debate is ongoing, but the laws and regulations impacting "dangerous" breeds seem to fluctuate continually, and those restrictions differ in jurisdictions across the nation.

Current State of the Law
Statutes and Ordinances

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is defined as a law or statute that equates the qualities of a dangerous dog with a certain breed, and bans or restricts certain breeds based on identity, not behavior of a specific animal.25 This type of legislation does not make concessions for those members of the breed who are valuable assets to their communities, such as therapy dogs, assistance dogs, or advanced trained dogs such as drug dogs and search and rescue dogs. BSL identifies a dog as "dangerous" based upon its breed alone and not based on any action or offense that the individual dog has ever committed.26

As of July, 2000, thirty-eight states had enacted BSL on a statewide level or in certain municipalities, or were considering BSL on one of those levels.27 Some examples of currently active breed-specific municipal ordinances:
(1) Denver, Colorado has prohibited "any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull."28 The ordinance defines "pit bull" as "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 (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds."29
(2) Waterford Charter Township, Michigan has prohibited any prospective "possession, maintenance, and harboring" of any "pit bull terriers," and justifies the prohibition by stating that "the township has further concluded that it is in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that the presence of pit bull terriers be limited in this community to only those existing licensed pit bull terrier dogs in order that the threat of this breed will eventually be removed from this community."30
(3) Des Moines, Iowa defines "vicious dog" to include the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Pit Bull Terrier, and imposes stringent confinement, licensure, and control requirements (including provisions for animal seizure and disposal) upon any animals deemed "vicious" under the ordinance.31
(4) North Little Rock, Arkansas has restricted ownership of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, or Bull Terriers or mixes thereof by implementing a breed-specific licensure fee of $500.00 - far more than license fees for other breeds.32
The general purpose of these laws is to either discourage, restrict, or prohibit certain breeds of dogs which are defined as "dangerous" within certain jurisdictions. Nearly all the laws, when implemented, included a "grandfather clause" which allowed current owners of the specified breeds to keep their dogs, but prohibited any prospective acquisitions or breeding. Because current owners were not stripped of their rights to keep their "banned breed" dogs, merely due to their breed identity, the enactment of the BSL did not amount to a taking of their property.

At the state level, statutes rarely prohibit or restrict specific breeds. Instead, the statutes tend to focus more on the dogs' and owners' conduct, and on dangerous behavior regardless of breed. For example, Michigan's state statutes define a "dangerous animal" as:
[A] dog or other animal that bites or attacks a person, or a dog that bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog while the other dog is on the property or under the control of its owner. However, a dangerous animal does not include any of the following: (i) An animal that bites or attacks a person who is knowingly trespassing on the property of the animal's owner. (ii) An animal that bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments the animal. (iii) An animal that is responding in a manner that an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude was designed to protect a person if that person is engaged in a lawful activity or is the subject of an assault. (iv) Livestock33.
Nowhere in the Michigan statute governing "dangerous animals" will the reader find specific breeds listed. The statute regulates dog behavior, rather than the identified breed of dog.34 In contrast, enforcement of BSL is not dependent on a dog's behavior; instead a specific dog can be deemed "dangerous" as a result of the breed an animal control officer believes it to be, even if the dog has displayed no vicious or aggressive tendencies.

Florida state law contains a similar section, which again does not specify particular breeds of dogs, but instead proscribes types of behavior by dogs which are subject to penalty. "Dangerous dogs" are defined, in part, as those which have "aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property," as well as those which have "when unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack . . . ."35

Ohio, on the other hand, has specifically pointed to "pit bulls" as vicious dogs per se. In Section 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii), the Ohio Legislature has stated that a vicious dog includes one which "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog." [Emphasis added.]36

Interestingly, two states have actually prohibited local governments from adopting ordinances that regulate dangerous dogs based solely on the breed of the dog."37

Court Decisions
Diane Bl