Pembroke Pines wants to ban vicious dogs

By Joe Kollin South Florida Sun-Sentinel Posted

PEMBROKE PINES City officials have vowed to take a run at getting the state to let them ban breeds of dogs they consider vicious.They may be barking up the wrong tree, however, if they expect support from other municipalities."I wouldn't be willing to open Pandora's box again," said Coral Springs Commissioner Vincent Boccard, who last year unsuccessfully sought support to get Tallahassee to let cities regulate breeds. "The dog lobby is pretty big."Plantation Councilwoman Diane Veltri Bendekovic agreed. "I applaud them for doing it, but it isn't the dog itself, it is the owner," she said. "Aggressiveness is a behavior dogs learn. Owners make them aggressive."The state in 1990 passed a law forbidding local governments from adopting ordinances that are breed-specific. The law was a reaction to Miami-Dade County, which in 1989 banned pit bulls. The state allowed Miami-Dade's ordinance to remain in force. Pembroke Pines commissioners last week unanimously agreed to take steps to win the right to restrict dogs by breed. They want Gov. Charlie Crist to appoint a panel of experts to study the possibility of breed-specific laws and would offer Pembroke Pines as a test city for the study. Larry Smith of Hollywood, the city's Tallahassee lobbyist, suggested Pembroke Pines work with other cities because a solo effort would be useless. He said cities should parade victims of vicious dogs before lawmakers to show the need.Commissioners agreed to try creating a coalition of cities."Collectively, as a group of cities, we need to put pressure on them," said Commissioner Iris Siple, whose daughter, Amy Siple, 29, was attacked by a neighbor's dog in May. She is still recovering from the German shepherd's bites and may need surgery. Commissioner Angelo Castillo said South Florida cities and counties need to work together because northern Florida politicians "love their pit bulls" and are preventing regulation by breed."We in local office are unable to deal with the problem and Tallahassee doesn't have the political courage to deal with it," he said. Getting support from other cities won't be easy.Although Boccard in September won support for requesting the power to outlaw specific breeds, the Coral Springs commission backed down a month later under pressure from dog owners."I was e-mailed from around the world," Boccard said. "It isn't that we were intimidated, but we opted out." Coral Springs instead created a task force to educate dog owners about how to work with animals.Plantation adopted an ordinance to punish owners of vicious dogs of any breed two years ago, after a rash of dog attacks."We made owners responsible for their dogs," Veltri Bendekovic said. "I realize pit pulls do the most damage, but even a cocker spaniel can jump into a 4-year-old's face and do the same amount of damage."The Broward County Commission in 2002 adopted a vicious dog ordinance that allows the muzzling and confinement of dogs declared dangerous. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...a-news-browardCONTACT INFORMATIONMayor Frank C. Ortis954-435-6505 fortis@ppines.com Vice Mayor William B. Armstrong954-436-3266warmstrong@ppines.com Charles F. DodgeCity ManagerPh: 954-431-4884cdodge@ppines.com City Clerk's OfficeJudy Neugent, City Clerk 954-435-6501 jneugent@ppines.com Commissioners:Angelo Castillo954-436-3266 acastillo@ppines.comCarl Shechter954-436-3266cshechter@ppines.com Iris Siple954-436-3266isiple@ppines.com Assistant City ManagersMartin Gayeski954-437-1116 mgayeski@ppines.com Gordon “Skip” Keibler954-431-4884 gkeibler@ppines.com
__________________Rockin RottMulti BOB Can Ch Brandy Hills Foxy Lady CGC TT (AKC pt'd)Multi BOB BISS A/C CFC Ch Brandy Hills Eze v SteinplatzAt the Bridge:Roxanne, AJ, Chaty, Brava, & Ebo,Junior, & Odie

