Animal Guardians for a Prosperous Parma

The American Bar Association

"...the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless [guardian] laws that ensure due process protections for [guardians], encourage responsible pet [guardianship] and focus on behavior of both dog [guardians] and dogs, and to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions."

 

American Kennel Club

"The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the [guardianship] of dogs.  The AKC believes that dog [guardians] 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 [guardians]; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous...The AKC strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be 'dangerous' based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs."

 

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

"The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals supports reasonable 'leash' laws and laws that regulate dogs who have caused unjustifiable injury or who present substantial danger to the public.  However, the ASCPA opposes laws that ban specific breeds of dogs or that discriminate against partiular breeds.  These laws unfairly discriminate against responsible dog guardians based solely on their choice of breed.  Such laws also fail to achieve the desired goal of stopping illegal activities such as dog fighting, and breeding and/or training dogs to be aggresive.  The ASCPA believes that strict enforcement of laws that ban animal fighting, and breeding and/or training animals to fight, is the proper means to address the problem."

 

American Veterinary Medical Association

"The American Veterinary Medical Association supports dangerous animal legislation by state, county, or municipal governments provided that legislation does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals.  The legislation should be directed at fostering safety and protection of the general public from animals classified as dangerous."

 

Animal Farm Foundation

"There has never been any evidence that breed bans or restrictions contribute to improved public safety.  Regulating breeds puts the focus on the dog, without addressing [guardian] behavior and [guardian] responsibility to the animal and the community."

 

Association of Pet Dog Trainers

"The Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) supports the adoption or enforcement of a program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that is fair, non-dicriminatory, and addresses dogs that are shown to be dangerous by their actions.  The APDT opposes any law that deems a dog as dangerous or vicious based on appearance, breed, or phenotype.  Canine temperaments are widely varied, and behavior cannot be predicted by physical features such as head shape, coat length, muscle to bone ratio, etc.  The only predictor of behavior is behavior.  As an organization comprised of dog trainers, behaviorists, and other animal professionals, the APDT is fully aware that any dog can bite, any dog can maim, and any dog can kill.  A dangerous or vicious dog is a product of a combination of individual genetics, upbringing, socialization, and lack of proper training.  The solution to preventing dog bites is education of [guardians], breeders, and the general public about aggression prevention, not legislation directed at certain breeds.  Singling out and publicaly demonizing certain breeds as dangerous is unfair, discriminatory, and does an immense disservice to those breeds and the people who care about them.  Even more chilling, breed specific legislation encourages the faulty public perception of other breeds as being inherently safe.  This can lead misguided individuals to engage in unsafe conduct with other breeds that can result in injury or death by individual representations of those breeds mistakenly perceived as safe.  Also, designating certain breeds as inherently dangerous implies to the public that behavior is not effectively influenced, positively or negatively, by training.  This misconception will likely produce a growing number of dangerous dogs as misinformed, complacent dog [guardians] fail to practice responsible aggression-prevention measures."

 

Best Friends Animal Society

"Best Friends opposes breed-discriminatory legislaion (also called breed-specific legislation, BSL), which arbitrarily targets particular breeds.  Breed-discriminatory laws are not only ineffective at improving community safety, they are extremely expensive to enforce and deplete needed resources from animal control."

 

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years.  It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.  Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs.  These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002% of the total number of people bitten.  These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites.  There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.  Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites."

 

Humane Society of the United States

"The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed for a number of reasons.  Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a common first approach that many communities take.  Thankfully, once research is conducted, most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won't solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs.  If the goal is to offer communities better protection from dogs who are dangerous, then thoughtful legislation that addresses responsible dog keeping is in order.  Legislation aimed at punishing the [guardian] of the dog rather than punishing the dog is far more effective in reducing the number of dog bites and attacks.  Well enforced, non-breed-specific laws offer an effective and fair solution to the problem of dangerous dogs in all communities.  Comprehensive 'dog bite' legislation, coupled with better consumer education and forced responsible pet keeping efforts, would do far more to protect communities than banning a specific breed."

 

National Animal Control Association

"Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed.  Any animal may exhibit aggressive behavior regard-less of breed.  Accurately identifying a specific animal's lineage for prosecution purposes may be extremely difficult.  Additionally, breed specific legislation may create an undue burden to [guardians] who otherwise have demonstrated proper pet managment and resonsibility."

 

National Canine Research Council

"There is no scientifically valid evidence and no reasonable argument to support breed-specific legislation.  Instead of discriminating against breeds, take responsibility for dog [guardianship] and management practices."

 

Breed Specific Legislation Does Not Reduce Dog Bites

Fear vs. Fact

 

United States Department of Justice

"The Department [of Justice] does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks.  Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA who use certain service animals based on where they live rather than on whether the use of a particular animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others...State and local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that particular animal's actual behavior or history - not based on fears or generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave.  This ability to exclude an animal whose behavior or history evidences a direct threat is sufficient to protect health and safety."

 

The White House, Obama Administration

"We don't support breed-specific legislation - research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources...As an alternative to breed-specific policies, the CDC recommends a community-based approach to prevent dog bites.  And ultimately, we think that's a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet [guardians]."