| 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. |
| red |
| red |
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
| Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) |
| divider |
| divider |
| HOME |
| Search This Site For: |
| Our Mission |
| The Team |
| The Breed |
| Team Pit-a-Full |
| Myth Vs Fact |
| Responsible Ownership |
| B S L |
| sha dow |
| Get Informed |
| Rescue & Transport |
| Affiliates & Links |
| divider |
| Team Friends |
| sha dow |
| Photos & Video |
| divider |
| Contact Us |
| divi der |
| Fair Use Statement |
| Training/ Rehab |
| Team Pit-a-Full |
| divi der |
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is defined as a law or statute that equates the qualities of a dangerous dog with a certain breed, and bans or
restricts certain breeds based on identity, not behavior of a specific animal. This type of legislation does not make concessions for those members of
the breed who are valuable assets to their communities, such as therapy dogs, assistance dogs, or advanced trained dogs such as drug dogs and
search and rescue dogs. BSL identifies a dog as "dangerous" based upon its breed alone and not based on any action or offense that the individual
dog has ever committed.
Source- www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm
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—including a 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 attacks.
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 of animals.
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 place.ii
Source: https://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/advocacy-center/animal-laws-about-the-issues/breed-specific-legislation.aspx
restricts certain breeds based on identity, not behavior of a specific animal. This type of legislation does not make concessions for those members of
the breed who are valuable assets to their communities, such as therapy dogs, assistance dogs, or advanced trained dogs such as drug dogs and
search and rescue dogs. BSL identifies a dog as "dangerous" based upon its breed alone and not based on any action or offense that the individual
dog has ever committed.
Source- www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm
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—including a 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 attacks.
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 of animals.
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 place.ii
Source: https://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/advocacy-center/animal-laws-about-the-issues/breed-specific-legislation.aspx
| UPDATE |
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
• 2004, Denver is dragged into court and sued over the constitutionality of
their ban and loses due to the breech of 14th amendment rights of the
complainant.
• 2004, Governor Owen signs a bill forbidding individual municipalities from
enacting and enforcing bans of 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 4000 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 $803,170 annually.
• 2009, Denver confiscates two Pit Bulls working as Service Dogs for U. S.
Veterans
• 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 all 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.
No, this is not the script from WWII movie or excerpt from a stage performance of
the witch hunts of the late 1500’s. This is modern day America, and, in times of
poor economy and a level of technology unheard of just twenty years ago.
Denver’s breed ban has drawn quite a bit of attention over the past twenty two
years. In that same fashion, their breed ban will draw a lot more attention as the
city battles multiple litigations over city officials stepping on the civil rights of its
citizens and the rights of Veterans and Disabled Persons. While most cities
across the U. S. are reconsidering the logic and effectiveness of breed specific
laws and going with generalized dangerous dog laws, the city of Denver has no
intentions of getting in-line with national standards or complying with federal law.
For more information about Denver’s breed ban and how you can get involved
in having it repealed, please visit The Denver Dog Killing Machine/ Facebook.
com
Source: http://denver.yourhub.com/Denver/Stories/Pets-and-
Animals/Story~958070.aspx
• 1989, Denver bans Pit Bulls (or any dog they miss-identify as a Pit Bull)
after two unfortunate, yet isolated incidents
• 2004, Denver is dragged into court and sued over the constitutionality of
their ban and loses due to the breech of 14th amendment rights of the
complainant.
• 2004, Governor Owen signs a bill forbidding individual municipalities from
enacting and enforcing bans of 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 4000 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 $803,170 annually.
• 2009, Denver confiscates two Pit Bulls working as Service Dogs for U. S.
Veterans
• 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 all 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.
No, this is not the script from WWII movie or excerpt from a stage performance of
the witch hunts of the late 1500’s. This is modern day America, and, in times of
poor economy and a level of technology unheard of just twenty years ago.
Denver’s breed ban has drawn quite a bit of attention over the past twenty two
years. In that same fashion, their breed ban will draw a lot more attention as the
city battles multiple litigations over city officials stepping on the civil rights of its
citizens and the rights of Veterans and Disabled Persons. While most cities
across the U. S. are reconsidering the logic and effectiveness of breed specific
laws and going with generalized dangerous dog laws, the city of Denver has no
intentions of getting in-line with national standards or complying with federal law.
For more information about Denver’s breed ban and how you can get involved
in having it repealed, please visit The Denver Dog Killing Machine/ Facebook.
com
Source: http://denver.yourhub.com/Denver/Stories/Pets-and-
Animals/Story~958070.aspx
“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 Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites.
Read more on Center for Disease Control findings here.
study out there that I haven’t seen — that’s not based on scientific
data,” said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the federal Centers 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) |
| What's Wrong with BSL in Denver? See videos below. |
| Breed Specific Legislation- 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 (2001) Publish Date: 2001] Read it Here |
| On a lighter and more hilarious note, check out this sound bite from the movie "Due Date" staring Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis about choosing a city where to reside in. Coincidence or hidden political message? |
| Do YOU think BSL is just a Pit Bull Issue? Think Again. 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. |