BSL State legislative updates

The last of the 2007-08 legislative sessions has adjourned, but not before Massachusetts enacted HB 1527, increasing the penalty for aiding or watching an animal fight. The bill was signed into law on Jan. 5, 2009. The following is a link to the AVMA report wrapping up the 2008 state legislative and regulatory activities, covering topics of interest to veterinary medicine. http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/legislative_updates/yearend_summary_2008.asp
Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia are scheduled to reconvene this month. The AVMA looks forward to a new year of partnering with state and allied veterinary medical associations to represent veterinary medicine on public policy issues. Already in 2009, a number of bills have been introduced or prefiled that drew our attention. These include:
Florida HB 189 – would eliminate the prohibition of breed-specific local government regulation of dangerous dogs.
DC LR 74 and Montana HB 191 – would prohibit the ownership of pit bulls with limited exceptions, including grandfathering current owners.
Maine HP 4 – would prohibit force-feeding birds in order to produce foie gras.
Montana LD 1832 – would provide that in order to qualify as Montana-certified natural beef cattle, the beef cattle must be raised without any antibiotics.
Nebraska LB 71 – would require veterinarians and veterinary technicians to report cases of animal abandonment, cruel neglect, or cruel mistreatment.
Nevada SB 57 – would make several changes to the veterinary practice act, including rules regarding vaccine administration, consulting with out-of-state non-veterinarians and veterinarians, veterinary license reciprocity and renewal period for licenses and certificates.
New Jersey A 3270, A 3290, S 2190 – would require the suspension or revocation of a health care professional’s license for willful, illegal or improper medical waste disposal.
New York A 255 – would require microchipping of all dogs by the age of four months; creates a state registry.
Texas HB 378 – would exempt floating a horse's teeth from the practice of veterinary medicine.
Vermont HB 6 – would require antifreeze sold in the state to contain a bittering agent to make it unpalatable.
NCSL issues horse welfare resolution
At their annual Fall Forum in Atlanta, Georgia on Dec. 11-13, 2008, the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) approved a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to oppose legislation that would restrict marketing, transport, processing, or export of horses, to recognize the need for humane horse processing facilities in the United States, and not to interfere with state efforts to establish facilities. NCSL is a bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the nation’s 50 states, its commonwealths and territories, and also lobbies Congress on behalf of state legislatures. The resolution was co-sponsored by State Rep. Sue Wallis of Wyoming and State Rep. Dave Sigdestad of South Dakota. Rep. Wallis is a Vice Chair of the Agriculture and Energy Standing Committee at NCSL. "I am especially pleased," said Wallis, "that the strong support of this resolution will allow our NCSL staff the ability to lobby on Capitol Hill with factual, accurate, and compassionate information about the horrific unintended consequences of certain proposed federal actions that would deprive livestock owners of private property rights and thwart state efforts."
Court watch
The National Meat Association and the American Meat Institute have challenged a new California law which bans the sale or distribution of food produced from livestock too ill or weak to stand. The state law was a response to a nationwide beef recall in 2008 stemming from the discovery of an undercover videotape which showed workers at a Chino slaughterhouse abusing cows. Supporters of the law said that existing federal rules were inadequate. They hoped that the law, which clarifies that local authorities have the power to file criminal charges, would discourage the processing of potentially diseased cows and other animals. The law passed almost unanimously in the summer of 2008. Opponents challenging the law, however, contend it illegally preempts federal meat inspection rules and that only federal veterinarians have the authority to decide if an animal's injury affects food safety.
The U.S. Department of Justice has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up an animal cruelty case, arguing that an appeals court erred in declaring unconstitutional a federal law that bans selling depictions of animals being tortured. In the first case to go to trial under the 1999 law, a Virginia man, who sold videos of pit bulls fighting and killing pigs, was convicted in 2005 of selling depictions of animal cruelty. However, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated his sentence and struck down the federal law as an impermissible infringement on free speech. The Solicitor General filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case and claimed that the 3rd Circuit was wrong in its findings and that this type of speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. There are only a few categories of speech wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment, including fighting words, some kinds of incitement, obscenity, and pornography involving children. The Supreme Court rejects most requests for review. This case, however, has a better chance of being accepted because the federal government is making the request, a federal law was found to be unconstitutional, and three of the circuit judges dissented.

