13_Holly_Stump_akcparentconf2007.ppthiyoli

Guía práctica para propietarios y criadores. Explica cuidados, alimentación, adiestramiento, salud y socialización del Presa Canario. Se centra en cómo manejar su naturaleza protectora y poderosa para que sea un perro estable y seguro en el entorno familiar.

1. “Empowerment, One Person at a Time” By Holly Stump
Director / Legislative Specialist MA. Federation of Dog Clubs and
Responsible Dog Owners
Director North Shore Kennel Club
Board Member National Animal Interest Alliance
Northeast Legislative Coordinator American Dog Owners Association
Legislative Liaison American Kennel Club
Director Pets & People Foundation (Therapy Animals)

Member Staffordshire Terrier Club of America
Provisional Evaluator American Temperament Test Society

Breeder American Staffordshire Terriers

2. Writing Good Laws
Effective

Need to be able to solve the problem
Equitable

Need to be able to hold only those responsible for the
problem accountable
Enforceable (Constitutionality)

Due Process

Vagueness
Equal Protection
Right to be Heard and Defend Property

Arbitrary, Unreasonable and Discriminatory

3. Research, Study and Understand your
Legislators and the Other Side of the
Issue
Know who the opposition is

Front line
Behind the scenes
Know the Legislator, Selectmen or City Council

Where they stand on issue & why
Know the issue that they are faced with
How it came about

What the current law is

How it is working or not working ( and why )
Figure out who you can best work (ally)

Investigate direct and indirect connections to people involved

Get everyone on your side of issue talking and working together

4. Confronting Breed Specific
Legislation

5. Who Should be Concerned
about BSL?

ALL Dog Owners

ALL Animal Control Officers

ALL Local and State Legislators

6. Why the Concern about BSL?

All dog owners should be concerned
because any breed can be targeted.

ACO’s should be concerned because it is
difficult and very expensive to enforce.

Legislators should be concerned because it
is not effective in providing their
constituents protection from all dog bites.

7. BSL is Not a New Idea in MA
1987

Massachusetts Superior Court heard a case
between the city of Lynn and ADOA

The definition of “Pit Bull” used in their ordinance
was not sufficient to meet due process requirements.

After this ruling towns began to use more concrete
definitions, and it is unclear if they would hold up to a
challenge in MA courts today.

8. Example of BSL Language
post 1987
(Boston) 2005

Pit Bull includes, but is not limited to, any dog that is an American Pit
Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier,
or any dog of mixed breed displaying the majority of physical traits of
any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those
distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the
standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel
Club for any of the above breeds, such characteristics being
identifiable even if there are technical deficiencies in any particular
dog’s conformance thereto; or any dog identifiable by a licensed
veterinarian, animal control officer, or any other knowledgeable
person whose identification is deemed credible by the Boston Police
Department or the Dog Officer as having American Pit Bull Terrier,
American Staffordshire Terrier, and/or Staffordshire Bull Terrier as
any element of its breeding.

9. Visual Demonstration of the
Concerns “Find The Pit Bull” © 2000 Pitbullsontheweb.com

10. 1)Boxer 2)Dogue De Bordeaux 3) Alapha Blue Blood Bulldog 4) Greaert Swiss Mountain Dog 5) Vizsla
6)Rhodesian Ridgeback 7) Dogo Argentino 8) Labrador Retriever 9) Bullmastiff 10) Jack Russell Terrier
11) Fila Brasileiro 12) Rottweiler 13) Presa Canario 14) American Bulldog 15) Cane Corso
16) American Pit Bull Terrier 17) Patterdale Terrier 18) Olde English Bulldogge 19) Catahoula 20) Bull Terrier
21) Black Mountain Cur 22) Alano Espanol 23) Boerboel 24) Ca De Bou 25) Thai Ridgeback

