What areas in the USA have breed specific legislation laws enforced?

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Loc鈥?/a>



This site it great...What areas in the USA have breed specific legislation laws enforced?Only in a very few MUNICIPALITIES where the liars %26amp; fools have managed to bulldoze their stupidity past the weak-willed idiots in gov't.What areas in the USA have breed specific legislation laws enforced?
This is stupid and sad but true .of Miami, Florida.....



Pit Bull Law

It is illegal in Miami-Dade County to own or keep Pit Bull Dogs, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or any other dog that substantially conforms to any of these breeds鈥?characteristics.



Acquisition or keeping of a pit bull dog: $500.00 fineand County Court action to force the removal of the animal from Miami -Dade County.What areas in the USA have breed specific legislation laws enforced?Many southern states were dog fighting is very prevalent.



Camp Lejeune in NC just based a base wide breed ban on pits and pit mixes. You should see the shelters now, it's disgusting. My friend is considering euthanizing her pit because she feels it's almost a certainty her dog will end up in the wrong hands. It's an awful situation, and she's contacted rescues in the surrounding states, NO ONE will help because everyone is "filled to capacity."What areas in the USA have breed specific legislation laws enforced?
Only the stupid areasWhat areas in the USA have breed specific legislation laws enforced?Miami-Dade county has a pit bull ban for over 10 years now...guess where most pit bulls are bred and sold in the State of Florida?

That's right...Miami!!!!

I am not sure if anyone is enforcing the law, I doubt it since all the local advertisements for pits are in MIami, hundreds of them every week and no one is saying or doing anything about it!

Hope I helped.What areas in the USA have breed specific legislation laws enforced?
in ohio its every dog on the vicious dog list for ohio.you are required to register the dog with the humane society n get it fixed.
There is some evidence from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) that links certain breeds with dog bite fatalities[8]. The dog breeds that were linked to dog bite fatalities were pit-bull type dogs, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Husky type dogs, Doberman Pinschers, Wolf-Dog Hybrids and Alaskan Malamutes. Despite these statistics, the CDC and the authors of this study argue against breed specific legislation because (1) many breeds of dog are associated with dog bite fatalities; (2) dog-bite related fatalities are linked more strongly with responsible dog ownership; and (3) insufficient data for making statistical claims. The CDC has stated that it is incapable of determining whether the statistics above reflect a disproportionate representation of specific breeds because of a lack of data. [9] In order to calculate breed-specific fatality rates, they need reliable breed-specific population data. This data is not available. Thus, although there is a trend towards certain breeds being more dangerous than others, this cannot be conclusively proven.



On the other hand, where BSL has been implemented, there is often little proof that it actually produced the intended effect[dubious 鈥?discuss]. Because such studies are rather long term and depend upon the accuracy of a myriad of subjective factors (such as accurately determining breed of dog, history of dog, previous owners of dog, previous treatment of dog, witness reliability, witness candor, witness credibility, police report deviations, hospital report hearsay,etc) many people tend to doubt their accuracy[opinion needs balancing]. Perhaps for this reason, many jurisdictions are attempting to draft laws which focus on inherently negligent owners of bad dogs[opinion needs balancing]. Recently, laws are being pushed for implementing mandatory spay/neuter ONLY for those breeds thought to be subjectively 'dangerous', such as the law in California (Senate Bill 861) , codified under the dangerous dog laws. This law in effect gave all California jurisdictions the right to implement mandated altering by specific breed, locally. Proponents claim that such ordinances are working, while others doubt the efficacy of such claims. The law has not been widely used in California, but mandated altering of all dog/cats has been gaining speed[dubious 鈥?discuss].



Opponents believe that many of the policies created by BSL have been randomly or illogically developed[opinion needs balancing], and are often capriciously or inconsistently enforced[opinion needs balancing]. For example, although "Pit Bulls" are primarily the focus of BSL, they are not a recognized breed; 'pit bull' is a term applied to several different kinds of terriers, and there is no consensus on what a "Pit Bull" actually is. The term "Pit-Bull-Type-Dog" has been used to describe over ten very different breeds, including Bulldogs, Boxers,Chow chows and Bullmastiffs. Even unrelated breeds such as the Labrador retriever and Jack Russel terrier can be mistaken for "pit bulls" by some individuals[dubious 鈥?discuss]. Additionally, Rottweilers, though having shown a virtually equal propensity for dog attacks, are rarely included in dog bans or BSL[dubious 鈥?discuss]. German Shepherd Dogs, Husky-type dogs, Alaskan Malamutes and Mastiff-Type Dogs also frequently injure people[10], but do not experience the same scrutiny as Bull Breeds[dubious 鈥?discuss]. There is also the problem of mixed breed and cross breed dogs since it is often impossible to determine conclusively their breed(s)[dubious 鈥?discuss]. When the breed cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, the courts of the United States have the burden of proving the breed, otherwise the criminal complaint is not proven and would be dropped[dubious 鈥?discuss]. In some other countries, the people who own the dog must prove its breed, such as in England and parts of Canada[dubious 鈥?discuss].



Additionally, there may be some constitutional issues with Breed Specific Legislation.[11] According to Federal Judge W. Daniel, of Denver Federal Court, Colorado, there must be evidence put forth to support the rational basis used in passing a breed specific ordinance, Judge writing in regard to the breed ban ordinance of Aurora, Colorado (May 28, 2008)[12] Since determining a dog's breed is extremely difficult in the cases of mixed breeds (which usually do not come with a pedigree of any sort) any law targeting a certain breed may be considered vague from a constitutional stand point and violate the dog owner's right to due process. However in many cases, the courts have indicated that vagueness in identifying breed is overcome by using dog registry standards, such as those used in the American Kennel Club. Although the point is debatable, most court cases tend to rely on the experts used at trial[dubious 鈥?discuss], so this makes a difference in which cases demonstrate certain rationales, which are often very heavily weighted politically{{Lopsided}.



It is not