|Breed Specific Legislation related
|Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) Information
|Team Pit-a-Full and TeamPitAFull.org is about Breed Specific Legislation, BSL, Breed Bans, Pit Bull Bans an Restrictions, Pit Bull Ban in Denver, Colorado, Dog Laws, Animal
Welfare, and Generalized Dangerous Dog Laws non-specific to one breed of Dog. www.TeamPitAFull.org is about accurate, effective and logical Breed Specific Legislation, BSL,
Breed Bans, Pit Bull Bans an Restrictions, Pit Bull Ban in Denver, Colorado, Dog Laws, Animal Welfare, and Generalized Dangerous Dog Laws non-specific to one breed of Dog.
Team Pit-a-Full and its supporters stands against Breed Specific Legislation, BSL, Breed Bans, Pit Bull Bans an Restrictions, Pit Bull Ban in Denver, Colorado, Dog Laws, Animal
Welfare, and are PRO Generalized Dangerous Dog Laws non-specific to one breed of Dog. Endorsed by The Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, AKC, UKC, Best Friends
Animal Society, RSPCA, The American Veterinary Medical Association, and the American Humane Association... Team Pit-a-Full is PRO Generalized Dangerous Dog Laws that are
not breed specific and hold irresponsible owners liable for the actions of their dogs.
Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)
What Is Breed-Specific Legislation?
Breed-specific legislation—commonly known as BSL—aims to ban or highly
regulate certain dog breeds in the hope of reducing dog attacks. BSL can
be enacted by governments of any size, from small towns to entire
nations. In 1991, for example, the United Kingdom (comprised of
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) passed the Dangerous
Dog Act to ban Pit Bull Terriers and a handful of other breeds.
BSL is often passed in direct response to a single, particularly violent dog
attack. Thus, the regulation of certain breeds is based on anecdotal,
rather than scientific evidence. Proponents of these laws fail to recognize
the well-documented truth that a host of factors other than breed—
dog’s reproductive status, quality of life, and training or lack thereof—are
far more reliable predictors of and contributors to dog bites and fatal
What Is the ASPCA’s Policy on Breed-Specific Legislation?
The ASPCA opposes laws that regulate or ban dogs based on breed.
While we acknowledge that dangerous dogs are a problem in many
communities, we strongly assert that breed-specific laws unfairly infringe
upon the rights of responsible dog guardians based solely on their choice
of breed—and are not a rational, effective way to remedy this problem.
Read our full, in-depth position statement on BSL.
The ASPCA instead favors comprehensive dangerous dog/reckless owner
laws. These are laws that focus on the behavior of individual dogs and
owners and regulate any dangerous dog when necessary, regardless of
his or her breed.
What’s Wrong With Breed-Specific Legislation?
In addition to the heartache BSL inflicts on guardians of the “wrong
breeds” who are forced to give up their dogs or move, it does great
damage to society’s perception of the regulated breeds. Across the
nation, animal shelters are overflowing with large dogs—particularly Pit
Bulls, a breed that in recent years has suffered tremendously from a
combination of overbreeding, bad publicity and irresponsible owners. BSL
contributes to the culture of fear that the media and popular culture have
created around certain dog breeds and legitimizes the negative
stereotypes assigned to those dogs most in need of our help and
compassion. More on the media bias against Pit Bulls
Furthermore, by merely regulating the “bad reputation” breeds, BSL does
nothing to further the desired goal of stopping illegal activities such as
dog fighting and breeding and/or training dogs to be aggressive. The
ASPCA believes that strict enforcement of laws that ban these activities is
the proper means to address the problem of aggressive dogs.
Is Breed-Specific Legislation Effective?
No—there is no evidence that breed-specific legislation is effective. Cities
and countries that have enacted BSL tend to discover that BSL does not
result in a decrease in dog bites.i BSL is also extremely costly to enforce,
which stretches animal control resources thin, thereby reducing animal
control’s ability to respond to other situations and help a greater number
Conversely, cities that invest in low-cost spay/neuter programs and pass
and enforce anti-tethering, dog licensing and at-large/leash laws have
seen a decline in dog attacks.
BSL also fails to acknowledge that any dog can bite, and that the breeds
with “bad reputations” change over time. Not long ago, Dobermans,
Rottweilers, German Shepherds and even Bloodhounds—rather than dogs
with the characteristics of Pit Bull Terriers—were particularly feared. Those
who want to possess aggressive dogs will always find a way to do so—
ban or regulate one breed, and another will rise in popularity to take its
"If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill — unless there’s a study out there that I haven’t seen — that’s not based on scientific
data,” said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention
who researches dog bites.
