Municipal governments from New York City to Miami, and from Council Bluffs, Iowa to Denver, have responded to fear of pit bulls and similar breeds of dogs, by severely restricting their ownership or banning them entirely from their jurisdictions.  Now, thanks to a rule issued recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, such actions are subject to being struck down.  Jurisdictions now considering such overreactions, such as Douglasville, Georgia, would be well-advised to review the Justice Department’s opinion before proceeding.

Dog owners and humane societies have long-opposed such arbitrary and overly broad laws that penalize thousands of pit bull owners who maintain their canine companions properly and without incident, because of a small number who fail to properly train and control the dogs.  Courts generally have permitted such ordinances to stand, based on deference to the so-called “police power” of local governments to protect the public “safety and welfare.”

The 20-year old, federal Americans With Disabilities Act (”ADA”), however, may put a stop to such “breed-specific legislation.”  The ADA protects measures designed to help persons with disabilities, which includes dogs used by disabled persons for assistance.  Laws that outlaw ownership of entire breeds, including those that might be used for assistive purposes, would limit the ability of persons with disabilities to use such pets, and would therefore violate the ADA and be deemed by the Justice Department to be unlawful.

In what some might consider a rare example of the federal government recognizing that laws can be overly broad and therefore harmful to individual liberty, the Justice Department’s opinion on breed-specific legislation noted that such laws sweep too broadly; and that it is inappropriate to outlaw an entire breed of dogs because a small number cause problems.  Such problems are the result of owners not restraining their dogs properly or inadequately training them, rather than the result of a particular breed’s disposition, and can be addressed by more narrowly-crafted legislation.

Unfortunately, there are still those, like the mayor of Douglasville, Georgia, who favor overly restrictive measures.  The mayor recently noted in support of the city’s proposed pit bull ordinance, that he had no problem singling out pit bulls, because he sees them “on TV” causing “incidents.”    One would hope that local government officials might on their own possess some understanding of limited government and individual liberty; but if the Justice Department at least in this instance will ensure that they do so by way of a federal law, then the feds are serving as an important check on excessive government power.

Read the comments and see the original article here

The Observer

A group of dog owners set up camp at Sarnia’s city hall Monday to protest Ontario’s ban on pit bulls.

“Basically, it’s not right to be cruel to animals,” said Josh Atkinson, organizer and owner of Justice, a five-year-old pit bull.

“The City of Sarnia and a lot of other cities in Ontario are killing dogs for no apparent reason whatsoever, just because of the name pit bull. It’s ridiculous.”

A dozen people were on hand with their pets and homemade signs, reading: “Stop the killing of our pets,” “Pitbulls have rights, too,” and “Pitbulls are family.”
The group also planned to protest at the Sarnia and District Humane Society.

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said the demonstrators were barking up the wrong tree.

“It’s provincial legislation — not the city, or the humane society. They should be at the MPP’s office, he said.

“I don’t even agree with the legislation myself, but we have to enforce it.”

The 2005 Ontario Dog Owners Liability Act says any Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and any dog that looks “substantially similar” is illegal, and only those already living in the province at the time of the ban are allowed.

Bradley said the law has been a stress on animal control workers, noting that he preferred the city’s previous ‘dangerous dog’ bylaw, which dealt with the animals on a case-by-case basis, rather than by breed.

Last year Sarnia made a pledge to consult an expert before putting any more dogs on death row. The move followed a number of confusing cases hinging on whether or not the dogs were pit bulls, or boxers, while officials admitted to euthanizing at least one dog every month, because of the ban.

“It’s very fuzzy legislation; the province passed it, but now they have no involvement in the law itself,” said Bradley. “In fact, I’d like to go join those protesters, myself.”

Article found at: http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2540872

“I am writing in response to the regular position of some of your writers in support of Breed Specific Legislation. When people say that pit bulls are dangerous, they are making a generalization, just as insurance companies use generalizations when they charge young men more for car insurance. Generalizing what “pit bulls” are capable of, or any other breed, is profiling, a practice frowned upon in the human world and no fairer for canines. Contrary to these generalizations, there are a lot of pit bulls who are licensed therapy dogs and in a drill by the American Temperament Test Society to test temperament, “pit bull’s” rated 85% positive ahead of “family dogs” such as Airedales and Beagles. Also, some governments are finding out that BSL laws just don’t work. Holland and Italy have after many years of seeing no positive change, lifted their breed specific bans and instead implemented stricter owner regulations.
Many more productive solutions can be implemented domestically as well that will appease supporters and non supporters of the legislation. Programs to regulate breeding, educate the public on pet ownership, stricter screening at adoption agencies, mandatory maximum penalty for negligent pet owners and aggressive campaigning for spay/neutering are just some of the programs that could do much more than banning specific breeds. The overly simplified solution of BSL cannot replace the effects of action and education. Ultimately, finding alternatives to BSL laws would show an active interest in pleasing both pro BSL and anti-BSL supporters, both of whom deserve their rights considered in an issue so controversial.”