Ok, so even in our wildest dreams we aren’t foreseeing an end to all Breed Discriminatory Legislation in 2012. But it’s only mid-January and there are already some exciting bills stirring in a few states for pit bull type dogs.

Ohio

The most widely discussed and the furthest along is Ohio House Bill 14. HB 14 would remove dogs known as “pit bulls” from the classification of “vicious dog” in state law. As the law currently stands, a “vicious dog” is one that has killed another dog or caused serious injury to a person without provocation, or is generally thought to be a “pit bull” type dog. The proposed new definition of a “vicious dog” would be one that has caused serious injury to a person.

What we love about these changes is not only the removal of breed or assumed breed from the classification system, but the clear link between action and consequence — no longer will a dog be doomed simply based on its appearance. Rather, by practicing responsible pet guardianship, owners will, for the most part, be able to keep their dogs off the dog warden’s radar.

However, it’s important to note that HB 14 won’t be an end-all to breed discrimination in Ohio. Pit bull type dogs will no longer be considered vicious at the state level simply based on their appearance, but counties and cities that already have breed-discriminatory legislation on the books — and there are many in Ohio — will not be forced to reverse their breed bans. It is our hope that over time cities and counties follow the lead of the state and enact more effective and logical dangerous dog laws, but HB 14 is only a start. But a good one!

HB 14 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously this week, and heads to a vote on the full Senate floor within a week — then off to the Governor for signature. For more on HB 14, check out this story from the Toledo Blade.

Florida

Along a similar vein, late 2011 saw the introduction of Florida House Bill 997 / Senate Bill 1322. Florida law — like Texas law — prohibits municipalities from passing legislation that discriminates against dogs based on breed or appearance, but a loophole has allowed Miami/Dade County to continue to discriminate against pit bulls for the past 20 years. The state law grandfathers in any breed-discriminatory laws put in place before 1990 — like Miami’s.

Miami’s BDL has been the source of plenty of media coverage thanks to our celebrity athlete crush Mark Buehrle, a superstar pitcher just signed by the Miami Marlins. Due to Miami’s dog rules, Buehrle and his family — including his three vizslas and a pit bull type dog named Slater — bought a house in Fort Lauderdale’s Broward County (instead of in the Miami area) when Buehrle signed his $58 million, four-year contract. Buehrle has been plenty vocal in his feelings about Miami’s ban on pit bull type dogs: “It’s kind of ridiculous that because of the way a dog looks, people will ban it,’’ he told a prominent newspaper, “every kind of dog has good and bad, and that depends on the handlers.”

HB 997 would remove the grandfather clause, making it unlawful for any municipality in Florida — including Miami — to discriminate against dogs based on breed type or appearance. The bill was just introduced in the last week of 2011, and has not had a hearing set. For more on HB 997, check this link.

Indiana

Indiana is making moves for pit bull type dogs as well, although not through amendments to any rules about breed discrimination. In Indiana, it is currently a Class A misdemeanor to attend an organized dog fight. This is punishable by no more than one year in jail and a $5,000 fine. The new Senate Bill 0011 would up the crime to a Class D felony — equal to actual participation in the dog fight, and punishable by three years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

There are a number of reasons that upping the penalty for attendance at a dog fight is critical: first, it is often difficult to determine and prove which attendees are the actual handlers of dogs being forced to fight; and second, most revenue generated through dog fighting is raised in attendance fees — by making penalities for attendance more prohibitive, it is the hope that dog fighting will lose popularity when revenues go down. By making attendance at a dog fight a felony, the state will be sending a strong, positive message to Indiana residents.

SB 11 was approved yesterday by the Senate Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters Committee, and moves to a full Senate vote soon. More info on SB 11 can be found here.

However, recently, Texas has seen an upswing in cries for breed-specific legislation, including an anti-pit bull rally in Tyler and a petition in Rusk County / Jacksonville calling for statewide discrimination against “pit bull” owners that has garnered hundreds of signatures. The last Texas legislative session also saw an attempt to get legislation passed against “pit bull” owners.

We need your help to stop this discrimination before it starts!

Love-A-Bull is starting a petition which directs our state lawmakers to:

• Keep intact the current state law that prohibits breed-discriminatory legislation
• Refuse to propose or support legislation which would discriminate against people based on a dog’s  breed or physical appearance

Please help us gather signatures for the petition, which will be presented to Texas state legislators in January 2010, and again at the start of the 2011 Legislative Session.

Download the petition text and signature page now! (2 PDF Docs)
OR
Download the petition text (Word Doc) and signature page (Excel) now!

Instructions:

1. Download and print out ONE (1) copy of the petition text.
2. Download and print out as many of the signature pages as you want.
3. Gather signatures from people who are eligible to vote in Texas. (They do not have to be registered voters.)
4. Make a copy of the signature pages for your records if you wish.
5. Send the original signature pages to Love-A-Bull
   Mail to: P.O. Box 18792, Austin, TX 78760

The text of the petition is as follows:

A Petition Directing the Members of the Texas Legislature to Oppose Discriminatory Legislation Against Dog Owners Based on a Dog’s Breed, Type, or Appearance

To be presented to the members of the Texas House and Senate on January 31, 2010 and at the start of the 2011 Legislative Session

Whereas we recognize that each and every dog is an individual in temperament and behavior, and physical appearance does not determine behavior;

Whereas all dogs have the potential to do serious or lethal harm, and this is not dictated solely by a dog’s physical appearance but by a number of complex circumstances;

Whereas dog owners should be held strictly liable for the actions of their dogs regardless of the dog’s physical appearance, so that both dog owners and victims of irresponsible dog owners are provided equal rights and restitutions;

Whereas breed-specific or breed-discriminatory legislation is unethical and inhumane, and has been shown to be financially unsupportable, a detriment to public safety, and a legal quagmire;

Whereas non-breed-specific or non-discriminatory laws provide public safety in an effective, humane, legal, equitable, and moral way;

The undersigned citizens of Texas do hereby direct the members of the state legislature to do the following:

1. Keep intact Texas Health and Safety Code 822.047, which prohibits municipalities from declaring dogs dangerous based solely on breed.
2. Refuse to vote for or support any discriminatory legislation against dog owners, including but not limited to breed bans, restrictions on particular types of dogs, or unequal ownership requirements that are based on a dog’s physical appearance.

What do you think? Check out the short, easy-to-read bill here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3501:

You can contact your U.S. representative here to express your opinions about the bill: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml