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

A bill recently proposed in Alabama seeks to implement a statewide mandatory spay/neuter policy for all dog over the age of six months. Similar in design to California’s AB1634, SB554 would:

• Make it illegal to own an intact dog over the age of 6 months, unless the dog met a certain set of requirements for exemption such as:
  • The dog is actively showing or competing and has competed in at least one show or sporting competition hosted by or under the approval of a recognized registry within the last two years
  • The dog is a puppy in training for such shows and competitions.
  • The dog is trained or in training for use in law enforcement, military, or rescue activities, or has been titled in the past in a sport
  • The dog has a note from a veterinarian specifying health reasons why it cannot be altered.
• Subject those owners found to be in violation to $50-$100 fines
• Result in forced mandatory sterilization of dogs found to be in violation upon a 3rd offense

Please contact your STCA Legislative Liaison to find out how you can help.

A bill recently proposed in North Carolina seeks to implement a statewide limit on the use of tethers to confine dogs. Specifically, A7218 would:

• Make it illegal to tether a dog for more than 9 hours out of 24.
• Require all tethers to be at least 15 feet in length.

The STCA Legislative committee has written to NC state officials expressing our opposition of the proposed law and our support of the current animal cruelty laws, which cover the “issues” raised in support of anti-tether legislation.

Please contact Al or Kristin to find out how you can help.

A bill recently proposed in New York seeks to implement a statewide ban on the docking of tails. Specifically, A7218 would:

• Make all instances of tail docking unlawful, except those deemed necessary by a duly-licensed veterinarian to protect the life or health of the dog.
• Make anyone exhibiting a dog with a docked tail subject to a misdemeanor charge, punishable by a fine of up to $500.
• Allow any New York animal rights organization to sue a violator for declaratory judgment, via a private right of action, to obtain redress for a violation.

STCA Legislative Liaison, Peggy Doster, has spoken at all breed club meetings about this bill, and is working hard with other New York dog breeders to prevent the passage of this bill, which would impact over 50 breeds of dogs currently shown in the state of New York.

Please contact Peggy to find out how you can help.

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.

House Bill 460 was recently proposed in North Carolina by Representative Maggie Jeffus of Greensboro and Representative Margaret Highsmith Dickson of Fayetteville, and its companion bill, Senate Bill 460, was sponsored by Senators Don Davis of Snow Hill and Senator Don Vaughan of Greensboro.  The goal of these bills is to implement restrictions on ‘commercial breeders.’  The bill defines a commercial breeder as “any person who, during any 12-month period, maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.”

Some of the proposed restrictions include:

• Mandatory annual licensing at a cost of $50.
• Age limits on breeding dogs
• Annual certification by a veterinarian that a dog can be bred
• Unannounced home inspections
• NC Board of Agriculture devised standards of care, including exercise, veterinary care, housing, and record-keeping

Those breeders found to be in violation of the imposed restrictions, or who declined a home inspection would find themselves subjected to fines and possible seizure and euthanasia of their dogs.

The legislative committee is currently drafting a letter to be sent to all sponsoring Representatives and Senators voicing our opposition to this proposal.

For more information on how you can help, please contact your STCA Regional Representative

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.

1. A mandatory 20 dog limit
2. Mandatory fingerprinting for all breeders
3. Annual, unannounced home inspections, at the breeder’s expense
4. Age limits on brood stock – 18 months to 8 years – male or female
5. Maintain facilities determined by state guidelines
6. File detailed financial reports with the state’s Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
7. Surrender & euthanasia of all animals for any discrepancies not corrected immediately

The STCA Legislative committee has begun work on this issue already, so stay tuned for further updates, and please contact us and let us know that you ‘d like to help. This is another bill that will require action on everyones’ part, whether or not you live in Illinois.

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.