Breed Discriminatory Legislation Introduced in Florida

Ask your Florida Representatives and Senators to oppose H.B. 189 and S.B 922 Written by Best Friends StaffFlorida State Rep. Perry E. Thurston, Jr. filed H.B. 189, "an act relating to dangerous dogs," to repeal the prohibition on breed discriminatory legislation (BDL) in Florida. An identical bill, S.B. 922, has also been filed by Senator Anthony C. Hill.H.B. 189 and S.B. 922 would allow any Florida local government to restrict or regulate any breed of dog. A similar effort to legislate BDL was unsuccessful in 2008.Click on photo to the right for a video interview "Owning a pit bull couldsoon be illegal" from Fox 9, Tampa Bay news. Currently Miami-Dade is the only county in Florida that is allowed to “profile” dogs and destroy them because of this. They enacted a “pit bull” ban in 1989 and last year around 800 “pit bulls” were picked up and destroyed simply because of their breed.Best Friends opposes canine profiling. The problem of dangerous dogs is not remedied by the quick fix of breed-discriminatory laws. All dogs can bite. Dogs are individuals and should not be judged by their appearance, but by their temperament.In its study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) did not support the breed specific approach. The CDC noted many other factors beyond a dog’s breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression – things such as reproductive status, heredity, sex, early experience, and socialization and training.These concerns seem well-founded, given that more than 70% of all dog bite cases involve unsterilized male dogs. In fact, an unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than a neutered dog and in 2006, 97% of all dog related human fatalities in the United States involved unsterilized canines.Another insidious problem seen with canine profiling is the potential for abuse. Selective enforcement can be triggered simply by the ethnic background of the owner.Breed discriminatory laws cause unintended hardship to responsible guardians of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breed category. Although these dog owners have done nothing to endanger the public, they may be forced by the municipality to either give up their dogs or move. Those pets who are relinquished are then killed.The most harmful consequence of breed-discriminatory laws is their tendency to compromise, rather than enhance, public safety. Resources are shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer: leash laws, dog license laws, spay/neuter laws and animal fighting laws.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:Politics is not a spectator sport. Please take action on behalf of animals.► H.B. 192 was referred to the committee on January 22, 2009. Florida residents are asked to please write the members of the House Agricultural and Natural Resources Policy Committee and ask them to vote “NO” on H.B. 189 ► Also, constituents are asked to please write or call your Florida Representatives and Senators and respectfully ask them to vote “NO” on H.B. 189 and S.B. 922, "an act relating to dangerous dogs." Local governments already have the ability to adopt regulations regarding dangerous dogs and protect the public as they see fit. Breed bans are ineffective, costly to enforce, and penalize responsible dog owners.To find your Representatives and Senators, please click on the following links:FL Representatives and FL SenatorsFor some ideas on alternatives to BDL, please view the Best Friends Community Safety Program.You can also download the following article posted on Animal Law Coalition’s website to send to your legislators. It contains additional information that confirms that BDL is ineffective and offers real solutions to keep communities safe. ► Join the Stop BSL community for more information on how you can help put an end to breed discrimination.

Pembroke Pines and Hollywood FL want BSL to exist!!!

Pembroke Pines, Florida is standing behind the FL HB 198 and SB 922 which will allow breed specific legislation to take place....please wite and protest this action from happening!



Mayor Frank C. Ortis954-435-6505fortis@ppines.comVice Mayor
William B. Armstrong954-436-3266Charles F. DodgeCity ManagerPh: 954-431-4884
http://us.f535.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=cdodge@ppines.com
City Clerk's OfficeJudy Neugent, City Clerk954-435-6501http://us.f535.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jneugent@ppines.com
Commissioners:Angelo Castillo954-436-3266acastillo@ppines.comCarl Shechter954-436-3266scshechter@ppines.comIris Siple954-436-3266isiple@ppines.com

FIND THE PITBULL

Only one of the pictures below features the real American PitBull Terrier. Take the test to see if you can find it. To find the breed of a dog, click on image. Note there are no mixes or rescue dogs of unknown background who's breed could be debated. All dogs have been picked from breeders' websites and should be good representatives of their breed.
When you are done, ask your family and friends to take to test and watch the results. For many people, a Pit Bull is a a big headed dog, or a dog with cropped ears. For some it's a brindle dog, a big, stocky dog, or one with an eye patch.
Quite often dogs that attack are identified as pit bulls when they are not. There are 20+ breeds that are commonly incorrectly identified as pit bulls. Visit Understand-a-bull for more information.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Breed Bans: Is There Another Way?

