Support Massachusetts’ Anti-Breed-Specific Legislation!

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) generally refers to any type of regulation, legislation or municipal ordinance that designates certain dog breed types as dangerous or illegal. Breed-specific legislation is designed to restrict or regulate the ownership of certain breeds of dogs.

Many states, counties and municipal governments look to BSL as an answer to reduce dog attacks. Some states, such as Ohio, classify certain breeds as inherently dangerous in their state codes. The statutes often place severe restrictions on dog owners of a particular breed or ban the breed outright.

However, studies have shown that it is not the breeds themselves that are dangerous, but situations that are creating dangerous dogs. Dogs that have attacked or bitten humans generally are:

• Dogs that have been obtained for negative functions, such as fighting or guarding
• Dogs that owners have failed to humanely care for, control and properly train
• Dogs that are left unsupervised with children
• Dogs that have not been spayed/neutered

Instead of unfairly penalizing a specific breed, this bill:

• Affirmatively states that any dog, regardless of breed or type, may be classified as a dangerous dog
• Establishes clear guidelines for when dogs are classified as “dangerous” based on quantifiable past actions
• Creates clear exemptions for dogs who attack a person in response to a willful trespass or other injury, have been teased, tormented or abused by a person, or have responded to a person committing or attempting to commit a crime
• Provides a system for a potentially dangerous dog to have the designation removed

Please join American Humane in supporting this important bill by contacting your representative and senators!

This action alert is for residents of the following states only: Massachusetts

Ban Unfair Insurance Practices Targeting Certain Dog Breeds in Illinois

Insurance companies have been re-evaluating their coverage for homeowners who have dogs such as “pit bulls,” rottweilers, German shepherds, Doberman pinschers, Akitas and chow chows.

One-third of all liability claims against homeowners are dog-bite-related, and insurers claim dog bites cost them $351.4 million in 2006. Consequently, some insurance companies are declining, terminating or limiting the amount or type of insurance coverage a property owner can have, as well as imposing increased premiums under a homeowner’s insurance policy based on the type or specific breed of dog living at the residence.

Insurance discrimination is another form of breed-specific legislation (BSL). BSL generally refers to legislation, regulations or municipal ordinances that restrict the ownership of certain dog breeds, sometimes designating certain breeds as dangerous or illegal.

However, studies have shown that it is not the breeds themselves that are dangerous, but unfavorable situations that are creating dangerous dogs. Dogs that have attacked or bitten humans generally are:

• Dogs that have been obtained for negative functions such as fighting or guarding.
• Dogs that the owners have failed to humanely care for, control and properly train.
• Dogs that are left unsupervised with children.
• Dogs that have not been spayed or neutered.

The consequences of insurance discrimination are wide-ranging. Penalizing certain dog owners not only causes financial challenges for them, but also results in a greater number of dogs surrendered to shelters.

Assembly Bill 1279 would prevent insurance companies from unfairly discriminating against consumers based on the breed of dog at their residences. It stops insurance companies from declining, terminating or limiting the amount or type of insurance coverage a property owner can have if a certain breed lives on the property. The bill also prevents companies from imposing higher premiums under a homeowner’s insurance policy on the basis of the type or specific breed of dog living at the residence.

Please support this important bill along with American Humane by contacting your legislators!

Gladstone, Missouri keeps bull terriers on list of dangerous animals

By MIKE RICE

The Kansas City Star

Bull terrier dogs will remain classified as dangerous animals in Gladstone.

For several months, a Gladstone couple — Kirk and Kim Forslund — have raised objections to the city’s inclusion of the breed in its legal definition of pit bulls.

That legal definition was established a year ago when the City Council approved a revised animal control ordinance that classified pit bull breeds as dangerous animals. It also established regulations for new owners of pit bull breeds.

Council members agreed to have city staff review the ordinance last month after Kirk Forslund presented letters from area veterinarians that stated bull terriers are not dangerous.

But on Monday, city staff maintained that bull terriers should not be removed from the dangerous animal classification.

“I’m sure there are some bull terriers that have been socialized and trained,” said City Attorney David Ramsay, “but our animal control officer did not feel there was enough evidence to exclude them from the city’s ordinance.”

The Forslunds, who have spoken at several council meetings, have said they are active members of the Bull Terrier Club of America and Bull Terrier Club of St. Louis.

They have said that the council members who approved the breed-specific ordinance ignored numerous findings that bull terriers are safe.

In a memo to the city, Sgt. Jeff Self, supervisor of the Public Safety Department’s animal control unit, wrote that, through his research, he found that bull terriers were originally bred for bull baiting and ring fighting. And they can be aggressive toward dogs, cats and fleeing animals.

Self added that bull terriers also are included in pit bull ordinances in Liberty and Grandview.

Under the city’s ordinance, pit bull breeds also include Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, or a mix or combination of any of those breeds.

Owners of a dangerous dog are required to have a $300,000 homeowner’s liability insurance policy. The ordinance contains a grandfather clause that exempted owners of pit bull breeds that were licensed with the city when the ordinance was passed.

Councilwoman Carol Rudi, who voted against the breed-specific ordinance last year, said Monday that she still does not support such legislation but would stand by the council’s decision not to amend the ordinance.

To reach Mike Rice, call 816-234-5903 or send e-mail to mrice@kcstar.com.

Man Wins Dog Back After DNA Test Proves Dog Isn't Pit Bull

Chalk a victory up for man's best friend in Kansas City, Kansas. A man just won his eight month legal battle with the city to keep his dog after proving it wasn't a pit bull.

For the last eight months, Niko has been living in the KCK Animal Control Kennels while his owners fought with the city. Animal Control said the dog violated the pit bull ban, but the dog's owner has said all along the dog is actually a boxer mix.

Niko has only been a free dog for a couple of days. Mike Johnson said it's obvious that eight months in the pound was tough on Niko.

"He lost some fur and has quite a bit of a cough," Johnson said. "He lost about 10-15 pounds."

This all started because the family put up an ad trying to find Niko a new home. Animal Control saw the ad and confiscated the dog, calling it a pit bull, even though paperwork called the dog a boxer.

After months of legal wrangling and a DNA test, all charges have been dropped and now they plan on keeping Niko for good.

"I don't feel it's fair at all," Johnson said. "For one they took our dog. We had documentation what type of dog it was but they wouldn't even look at that."

"People like Mike and Amy get caught in this loop, they actually had criminal charges brought up against them," Cheryl Buell with KC Dog Advocates said.

Buell said this shows pit bull bans are hard to enforce and that's exactly why other cities are changing laws, like Edwardsville, which just changed its ordinance Monday night, removing the pit bull ban.

"Beefing up their dangerous dog ordinance, make sure the people with dangerous dogs are held accountable, those are the people you want to punish fine," Buell said.

Buell wants KCK to re-examine its ordinance.

"It was hard on the dog and the people involved and a huge waste of tax money and it didn't accomplish anything because it wasn't a vicious dog to begin with," she said.

A KCK spokesman said the pit bull ban is there to protect people. It was only a year and a half ago that a 71-year-old woman was attacked and killed by a pit bull in KCK.

*****************

Of course, the news cannot resist instilling fear in their viewers, in this case, readers. So, you want to remind us that a woman was killed A YEAR AND A HALF AGO!?! Come on! So, nobody has been killed since then? The death of the woman to whom they are referring began all of this "Pit bull frenzy".

People who are educated by the media are not educated at all. The media has their own agenda most times and are simply ignorant and choose not to get the actual facts because the news has to get out. I wish there were someone out there that would actually give TRUE, UNBIASED facts.