South Dakota #18 and Utah #19 Added
To States That Preempt BSL Laws
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 that applies to all dogs.”
It’s short, and effective, and in the end was passed by two
houses and signed into law by the Governor. 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.
In Utah, Governor Gary Herbert
has signed House Bill 97, the bill that
would prohibit any local government
in the state from enacting breeddiscriminatory legislation. Here is the
text:
18-2-1. Regulation of dogs by a
municipality.
(1) A municipality may not adopt
or enforce a breed-specific rule,
regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs.
(2) Any breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance
regarding dogs is void.
Section 3. Effective date: This bill takes effect on January
1, 2015.
As a citizen of Utah, you now have the right to own any
dog you choose, without the fear of your family pet being
impounded simply because of breed. Utah currently has 10
jurisdictions with breed-specific laws that now will be forced
to overturn their laws to breed neutral.
With the addition of Utah and South Dakota, the grand total
is now up to 19 states that have laws that prohibit laws targeting
specific breeds of dogs. These two states join Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Nevada, Connecticut, Maine, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Minnesota, Florida, Texas,
Oklahoma, Illinois, Colorado and California as states that have
pro-actively prohibited breed specific policies.
Meanwhile, Missouri HB 1116/SB 865 is a nearly identical
bill that has been passed out of committee in both houses
4
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.
Recent studies have determined that the inherent danger
of pit bulls is negligible, and that enforcing breed-specific
laws is a complete waste of time and money. The findings
were welcomed by a variety of organizations that had already
insisted that BSL (breed specific legislation) was a complete
failure. Expert opinion overwhelmingly supports breed-neutral
solutions to dangerous dog laws -- now nearly 1/2 of all US
states do.
Other states may soon be joining these in banning breed
specific legislation.
Maryland HB 422, which has passed the House, states that
a dog may not be declared potentially dangerous based solely
on its “breed, type or heritage” and prohibits counties and
municipalities from enacting laws prohibiting ownership of
specific breeds.
While H.B. 422 would not impact existing breed-specific
ordinances like the pit bull ban in Prince George’s County,
it would prevent other localities from enacting these sorts of
misguided policies in the future.
Vermont HB 775 would prohibit municipalities from
banning certain breeds of dogs. The bill is pending in the
House Government Operations Committee.
Washington HB 2117, which is pending in the House
Judiciary Committee, would amend the state’s dangerous dog
law and prohibit local governments from banning possession
of a particular breed or declaring a specific breed of dog to be
dangerous or potentially dangerous.
It is gratifying to see the progress state governments
are making in listening to true expert testimony about the
ineffectiveness of breed-discriminatory laws, and concerns
about due process and property rights infringement, are
protecting their citizens from the tyranny of local
governments who insist on trying to force ineffective laws
on their constituents.
Intelligence is taking precedence over hysteria in the
decision-making about dangerous dog policies.
And, of course, thank you to every single supporter who
take action on the many alerts we send out. Your response
matters and makes a difference!
Times are definitely changing.
Article information supplied by Jodi Preis
www.blessthebullies.com