By Joan Hustace Walker
Several years ago, a young British couple moved to the United States with their children and two beloved dogs. They bought a house in Akron, Ohio, and settled in to their new home. Shortly after moving in, the mother was out walking the family pets when she was confronted by a neighbor, who immediately called animal control – among other authorities. The mother, perplexed and shaken, learned that Akron, Ohio, had a "breed ban" law that effectively forbids certain dog breeds and mixes (Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, and any mix thereof) to be kept within the city limits. By walking her two well-mannered Staffordshire bull terriers, she had broken a city ordinance and faced possible arrest, substantial fines, and the confiscation and "subsequent destruction" of her dogs.
"Basically, to keep the dogs, the family had to move out of town," says Cynthia Morse, vice-president of the Bull Terrier Welfare Foundation. Morse, an Ohio resident who is familiar with the case and personally familiar with the two dogs, says dog owners in Akron are now facing even stricter breed banning laws. "They're including ‘bull-type' dogs," she says, explaining that this definition includes any breed that was originally bred for the sport of bull baiting – or bred to bite a hunted animal and not let go. Akron recently amended its laws to add Canary dogs (Perro de Presa Canario), and American Bulldogs to the list of banned breeds.
Akron, however, is not alone in its quest for banning specific breeds. "If I put a Staffie or a Bull terrier in my car, I could not stop in Minot, North Dakota," says Morse. If she did, authorities could take her dogs – because they are on the city's banned breed list – regardless of the dogs' temperaments. In Cripple Creek, Colorado, the city recently banned pit bulls, which it defines as Bull terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or "any dog which has the appearance of being predominantly one of these breeds."
At press time, Syracuse, New York, was considering a similar ban against pit bulls. In Port Deposit, Maryland, pit bulls aren't banned yet, but a new ordinance allows any unregistered pit bulls to be confiscated and owners fined.
The city ordinances and state laws banning specific breeds are not limited to bull-type breeds. In Iowa cities of Conrad, Des Moines, and Lake Mills, Rottweilers have been banned. Multiple cities in Indiana have banned Rottweilers, too. In South Carolina, Rottweilers, Chow Chows and Dobermans are banned in the cities of Columbia and Travelers Rest. Smithfield and North Salt Lake, Utah, have banned Shar-Peis.
A Bull Mastiff and his proud owner.
The Reasoning Behind the LawsDog bites are serious business. The occurrence of dog bite injuries has reached almost epidemic levels. According to a 1994 survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs annually. That's roughly 13,000 dog bite injuries every day – with an estimated 800,000 of these victims requiring emergency room treatment. Of those suffering from dog bites, the vast majority are children under the age of 10. In addition to inflicting physical pain, these dog bite injuries can hurt the pocketbook, too. The insurance industry estimates that each year more than $100 million in medical expenses result from dog bite injuries, and about $1 billion is paid in insurance liability claims each year.
Are There Any Breeds that are Inherently More Dangerous than Others?This has been the heart of the debate on breed-specific bans. If a person looks at the statistics for deaths related to dog bite injuries, five breeds show significant numbers. Between 1979 and 1994, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) reports that one of every three deaths can be attributed to Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Siberian Huskies, and Alaskan Malamutes. Wolf-dog hybrids were also responsible for a significant number of deaths.
Deaths, however, were not limited to these breeds. In the list cited by HSUS, the remaining two-thirds of fatalities were caused by a variety of dog breeds and mixes. In a study published in the September 1989 Journal of the American Medical Association, breeds one wouldn't normally consider "dangerous," such as the Labrador Retriever, Great Dane, Saint Bernard, Cocker Spaniel, and English Sheepdog, were attributed with one or more fatalities from a period of 1979-1988. (A Yorkshire Terrier has even been attributed with a fatality!)
According to Alan Beck, Sc.D., director of the Center for the Human-Animal Bond at Purdue University's School of Veterinary Medicine, the common denominator of fatal dog attacks is not the breed of dog, but the owner. Beck, who served on a multi-disciplinary task force to study the causes of fatal dog attacks, says, "In every case of a fatal attack [initiated by the dog], the owner was socially a hermit-type. They were unattached and single-single with a vengeance. A sociopath in a mild way." The dog and its owner, says Beck, were living in virtual isolation. "The dogs looked at kids as prey."
Scary stuff, but an insight that sheds some light on the topic of breed bans.
Why Breed Bans Don't Work"The problem with most breed specific bans is that they are either over-inclusive or under-inclusive," says Beck "The bans are over-inclusive because not every bull-type dog kills. The bans are under-inclusive because not only can a bull-type dog kill, but so can a German Shepherd dog or a Golden Retriever." Beck notes, however, that some breeds – such as Pit Bulls – have lower thresholds for biting, and that when these breeds bite, the injuries are far more serious. For this reason, Beck says he is not "terribly against" legislation targeting Pit Bulls; however, he feels a dangerous dog law serves a better purpose and doesn't allow vicious dogs to fall through the cracks of a breed ban law, and holds their owners accountable and liable.
