I sure hope this bill goes through... this breed banning bullshit has got to stop. People need to be educated and not just left to believe that a certain dog breed is to blame.
HF 2906/SF 2876 is a comprehensive, generic dangerous dog bill that would require individual dogs who have been designated “dangerous” to be sterilized. The bill also would provide necessary appeal procedures to contest the designation of “dangerous” and would prevent reckless owners convicted of violating the dangerous dog provisions from owning dogs again.
In 2006, 97 percent of the fatal dog attacks that occurred in the United States involved unaltered dogs.
This bill is the smart alternative to breed-discriminatory laws, which ban certain breeds of dog wholesale in the hope of reducing dog attacks. There is no evidence that breed bans are effective, while there is significant evidence that well-enforced, breed-neutral laws such as HF 2906/SF 2876 are. Visit the ASPCA Anti-Cruelty Resource Center for more information on breed-specific laws.
I found this article through the ASPCA website. Very informative article... only an idiot wouldn't make sense of it.
I have to add that I LOVE LOVE LOVE the part about prohibiting chaining or tethering! That is an awesome point... keep the animals off chains! Wouldn't you bite someone if you had to be chained up all day with no human contact? A chain and no human contact... that would even turn my Saki mean.
Recognizing that the problem of dangerous dogs requires serious attention, the ASPCA seeks effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for the actions of their animals. The ASPCA believes that this is the most reliable way to control aggressive dogs and reckless owners.
Ideally, this breed-neutral scheme should include the following:
- Enhanced enforcement of dog license laws, with adequate fees to augment animal control budgets and surcharges on ownership of unaltered dogs to help fund low-cost pet sterilization programs in the communities in which the fees are collected. To ensure a high licensing rate, Calgary, Canada—its animal control program funded entirely by license fees and fines—imposes a $250 penalty for failure to license a dog over three months old.
- Enhanced enforcement of leash/dog-at-large laws, with adequate penalties to ensure that the laws are taken seriously and to augment animal control funding.
- Dangerous dog laws that are breed-neutral and focus on the behavior of the individual dog, with mandated sterilization and microchipping (or another permanent identification) of dogs deemed dangerous, and options for mandating muzzling, confinement, adult supervision, training, owner education and, in aggravating circumstances—such as when the owners cannot adequately control the dog or where the dog causes unjustified injury—euthanasia. In Multnomah County, Oregon, a breed-neutral ordinance imposing graduated penalties on dogs and owners according to the seriousness of the dogs’ behavior has reduced repeat injurious bites from 25 percent to 7 percent.
- Laws that hold dog owners financially accountable for failure to adhere to animal control laws, as well as civilly and criminally liable for unjustified injuries or damage caused by their dogs. Calgary has reduced reported incidents of aggression by 56 percent, and its bite incidents by 21 percent, by requiring owners of dogs who have displayed dog aggression or human aggression to pay fines ranging from $250 to $1500.
- Laws that prohibit chaining or tethering, coupled with enhanced enforcement of animal cruelty and animal fighting laws. Lawrence, Kansas, has significantly reduced dog fighting and cruelty complaints by enacting an ordinance prohibiting tethering a dog for over one hour.
- Laws that mandate the sterilization of shelter animals and make low-cost sterilization services widely available.