Ohio is the only state to deem a breed of dog ‘vicious’ by default, breed is subjective to the opinion of dog wardens, and can include all dogs that commonly fall under the “pit bull” designation, and some AC officers have gone so far as to label any dog with a short coat & blocky head a ‘pit bull.’

Please see the State Code below, as taken from the Franklin County Board of Commissioners website:

What is a Pit Bull?

Ohio Revised Code Section 955.11 (A)(4)(a)(iii) defines a “breed of dog commonly known as a pit bull” as a vicious dog. For enforcement purposes, the term “a breed of dog commonly known as a pit bull” refers to any of the following:

1. An American Pit Bull Terrier
2. A Staffordshire Bull Terrier
3. An American Staffordshire Terrier
4. An American Bulldog
5. Any other pure bred or mixed breed dog whose appearance and physical characteristics is predominately those of any of the dogs listed above, or is a combination of any of the dogs listed above.

Confining Pit Bull Dogs
(Ohio Revised Code Section 955.22D)

Dogs that are a “breed of dog commonly known as a Pit Bull” must be confined on the owner’s property by means of a locked fenced yard, a locked dog pen that has a top, or some other locked enclosure that has a top (such as a house). This law applies not only to pure bred American Pit Bull dogs, but also to other pure bred and mixed breed dogs that have similar physical and/or behavioral characteristics. Animal Control Officers make the determination as to whether or not a dog is a “breed of dog commonly known as a Pit Bull.” The maximum penalty for a violation of this section on a first offense is a $1,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment. If the dog seriously injures a person, or this is a second offense of this section, the charge may be filed as a felony.

Insuring Pit Bull Dogs
(Ohio Revised Code Section 955.22E)

Owners of dogs that are a “breed of dog commonly known as a Pit Bull” must maintain at least $100,000 of liability insurance coverage on these animals. The maximum penalty for a violation of this section is a $1,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment.

Please take a moment to write to your Ohio Senators and encourage them to pass HB79!

Here is the official write up of the event from the AKC website:

http://www.akc.org/news/blocks/print_article.cfm?article_id=4002

According to Italian Health Undersecretary Francesca Martini, “This is a historic day because we have established for the first time the responsibility of the owner or the person who is momentarily in charge of the animal…The measures adopted in the previous laws had no scientific foundation. Dangerous breeds do not exist. With this law we have overcome the black list, which was just a fig leaf (over the larger problem), and we have increased the level of guarantees for citizens.”

The new Italian laws will emphasize owner responsibility, such as the use of leashes, education, and the owner’s awareness of their individual dog’s behavior.

Following on the heels of the overturned Dutch breed bans, this is a major step forward for the defeat of international breed bans.

The Ohio Dangerous Dog law currently in place defines a dangerous dog as “one that has killed or injured a person, killed another dog, or “belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.” Ms. Sears’ bill would strike the last phrase, along with the language stating that the “ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog.”

Ms Sears will offer testimony to support her bill on 4/29/09; however, Sears’ bill faces opposition from local officials, as well as long-time BSL supporter, Tom Skeldon.

Please email Ms. Sears and let her know that you support her efforts to remove BSL from Ohio state law,

district46@ohr.state.oh.us

and contact the STCA Region 5 Legislative Liaison, Heidi McClure

hlmmclure@earthlink.net

to find out how you can help.

A bill recently proposed in Oregon to implement a statewide ban on “pitbulls,” which included American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, or any dog resembling any of the above, was recently put to rest before even making it onto the Senate floor, due in large part to the activity of dog fanciers from around the country, including STCA Legislative Liaison, Karen Herrold.

A summary of the bill, taken directly from the proposal itself reads:

“Prohibits keeping of pit bull. Creates exception for pit bulls currently in
state upon meeting certain conditions. Declares pit bull dangerous dog and
makes keeping of pit bull punishable by euthanization of dog and by maxi-
mum of $6,250 fine, one year’s imprisonment, or both. If dog kills person,
punishes by maximum of $125,000 fme, five years’ imprisonment, or both.”

