BREED SPECIFIC LAWS: A BASIC PRIMER--courtesy The Animal Council

BREED SPECIFIC LAWS designate one or more specific dog breeds, mixes of these breeds or dogs having anappearance of the designated breeds. These may include:

* Bull breeds – AKC, UKC, ABDA, mixes, appearance
* Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds
* Lesser common breeds – Akitas, Malamutes, Siberians, etc.
* Rare breeds – American Bulldogs, Presas, Tosas, etc.

BREED SPECIFIC LAWS impose prohibitions, restrictions or requirements on keeping the designated dog:

* outright prohibition
* future prohibition with grandfathering, with or without permits, restrictions or requirements
* immediate permits, restrictions or requirements

BREED SPECIFIC LAWS have been enacted by state and local governments (no federal law to date):

* provisions in general animal control provisions; or
* may also be used in the context of a dangerous dog law to impose these permits, restrictions or
requirements on designated breeds, with or without due process provisions.

BREED SPECIFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT is done through licensing, door to door, general surveillance, complaint or incident driven and may include:

* due process opportunity to show incorrect identification
* destruction with or without opportunity to remove from jurisdiction
* remain in community under permits, restrictions and requirements

BREED SPECIFIC LAW common requirements may include:

* housing: pens, fences, residence or building, warning signs
* handling: muzzles, leash length and strength, age and competence of handler
* transport: vehicle containment, destinations, entering jurisdiction
* activities: public area restrictions
* status: spay/neuter; offspring, identification by photo, microchip or tattoo
* extra costs: permits, enhanced penalties
* insurance or bond: availability, amount, named insureds, notices of cancellation, documentation
* civil and or criminal penalties, destruction of dog for violations

BREED SPECIFIC LAW related consequences:

* housing discrimination for renters or through CC&Rs
* Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation or state service dog laws
* insurance underwriting discrimination
* common carrier discrimination (airline policies)
* travel, relocation, access to services (vet, training, events)
* shelter practices and policies
* prohibition from participation in training, events and activities
* emotional distress to family and others
* distress to dogs impounded, destroyed or badly treated including by law enforcement (search warrants, probation and parole, emergency response.
* underground avoidance of licensing, rabies vaccination, vet care, training, socialization
* confrontational violence potential for owner, family, community

"BSL" emerged in the 1980's and focused on "pit bulls." Enactment was sporadic in the United States but
resulted in state litigation challenging local ordinances on several issues. A number of cases upheld local laws, and the trend to litigate tapered off with upsurges in new ordinances often following publicized incidents. To date, Ohio is the only state including "pit bulls" in its vicious dog definition. That statutory provision was successfully challenged for lack of due process generally, not related to the breed specific reference in 2004. Additional legislation will address this deficiency and may change the BSL provision.
(State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144).

CALIFORNIA local jurisdictions considered but did not enact BSL during the early to mid-1980s. For example, in 1985 at the request of a citizen, Contra Costa County considered and rejected BSL in favor of "generic" dangerous dog provisions. November 4, 1985: Regulation of Dangerous Animals

The first local BSL ordinance in California was enacted in the Central Valley town of Livingston in March, 1987 using a restricted permit format. Livingston, March 1987.

Other jurisdictions quickly followed including Santa Clara County, Woodland, Santa Monica and Union City. The Union City ordinance was successfully challenged in a trial court decision. Beebe & American Dog Owners Association v. City of Union City, 1989

A state BSL bill was introduced but during the legislative process, the BSL provision was deleted and a
comprehensive provision added to a generic dangerous dog law as Food & Agricultural Code Section 31683:

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, provided that no program shall regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed."

This bill was Senate Bill 428, passed by the legislature in 1989 and signed by Republican Governor George
Deukmejian. Click HERE.

Some but not all local BSL ordinances were repealed but there was no enforcement against individual owners in the ensuing years. Individual shelter policies and practices varied as to adoption of pit bulls or other types of dogs considered dangerous. Following a fatal incident in San Francisco in June, 2005, SB 861 modified the preemption to will allow cities and counties to enact ordinances specific as to breed only pertaining to mandatory spay/neuter programs and breeding requirements, but no breed or mixed dog breed is to be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these ordinances. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 861 which will be effective January 1, 2006. The remainder of the state statute on dangerous and vicious dogs remains unchanged but applies only to individual dogs based on specific criteria. California has 58 counties and 478 cities. As authorized, many have enacted more stringent ordinances pertaining to dangerous and vicious dogs. CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CODE, Dangerous Dog Law, Breed Specific Preemption (2005) Including amendments effective January 1, 2006.

On November 15, 2005 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed 3 related ordinances:

The prospect of untold consequences of SB 861's enactment requires a thorough and studied approach to the political and legal consequences of any options considered including analysis of potential risks and benefits in the context of evolving public opinion.