Beck likens the responsibility of dog owners to automobiles: "In an accident, a big truck is going to cause more damage than a little car, and the truck driver's margin for error is smaller. [With a large or strong dog] the owner should be more experienced and committed to socializing the dog properly," he says. The dog should also be well-mannered, constantly under supervision when in public areas, and safely confined-with some added precautions to prevent innocent trespassers from coming in contact with the dog. "Kids do come onto property," heeds Beck, adding that young children cannot read "Beware of Dog" signs.
In California, for example, if a dog is reported to an animal control officer or law enforcement officer as being a threat to the neighborhood, the state's dangerous dog law requires the dog's owner to be notified and a hearing held to determine if the dog is potentially dangerous (could cause serious injury) or vicious (has caused serious injury). Dogs that are found to be potentially dangerous must be licensed, vaccinated, and kept indoors or in "securely fenced yard from which the dog cannot escape, and into which children cannot trespass." Dogs that are found to be vicious may be destroyed by the animal control department if the court finds that the release of the dog back into the owner's custody "would create a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare." The California courts may also prevent an owner – who is found to own a vicious dog – from owning another dog for a period of up to three years.
To keep abreast of what is going on regarding breed banning and dangerous dog legislation in your area, the following organizations maintain legislative web-sites. Humane Society of the United States – The HSUS maintains a web-site devoted to dog bite prevention, education, and legislative issues at: http://www.nodogbites.org.
American Kennel Club – The AKC's Canine Legislation Department publishes a monthly newsletter, "Taking Command," that is available to the legislative chairperson of local, regional and national breed clubs. For the rest of us dog owners, an electronic version can be downloaded monthly from the AKC's web-site at http://www.akc.org. The AKC also offers a free packet of information on dangerous dog legislation for those who are trying to battle or prevent breed banning in their areas.
Rott-n-Chatter – This informative web-site is from the Rottweiler folks who maintain up-to-date legislative information on all breed bans for all states. It can be accessed at:
http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/rottweilers/laws/breedspecific.htm
The HSUS supports dangerous dog laws and has supported the passage of several laws in various states. The HSUS places the responsibility of the rampant dog bite statistics and even dog bite fatalities squarely on the shoulders of the dog owner – not the type of dog. "Every dog owner must accept responsibility for preventing dog bites by spaying and neutering their pets, training and socializing them properly, and by ensuring that their dogs are safely confined," says Leslie Sinclair, DVM, HSUS's director of veterinary issues for companion animals. Pigeonholing a certain breed as dangerous and then banning it doesn't get rid of the problem, she notes, pointing out that dog owners who want a dangerous dog will simply turn to another breed. The Doberman Pinscher was the "scary" dog of the 1970s, the Pit Bull in the 1980s, and now the Rottweiler in the 1990s.
Sinclair clarifies, however, that the HSUS doesn't deny that certain breeds, such as the Pit Bull, have a history of being abused by humans and have been used – and are still being used illegally – for dog fighting in which the dog does not let go until it kills the other animal. With a good dangerous dog law, Sinclair says "The legislation focuses on the human who allowed the problem to develop, and who will "do it again" with another dog, if allowed to." She adds, "Good laws protect dogs and require better care for the dogs."
Watch Your StepCurrently, "watchdog" organizations that track breed banning legislation say that twelve states have adopted dangerous dog laws and have "outlawed" laws banning specific breeds. Other states are not regulated in this way. "People need to understand that dog ownership of certain breeds is getting tougher all the time," says Mickie Brown, legislative chairperson of the Bull Dog Club of America. She advises dog owners – particularly those of targeted breeds – to stay current on their local situation. Animal legislation may not hit the front page of the paper, so it is possible for a dog owner to suddenly be in a situation in which he or she must either give up the dogs, or move.
"Dog owners of breeds that are often singled out for breed banning have an added responsibility," Sinclair echoes. "They not only need to keep an eye on the issues, they also need to be model dog owners." Dogs that are highly-trained, well socialized, and properly cared for, she notes, help to counter random images of those that are abused, isolated, ill-kept, and poorly trained. They might also help to prevent legislators from taking the easy way out with a breed ban law, and perhaps consider more complex laws that are fairer to responsible owners and better for dogs as a whole.