Some of the ‘conditions’ referred to in the above summary included:

• Owners whose dogs would be grandfathered in were required to acquire a permit within 90 days
• The dog must have proof of sterilization (no exceptions)

Below is a copy of the letter that Karen sent out on behalf of the STCA Legislative Committee:

Dear Senator Starr;

I am the Legislative Liaison for the Pacific Northwest for the Staffordshire Terrier Club of America, the AKC parent club for the American Staffordshire Terrier. I am writing you in regard to your proposed legislation on pit bulls. Since I live close to you and work in Lake Oswego, I would like to arrange to meet with you either in Hillsboro or in Salem to discuss the reasons behind this proposal and see if we can work together to identify a solution which meets both of our goals. I have included a number of links to resources at the end of this email that all discuss targeting breeds and why that is not an effective solution. I particularly recommend the Fordham Law Review article which I’ve highlighted below.
The Staffordshire Terrier Club of America strongly opposes laws that define dangerous dogs by breed name or phenotypic characteristics. Instead, we fully support reasonable laws which are carefully drafted to be effective, enforceable and equitable to protect the public from dangerous dogs regardless of breed. In meeting these three requirements, these laws do not target good dogs or responsible owners yet they provide protection from dogs that truly pose a risk.
As a member club of the American Kennel Club, we support the AKC’s position statement on “Dangerous Dog” Control Legislation:
“The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as “dangerous” based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs proven to be “dangerous” may need to be humanely destroyed. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be “dangerous” based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.”
I have also attached a list of policy statements with respect to Breed-Specific Legislation from a number of respected organizations who know and understand animals, including the American Veterinary Medical Association and the National Animal Control Association and others.
First, I want to tell you a little about myself so you know that I understand this problem from a very personal perspective. I was attacked in the face by a Cairn Terrier when I was a small child, over 50 years ago, and I still vividly remember having my lip put back together. Considering how I fought, since the surgery was done under only topical anesthetic, my small town family doctor did an incredible job at reconstructing my lip. Even today, when I have dental work done in the front of my mouth, the scar tissue makes having anesthetic administered very uncomfortable and I relive the entire thing. And this was a minor attack. I am therefore extremely sympathetic to dog bite victims. I strongly believe society needs to protect its citizens. Everyone absolutely deserves to be safe in their neighborhood. But I also love the American Staffordshire Terrier and the other bull breeds. They are wonderful breeds and I believe they are unfairly targeted because of prejudice and misinformation. Yes, there are bad “pit bulls” and those that are bad can be very, very bad and should not exist, but I would put my dogs, and those of the responsible American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier owners that I know, against any breed when it comes to stable temperaments. Additionally I have met thousands of rescue “bull & terrier” dogs who are great dogs because they were lucky enough to be adopted by good people. The difference between our dogs and the media image is that our dogs are owned by responsible people. We care for them responsibly. We train them to be good dogs. I would encourage you to read the Sports Illustrated article on the Michael Vick dogs to see the difference a good home can make (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/12/22/vick.dogs/index.html). Be sure to check out the Photo Gallery at the top of that page for heart warming pictures of the dogs. The number of bad dogs who do damage to people or property is very, very small compared to the number of good dogs of these breeds. Yet those bad dogs are the dogs everyone thinks of when these breeds or the term “pit bull” are mentioned. There must be a solution where responsible owners can have their breed of choice while still protecting the public from harm. I believe that solution is a good Dangerous Dog Law which focuses on the behavior of the dog and its owner instead of the breed of the dog. Several years ago, Oregon had a similar breed ban submitted by Sen. Ryan Deckert. That proposal morphed into Oregon’s dangerous dog law (incorporated into ORS609) which I believe is one of the best in the country and I routinely encourage people in other states to use it as a model. Why do you believe we need something in addition to this law?
