Breed Specific Legislation and Policies
Why Ordinances and Policies That Focus on Specific Breeds Don't Work
UPDATES:
- Friday, April 20: Malden Mayor Gary Christenson vetoes pit bull ordinance and send suggested language back to city council. Read the Mayor's letter and suggested langauge at
http://www.cityofmalden.org. Read the ordinance in Malden that passed on April 3, 2012 and the votes.
- Plymouth ends BSL (April 2012). See article here.
- Lowell City Council narrowly passed a pit bull muzzle ordinance. Download the ordinance
- Worcester City Council voted in favor of an ordinance that focuses primarily on pit bulls. Read more>>
- Updated summary of MA municipalities with breed discriminatory legislation; download here (.pdf)
Beyond the Myth is a film about Pit Bulls and those who love and defend these breeds; it reveals the perils of breed specific legislation. For more information on this documentary, click here.
The MSPCA is opposed to breed-discriminatory ordinances for many reasons. We are committed to working with municipalities on the important issue of preventing dog bites and believe that doing so can produce an outcome that is both effective and fair.
A highly praised article from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) called “A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention” provides important information. The multidisciplinary Task Force that wrote this report had as its goal to create “a well-planned proactive community approach” to address dog bite concerns.
We understand the struggle to comprehend and deal with public safety issues and how difficult it can be for legislative bodies to address society problems resulting from individual behavior. It is important that we examine the issue of dog bites carefully and thoroughly because, as with many issues, prevention is more complicated than simply focusing on one measure -- in this case on one breed of dog. Examining the animal control laws and their enforcement must happen, because focusing efforts on specific breeds, rather than on dealing with the true cause of these threats to public safety -- pet owner responsibility -- will not work.
We can’t begin to holistically address this problem without going beyond news articles and finding out what is really happening and why. There can be a tendency for the media to report on “pit bull attacks” and not others. It has been said “Dog bites man isn’t news, but Pit Bull bites man is.” Similarly, certain breeds can be over-represented in statistics, as they are more likely to be reported, when bites by other breeds are not. When the media or legislators list pit bull incidents, they almost all are from off-leash dogs who had been violating the leash law. This begs the question: if a municipality can't enforce the leash law, how can the breed-specific law be enforced? Again, this is an issue of pet owner responsibility.
Following is a summary of the main reasons why breed-discriminatory legislation is neither appropriate nor effective:
It is overinclusive. Breed-discriminatory legislation unfairly brands all dogs of a particular breed, regardless of their behavioral history.
There are problems with enforcement. If dogs involved in bites are not licensed and not restrained on a leash, the owners are unlikely to comply with breed-specific regulations.
It is underinclusive. Breed-discriminatory legislation does not impact on dogs of other breeds that may be dangerous.
There are problems with identification. In American Dog owners Association v. City of Lynn, 404 Mass. 72, 80 (1989), the court found: “Unlike an ordinance which generally prohibits the keeping of a "vicious dog," enforcement of which involves questions of fact whether the particular dog is vicious or known by its owner to be vicious, or a strict liability restraint or dog bite law, such as G. L. c. 140, § 155, the Lynn Pit Bull ban ordinance depends for enforcement on the subjective understanding of dog officers of the appearance of an ill-defined "breed," leaves dog owners to guess at what conduct or dog "look" is prohibited, and requires "proof" of a dog's "type" which, unless the dog is registered, may be impossible to furnish. Such a law gives unleashed discretion to the dog officers charged with its enforcement, and clearly relies on their subjective speculation whether a dog's physical characteristics”
There are potential legal challenges. Breed-discriminatory legislation has been challenged (successfully in Massachusetts) on due process and equal protection grounds. See American Dog owners Association v. City of Lynn, 404 Mass. 72, 80 (1989).
Other breeds of dogs could be trained to be dangerous. Without targeting the real factors that cause dog bites to occur, people who want a “dangerous” dog are simply going to move on to the next breed of dog. Or those who keep dogs for fighting or
other illegal purposes would not comply and even worse -- could result with dogs being kept in a manner that could exacerbate their unpredictability and aggressiveness.
Instead, we believe alternatives should be explored. Alternatives can include:
Increasing fines for violation of the dangerous dog ordinance;
Mandatory education classes on dog ownership and obedience training if a dog is declared dangerous;
Mandatory sterilization of animals declared dangerous;
Prohibition on owners who have had dangerous dogs banned from the city from owning a dog again (for a certain number of years);
Requiring a dog that has been found running at large over a certain number of times, to comply with ordinance, even if not “dangerous."
In addition, municipalities can explore alternatives outside the ordinance to prevent dog bites. This could include:
Increasing the number of animal control officers;
Increasing the number of licensed dogs;
Initiating a campaign to promote reporting of dogs running at large;
Educating the community about responsible animal ownership and obedience training
Passing a spay/neuter ordinance that will not only combat overpopulation, but will minimize the number of dogs who are bred irresponsibly and indiscriminately and for traits such as aggression;
Increasing the cost of a license for unsterilized animals.
We encourage municipalities to form a task force consisting of a diverse group of interests, backgrounds and expertise to explore substantive, long-term strategies that will reach the goal we all want -- a decrease in the number of dog bites.
As stated in the JAVMA article, “Although this (specific breeds as dangerous) is a common concern, singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens.”
Join the Animal Action Team
Download our Local Action Kit and Breed Specific Issues and Ordinances packets to work on this issue in your community
Read about Dogs and Insurance
About the MSPCA and Pit Bull Adoption
Logged