Breed Ban IQ Test

1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas were disproportionally involved in more auto accidents than any other model, would you: (a) ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one (b) arrest the drivers responsible for those accidents?
2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would: (a) inconvenience the fewest number of people? (b) be the more efficient use of taxpayer dollars? (c) be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas? 3. If your answer to Question 1 was (a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers of confiscated Toyotas were now perpetrating further accidents by driving, say, Hondas, would you then ban Hondas? If not, why not? 4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too, dammit, something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these brands are pretty much made for the same purpose? If not, why not? If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the SOUND of "a," such as Chevrolet? 5. Are you beginning to understand that: (a) because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way? (b) that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy -- as personal tools of terrorism?(c) that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of time (and, therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing jaywalking laws? (d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that is, those inconvenienced, harrassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the 99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people? (e) most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals? Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses. Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?" is not: Ban bicycles. Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you -- not the dog -- should be responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws already exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties against lawbreakers.
-Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA

Breed Discriminatory Legislation Introduced in Florida

January 28, 2009 : 5:44 PM
Ask your Florida Representatives and Senators to oppose H.B. 189 and S.B 922 Written by Best Friends StaffFlorida State Rep. Perry E. Thurston, Jr. filed H.B. 189, "an act relating to dangerous dogs," to repeal the prohibition on breed discriminatory legislation (BDL) in Florida. An identical bill, S.B. 922, has also been filed by Senator Anthony C. Hill.H.B. 189 and S.B. 922 would allow any Florida local government to restrict or regulate any breed of dog. A similar effort to legislate BDL was unsuccessful in 2008.Currently Miami-Dade is the only county in Florida that is allowed to “profile” dogs and destroy them because of this. They enacted a “pit bull” ban in 1989 and last year around 800 “pit bulls” were picked up and destroyed simply because of their breed.Best Friends opposes canine profiling. The problem of dangerous dogs is not remedied by the quick fix of breed-discriminatory laws. All dogs can bite. Dogs are individuals and should not be judged by their appearance, but by their temperament.In its study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) did not support the breed specific approach. The CDC noted many other factors beyond a dog’s breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression – things such as reproductive status, heredity, sex, early experience, and socialization and training.These concerns seem well-founded, given that more than 70% of all dog bite cases involve unsterilized male dogs. In fact, an unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than a neutered dog and in 2006, 97% of all dog related human fatalities in the United States involved unsterilized canines.Another insidious problem seen with canine profiling is the potential for abuse. Selective enforcement can be triggered simply by the ethnic background of the owner.Breed discriminatory laws cause unintended hardship to responsible guardians of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breed category. Although these dog owners have done nothing to endanger the public, they may be forced by the municipality to either give up their dogs or move. Those pets who are relinquished are then killed.The most harmful consequence of breed-discriminatory laws is their tendency to compromise, rather than enhance, public safety. Resources are shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer: leash laws, dog license laws, spay/neuter laws and animal fighting laws. WHAT YOU CAN DO:Politics is not a spectator sport. Please take action on behalf of animals.► H.B. 192 was referred to the committee on January 22, 2009. Florida residents are asked to please write the members of the House Agricultural and Natural Resources Policy Committee and ask them to vote “NO” on H.B. 189 ► Also, constituents are asked to please write or call your Florida Representatives and Senators and respectfully ask them to vote “NO” on H.B. 189 and S.B. 922, "an act relating to dangerous dogs." Local governments already have the ability to adopt regulations regarding dangerous dogs and protect the public as they see fit. Breed bans are ineffective, costly to enforce, and penalize responsible dog owners.
To find your Representatives and Senators, please click on the following links:FL Representatives and FL SenatorsFor some ideas on alternatives to BDL, please view the Best Friends Community Safety Program.You can also download the following article posted on Animal Law Coalition’s website to send to your legislators. It contains additional information that confirms that BDL is ineffective and offers real solutions to keep communities safe. ► Join the Stop BSL community for more information on how you can help put an end to breed discrimination.