One of the problems with Breed-Specific Legislation is that it gives people a false sense of security. If you study those jurisdictions where they once passed BSL and later overturned it, you will find that it did not solve the dog bite problem. And, in the process, it separated many responsible families from their beloved pets. At the same time, the irresponsible people who are the real problem were hardly impacted. These people often do not license their dogs. They often do not provide veterinary care for their dogs. What makes you think they are going to pay attention to this proposed law? Rather than targeting the law abiding citizens who are not part of the problem, which is what your proposal will do, why not focus on the group responsible for the problem, the irresponsible dog owners?
Another problem is that there are many breeds of dogs out there. If you consider that the bull breeds were never bred to be human aggressive, and were even killed for such, what is it that people have done to these dogs to make them the scary monsters that some have become? If they can do it to a dog that should never be human aggressive, what can they do to a dog that was bred specifically to go after people? During my lifetime, the bad dog of the day has gone from the German Shepherd Dog to the Doberman to the “pit bull” and the Rottweiler. It will change again and this change will be hastened by legislation such as this and the result will only be worse.
One of the things that absolutely must be made clear is that we are not defending the irresponsible owners or their ill-tempered dogs. The responsible owners of these breeds long for the days when the APBT was the symbol of courage and justice, when its likeness graced the covers of Life Magazine representing the USA, when it was used in war posters with captions like “Neutral but not afraid of anyone”, when Helen Keller chose to have her APBT Phiz at her feet on the poster commemorating her postage stamp, when Teddy Roosevelt had an APBT in the White House, when Sgt. Stubby was the most decorated war dog and actually invited to the White House to be honored on three separate occasions. We long to have the public view our dogs as we do, as one of the most loyal, courageous and stable dogs on the face of the earth. Believe me, no one group of people wants these ill-tempered dogs and their owners who view them as weapons removed from the face of the earth more than we do, but this cannot be done by phenotype. It must be done based on the actions of the owners and their dogs.
I hope you will seriously consider these suggestions. I have also included some back-up information which I believe will help you understand why Dangerous Dog Legislation is a better choice than Breed-Specific Legislation. I have included these as links below instead of filling this email with a number of documents.
I strongly encourage you to reconsider your proposal and instead focus on strengthening our existing legislation that targets the irresponsible dog owner. There are good dogs and bad dogs of all breeds. A Pomeranian killed an infant in 2002. In France, the woman who had a partial face transplant was attacked by a Labrador Retriever. If you look at statistics on dog-bite related fatalities and dog bites (referenced below), you will find a number of breeds and breed mixes referenced, even though breed identification is frequently challenged as inaccurate. This issue of breed identification has caused many jurisdictions who have tried to implement breed bans significant enforcement challenges, including court challenges. When the focus is placed on the dog and/or owner’s behavior, there is no room for these challenges. As I’m sure you are aware, these challenges can become very expensive events.

