Pit Bull TerriErs &Breed-Discriminatory Laws

Ineffecve:

Expensive:

Poor Use of Limited Resources:

‘Spending Taxpayers’ DollarsDoesn’t Make Sense!’

• Animal control officers are forced to divert scarce resources to trackingdown and seizing dogs with no history of aggression. This leaves less meand money for dealing with actual dangerous dogs.• Resources spent regulang a breed decrease the me and money le overfor enforcing laws that have been proven to reduce dog bites, like doglicensing, an-tethering laws, and leash laws.

• Costs of BDL include:• Seizure and impoundment. Animal control officers must locate and removealleged pit bull terriers.• Sheltering seized animals. Prince George’s County, MD spent roughly$570,000 in two years in kenneling costs aer BDL. • Euthanasia and disposal of the body.•• Court fees. - When owners contest that that their pet is a pit bull terrier, the burden is on the city to prove otherwise. Typically, DNA tesng is required. - Potenal violaon of the 14th Amendment. - Conflicts with Americans with Disabilies Act. Disabled persons are entled to service animals, including pit bull terriers. The Department of Jusce mandates all public places allow service dogs regardless of breed.

• The American Veterinary Medical Associaon’s wide-ranging review of dogbite studies determined that BDL did not reduce dog bites or makecommunies safer. - Hundreds of U.S. cies have repealed BDL aer finding it was ineffecve.Similarly, BDL was determined to be unsuccessful in Spain and the U.K. • There are no studies or credible data supporng BDL.

2

3,4

6

5

1

Pit Bull TerriErs &Breed-Discriminatory Laws

Poor Use of Limited Resources (cont.):

The Fine Print (Sources)

1. American Veterinary Medical Associaon: Animal Welfare Division.(2015). Dog Bite Risk and Prevenon: The Role of Breed. Retrieved from:hps://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevenon.aspx

2. Madhani, A.(2014, November 18). U.S. Communies Increasingly DitchingPit Bull Bans. USA Today. Retrieved from:hp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/naon/2014/11/17/pit-bulls-breed-specific-legislaon-bans/19048719/

3. B. 3. B. Rosado et al., Spanish: Dangerous Animals Act: Effect of theEpidemiology of Dog Bites, 2(5)JOURNAL OF VETERINARY BEHAVIOR166-74 (2007).4. B. Klaassen, J.R. Buckley & A. Esmail, Does the Dangerous Dog Act ProtectAgainst Animal A acks: A Prospecve Study of Mammalian Bites in theAccident and Emergency Department, 27(2) INJURY 89-91 (1996)5. Vicious Animal Legislaon Task Force (2003) 6. 6. U.S. Department of Jusce, Civil Rights Division “Frequently AskedQuesons about Service Animals and the ADA.” Retrieved from:h ps://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html 7. City of Topeka, City A orney’s Office, “Proposed Ordinance on AnimalCruelty and Dangerous Dogs,” Retrieved from:h p://www.topeka.org/pdfs/SummaryFAQs.pdf

“Current Breed Specific ordinances have proven ineffecve in reducing thenumber of pit bulls in Topeka or the number of dog bites. Breed SpecificLegislaon, i.e. targeng a parcular breed such as American Pit BullTerriers, has generally been discredited in actual experience of cies,professionals and academic research as being both ineffecve andexpensive.” - City of Topeka, City A orney’s Office 7