Read more on Center for Disease Control findings here.
|THOSE IN THE KNOW...
What all the major animal
welfare organizations have to
say about BSL... READ IT HERE
|Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) Information
A comprehensive over-view
of what it is, why some
states/counties/cities believe it is
sound policy, and the failure that
it has come to be known as.
[Michigan State University College of Law
Publish Date: 2001]
Read it Here
|Do YOU think BSL is just a Pit Bull Issue?
Read what a major U.S. Doberman Pinscher rescue
has to say about BSL Here ,
what the Rottweiler community is saying Here ,
And what the Alaskan Husky community offers Here.
The basic nuts and bolts:
• 1989, Denver bans Pit Bulls (or any dog they miss-identify as a Pit Bull)
after two unfortunate, yet isolated incidents FUN FACT: The city of Denver
was well aware of the owner (whose dog killed Fernando Salizar) harboring a
vicious animal, yet did nothing. This owner had two prior citations, yet could
not pay fines. The city of Denver failed to enforce a dangerous dog law, and a
little boy paid for it with his life. So in fact, the city of Denver's Pit Bull Ban was
originally enacted as a cover up to the city's own negligence.
• 2004, Denver is dragged into court and sued over the constitutionality of
their ban and loses due to violation of 14th amendment rights of the
• 2004, Colorado Governor Owen signs a bill forbidding individual
municipalities and cities from enacting and/ or enforcing bans on specific
breeds of dogs.
• 2005, Denver legal eagles invoke their Home Rule Authority, stating that
“Our issue with Pit Bulls is a local matter”, and re-instate their ban.
• 2005 – Present Day, Denver confiscates and euthanizes over 6000
dogs based on breed only and not individual actions or behavior.
• 2006, Despite the advice of every major animal welfare group (i.e.
Humane Society, American Humane Assoc., American Veterinary Assoc., AKC,
UKC, ASPCA, etc), Denver stands strong with their breed ban.
• 2008, John Dunham and Associates (www.guerrillaeconomics.com/)
estimates the cost to Denver tax payers to enforce the ban is approx.
• 2009, Denver confiscates two Pit Bulls working as Service Dogs for U. S.
• 2010, The Americans with Disabilities Act and The U. S. Department of
Justice mandates the City of Denver must amend their law to allow for Service
Dogs of any breeds by March 15, 2011.
• 2010, The Denver City Council votes against amending their ban. “We
will not be bullied by the federal government.” Yet, city officials gladly accept
$2million grant from federal government for their “Grid” project that addresses
gang related issues. (Coincidentally, The Denver City Council claims their ban
is based on these dogs being the breed of choice of gang bangers, drug
dealers, and organized dog fighters.)
• 2010, Bill Bruce (Director of By-laws and Animal Control Services for the
city of Calgary, Canada and considered the “the top of the mark” in Animal
Control issues in North America) presents facts and statistics about dangerous
dog laws and the ineffectiveness of breed banning to Denver city officials. His
advice falls on deaf ears.
• 2010, Veterans band together and open class-action lawsuit against the
city of Denver
• 2010, The 2007 class-action lawsuit “Dias vs. The City and County of
Denver”, which was thrown out of court/ appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals, gets green light to be heard.
• 2011, Neighboring city of Aurora (also a breed ban city) backs down
from federal lawsuit and considers repeal of their seven year old ban while the
city Denver braces itself for multiple, costly litigations.
• 2011, UPDATE... the city of Aurora takes a turn for the worst: City
officials decide to remove 7 of 10 "vicious breeds" from their ban, attempt to
dance around ADA/ federal mandate, and decide to allow amnesty to any dog
being 50% or less "Pit Bull" on an owner paid DNA test.
• 2012, UPDATE... The city of Denver awaits court dates on two class
action lawsuits; Diaz vs. The City and County of Denver, and litigation
involving Allen Grider and other Veterans and Disable Persons who had their
service dogs illegally confiscated or banned from the city.
• 2012 UPDATE Diaz vs. The City and County of Denver settles out of court.
"RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges all state, territorial, and local legislative
bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless
owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership
and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, and to repeal any breed discriminatory
or breed specific provisions."
Read the entire provision here.
|Breed Specific Legislation related