Sincerely,
Karen Herrold
Legislative Liaison for the Pacific Northwest
Staffordshire Terrier Club of America

The STCA Legislative Committee urges all club members, whether residents of Oregon or not, to email the legislators involved, and thank them for not pursuing this breed specific ban. Please contact STCA Liaison, Karen Herrold, for a list of email addresses.

The hearing on HB191 is scheduled for 3:00pm on 1/22/09.

The STCA Legislative committee has been in contact with local all breed clubs in Montana, as well as writing letters to Montana legislators in an effort to balk this proposed bill’s progress, and to protest the use of our breed standard in any type of breed specific legislation.   Please contact your regional representative for more information on what you can do to help, regardless of whether or not you live in Montana.

In preparation:

I have been talking with two rescue groups from area to help get folks to attend. Also Lowell Humane Society executive director ( Jill O’Connel ) and the Lowell ACO officer ( Bill Potter ). I wrote to city solicitor, city manager and mayor and all council members and attached lots of good info. One councilor ( Ammand Mercier ) has a daughter Pauline who is involved with PBRC. I have been trying to reach her to see if we can get to him. I am constantly told councilors are also controlled by mayor who is very much the drive behind this thing. I confirmed with city clerk that the meeting is open to non residents. Found out the Lowell Sun journalist who has been covering this is a Pit Bull owner.. Jennifer Myers. I wrote to her as well…. I obtained a copy of what they put in place Dec 23, 2008 ( basically Haverhill’s that many of us contributed to last year ) and what they are proposing to layer on top ( pit bull specific ). This includes muzzling when off of owners property, No open windows or screened doors in structures where dogs are present, required singe for areas dog is to be confined (indoor and outdoor), not allowed in city Dog Parks, special license ( max 2 per household), required spay/ neuter with medical exemption only . “ The ACO is authorized to immediately impound any PB in violation of article IV and which does not fall within the listed exceptions listed therein. The ACO is authorized to house and/or dispose of any impounded PB at his/her sole professional discretion. ACO is authorized to expand the provisions of article IV to include additional breeds of dogs upon ordinance amendment approval by Lowell City Council; based on a cursory showing of the reasons for such expansions. Any PB or any dangerous or vicious dog found within the city, as determined by ACO, or any police officer of the LPD, to be a dog trained for dog fighting, or a PB or any dangerous or vicious dog owned or harbored on property known for drug trafficking or gang activity shall be impounded and destroyed by the ACO. The ACO or any LPD officer may shoot a PB or any dangerous or vicious dog trained for fighting or kept in connection with drug trafficking or gang activity if it is reasonably believed that said PB or any dangerous or vicious dog is attacking or about to attack the ACO, the police officer or any person.

At the public hearing:

13 spoke in opposition and two in favor. The two in favor were Lowell residents. One had a dog attacked by a loose PB. The other had a dog attacked by a mastiff that blasted through a screen door. The 13 that spoke in opposition were a mix of outside experts, Lowell organizations and Lowell residents (I think 6). There were more ( about 12 ) residents there opposed but they did not speak, they sat with the opposed group so the numbers were noticed. Myself ( representing NAIA and Mass Fed of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners ), Emanuel Maciel ( New Bedford ACO and President of MA ACO’s Association, Alan Borgal ( Director of the Center for Animal Protection/ Animal Rescue League of Boston), Dr, Amy Marder ( Vet and behaviorist ), Mike Keiley ( Manager MSPCA MA Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals at Nevins Farms Methuen ), Kara Holmquist ( Advocacy MSPCA), Lowell Unleashed (group of 10- one speaker) all spoke against the ordinance with focus on different areas of expertise. This testimony combined with well delivered and highly factual testimony from local residents had very positive results. Some of the council openly admitted to coming to the meeting with minds basically made up to support this proposal. They all however voted to postpone the vote on passing the ordinance. This was lead by Councilor James Milinazzo’s (Public Safety Committee chair) reversal of the committee’s recommendation formed just two weeks ago on this ordinance. This move proves that democracy and local government can and does work when given a chance. Many of the organization present offered to help Lowell and the offer was accepted. There is lots of work to be done, as some councilors are not yet fully on board with going to something that is 100% non breed specific, but we do have the door open and we will be part of the ongoing efforts in the city of Lowell.

Holly

I sent letters to city staff, mayor and council as well as a letter to the editor of local paper acknowledging and commending them all on the dedication which they are demonstrating while addressing the issue of dangerous dogs in Lowell.

Any person found guilty of violating the ordinance, considered a misdemeanor crime, may be fined no more than $1,000 and/or imprisoned no more than 90 days, however each day of violation will be considered a separate offense and will be enforced as such, including a new fine etc & etc.

STCA members are encouraged to write letters to any and all city officials, including Ridgeland Chief of Police, Jimmy Houston, who is in favor of the ban.

Ridgeland’s proposed ban is a replica of the ban already enacted by the neighboring city of Clinton, MS.