BSL Case Law

• BSL has been ruled unconstitutional in Court venues across the United States on grounds ranging from vagueness, to an infringement of property rights, to equal treatment, equal protection.• Dogs have been the domesticated traditional property of human beings for well over thirty-five thousand years. This tradition gives legal standing to dog owners based upon the IX Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America.• BSL violates the rights granted under the IV Amendment to the Bill of Rights.• BSL violates the rights granted under the V Amendment of the Bill of Rights.• BSL violates the rights granted under VI Amendment to the Bill of Rights.• BSL violates the rights granted under VIII Amendment to the Bill of Rights.• BSL violates the rights granted under XIV Amendment to the Bill of Rights.• BSL creates a whole new criminal class, the dog owner• BSL sets a legal precedent that unchallenged empowers the enacting body to add any, or all other dog breeds, or even domestic species of animals to the prohibition on ownership.

Florida wants to remove statewide BSL prohibition!!!!!!We need to stop this from happening!

Florida: HB 189 (removal of statewide prohibition against BSL) now in committeeCurrently, the state law in Florida prohibits municipalities from passing BSL. This prohibition will be undone if HB 189 is passed.Florida HB 189 has been sent to the Agriculture & Natural Resources Policy Committee.Please send your polite, respectful, and intelligent opposition to HB 189 to the committee members. There will be a hearing as well (not yet scheduled).Contact information for the Committee can be found here: http://myfloridahouse.com/Sections/Committees/committeesdetail.aspx?SessionId=61&CommitteeId=2470Committee Location: 317 House Office Building, 402 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300Phone: (850) 488-5465Agriculture & Natural Resources Policy Committee MembersWilliams, Trudi K. (R), Chair, trudi.williams@myfloridahouse.govPoppell, Ralph (R), Vice Chair, ralph.poppell@myfloridahouse.govBrandenburg, Mary (D), Democratic Ranking Member, mary.brandenburg@myfloridahouse.govBembry, Leonard L. (D), leonard.bembry@myfloridahouse.govBoyd, Debbie (D), debbie.boyd@myfloridahouse.govBullard, Dwight M. (D), dwight.bullard@myfloridahouse.govBurgin, Rachel V. (R), rachel.burgin@myfloridahouse.govCrisafulli, Steve (R), steve.crisafulli@myfloridahouse.govCulp, Faye B. (R), faye.culp@myfloridahouse.govDrake, Brad (R), brad.drake@myfloridahouse.govEvers, Greg (R), greg.evers@myfloridahouse.govGlorioso, Richard (R), rich.glorioso@myfloridahouse.govJones, Mia L. (D), mia.jones@myfloridahouse.govMayfield, Debbie (R), debbie.mayfield@myfloridahouse.govPafford, Mark S. (D), mark.pafford@myfloridahouse.govPatronis, Jimmy (R), jimmy.patronis@myfloridahouse.govRenuart, Ronald (R), ronald.renuart@myfloridahouse.govSchultz, Ron (R), ron.schultz@myfloridahouse.gov

Here is petition that you can sign as well...

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Stop-FL-HB189-From-Being-Passed