Please contact an STCA regional representative for form letter suggestions, and other ideas to oppose this legislation.  There are many ‘Staff breeders in and around MS, let’s not let this legislation continue to spread in that area!

Representative Brad Hill sponsored HB 1948, the pragmatic dangerous dog bill, this legislative session. That bill was assigned to the Joint Municipalities Committee, which subsequently sent to it to “study”. That action usually indicates that the bill will not be considered for the remainder of the session. However, on July 28th, part of the bill was recommitted to the Joint Municipalities Committee, which then produced HB 5092. Among the many problematic provisions to HB 5092, the most egregious include:

- Imposing mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs over 12 months of age; or in the alternative, owners will have to qualify for and annually purchase an intact animal permit at a cost of up to $500 per dog.

- Limiting the number of reproductive events per female dog to one litter per year, with few exceptions.

- Requiring the reporting of all sales of puppies to local jurisdictions.

- Eliminating the practice of humane tethering, without allowances for hunting or sled dogs.

- Allowing towns and cities to impose breed-specific ordinances.

- Instituting state-mandated vaccination schedules, instead of allowing vaccination schedules to be provided by, and in consultation with, a veterinarian.

- Establishing unreasonable nuisance laws that can result in the forced sterilization, banishment, or euthanization of dogs.

Legislative staff in Massachusetts has confirmed with the Massachusetts Federation that the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee currently has cognizance of the bill. This committee does not consider the policy of pending legislation. Instead, it acts as a manager of legislation, determining which bills will be sent to the full House for its consideration, and the timing thereof. Effectively, this means that at any time the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee will send HB 5092 to the full House for its consideration and vote, effectively denying Massachusetts citizens the opportunity to participate in the legislative process by stating their objections to the bill in a policy committee hearing!

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that Massachusetts residents contact the members of the Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee, and implore them to not send HB 5092 to the floor for a vote. Instead, encourage them to return the bill to study, or in the alternative back to the Joint Municipalities Committee for consideration and public comment on the policies contained in HB 5092.

Members of Massachusetts House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee

Representative Paul J. Donato RM. 185 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2960 FAX: 617-722-2713 Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis RM. 236 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2430 Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Paul C. Casey RM. 238 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2380 Rep.PaulCasey@hou.state.ma.us

Representative James B. Eldridge RM. 33 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2060 Rep.JamesEldridge@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch RM. 167 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2230 Rep.AlicePeisch@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Denis E. Guyer RM. 443 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2460 Rep.DenisGuyer@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Tom Sannicandro RM. 473F State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2210 FAX: 508-626-0692 Rep.TomSannicandro@hou.state.ma.us

Representative James T. Welch RM. 43 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2030 Rep.JamesWelch@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Lori A. Ehrlich RM. 540 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2090 Rep.LoriEhrlich@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Bradford Hill RM. 542 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2489 Rep.BradHill@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Elizabeth A. Poirier RM. 542 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2976 FAX: 617-626-0108 Rep.ElizabethPoirier@hou.state.ma.us

Massachusetts residents are also encouraged to contact their own state representative and express their vehement opposition to egregious provisions of HB 5092, and urge them to do the same.

While there is no breed specific wording yet in the written legislation, NC residents would do well to take a proactive approach towards this situation.  The Legislative Liasions for the NC region will be sending a letter containing both the STCA’s position on BSL and some proposals to help Hope Mills better deal with the owners of dangerous dogs of any breed.

Hope Mills city officials can be reached as follows:

Mayor Eddie Dees
Mayor Pro Tempore Robert Gorman
Commissioner Tonzie Collins
Commissioner Eddie Maynor
Commissioner Doris Luther
Commissioner Jackie Warner

Town of Hope Mills
PO Box 367
5770 Rockfish Road
Hope Mills, NC 28348

Main Phone Number: 910-424-4555
Central Fax Number: 910-424-4902

Office Hours: 8 am to 5 pm Monday thru Friday