11. Ohio Ruling
( March 2006 )
The Sixth District Court of Appeals in Ohio handed responsible dog owners a monumental victory last
week when it ruled that local and state breed-specific "vicious" dog laws were unconstitutional. In a 2-1
decision, the Court held that Toledo Municipal Code 505.14a. (limiting ownership to one "pit bull" per
household) and Ohio Revised Code 955.11 and 955.22 (failure of pit bull owner to provide liability
insurance) violated several constitutional rights, including the right to due process. The Appellate Court
held, just as the Ohio State Supreme Court did in 2004, that such laws do not provide owners with an
opportunity to appeal a "vicious" dog finding before being penalized or charged with non-compliance,
thereby violating their right to be heard and to defend their property.
The Appellate Court went on to declare these laws unconstitutional for two other reasons, both of which
are extremely significant to those who have argued against breed-specific legislation for many years. First,
the Court ruled that the laws violated an owner's right to equal protection since there is no rational basis to
single out pit bulls as inherently dangerous. It stated that breed-specific laws "have in the past been
enacted based on outdated information that perpetuates a stereotypical image of pit bulls." The Court
found no new evidence to prove that these breeds are any more dangerous than others. Regulating or
limiting pit bull ownership was therefore "arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory."
A final important ruling was the Court's determination that these breed-specific laws were unconstitutionally
vague due to the fact that there is no accurate way to properly identify a pit bull. "Based on the facts
presented," wrote Judge William Skow, "we conclude that the subjective identification of pit bulls may often
include both non-pit bulls or dogs which are not vicious, to the extent that an ordinary citizen would not
understand that he was breaking the law and which would result in the occurrence of arbitrary arrest and
criminal charges."

12. Who Can You
Turn to For Help?

13. MassFed Breed Specific Legislation Position Statement
MassFed opposes any law that states that a dog is dangerous or vicious based on its
appearance, breed or phenotype. Canine temperaments are widely varied and behavior
cannot be predicted by physical features such as head shape, coat length, or size of
dog. Specifying certain breeds as dangerous is unfair, discriminatory, and does an
immense disservice to these breeds and the people who care about them. Breed
specific legislation encourages the faulty public perception that breeds not on the list are
inherently safe.
MassFed supports the adoption and enforcement of laws to control dangerous or vicious
dogs that are fair, non-discriminatory and address dogs that are shown to be dangerous
by their actions.
MassFed supports existing laws that deal with the behavior of dangerous individual
dogs. This legislation is already in place.

14. This Year in Massachusetts
BSL
State

H 1948 - Rep. Brad Hill’s Dangerous Dog Bill (on-going)

Now sits in Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional
Government, co-chaired by Rep. Pedone and Senator Timilty

H 957 - Rep. Gobi’s Insurance Bill (no hearing scheduled yet)

H2000- Rep Vallee would allow dangerous status on dog that is
involved in destruction of property

H1993 - Rep. Spellane & H 2004 Rep. Webster

Both address cost and timing issues for holding dog during hearing
process for declaration of dangerous dog status

S 512 Chapter 140 ( state dog laws ) re- write

Sept 24 public hearing

Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Recourses &
Agriculture

15. How to Help
at the State Level
Gather Information
www.mass.gov is a great place to start

Track bills and dockets

Find Legislators contact info

Your own

Committee members

16. How to Help
at the State Level
Make Contacts with committee members

Level 1 E-mail

Level 2 Letters

Level 3 Personal Visits
If you know your own legislators contact them and ask them to
do the above for the committees where the bills stand and even
ask them to co-sponsor the bills.

17. The Past Few Years in
Massachusetts BSL
Local

Boston (resolved unfavorably / 2005)

Rockport ( resolved favorably)

New Bedford ( resolved favorably)

Phillipston (resolved favorably)

Taunton (on-going)

Reading (resolved favorably)

North Adams (on-going)
Attleborough (on-going)

Methuen (resolved favorably)

Canton (resolved unfavorably)

Fall River (on-going)

Brockton (on-going)

Marshfield (on-going)

Randolph (on-going)

Salem (resolved favorably)

18. How to Help
at the Local Level
Proactive (Best but not always possible)

Know your town selectmen / mayor / city council members.

Create good dog laws before the need arises.

Screen local news media for dog related issues.

Set up google news alerts
Reactive

If a dog incident occurs it is imperative that the town officials and ACO
are contacted and offered help in approaching the situation BEFORE THE
HYSTERIA STARTS.

Watch town papers and town meeting agendas for hearings and meetings.
Mail or have mailed a packet of info on drafting good dangerous dog laws.

Contact local dog organizations to make sure they know about the situation.

19. What to Include in Mailing for
Legislation Drafting Guidance
Letter stating credentials and interest to assist
BSL position statements

MassFed, ADOA, AKC, NAIA, AWDF & NACA
Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

( American Veterinary Medical Association Journal article )
Lynn vs ADOA State Supreme Court Ruling
OH Court Ruling
Examples of good ordinances

OR (state)

Methuen & New Bedford ( Local )
Copies of pending good state legislation

Rep Hill’s H1948
NAIA

Guide to constructing successful pet-friendly ordinances
List of hero dogs and their accomplishments who are representatives of
breeds often discriminated against

20. Please Help to Fight BSL

21. Rep. Brad Hill’ H1948
An Act relative to dogs.
Chapter 140 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 157 the following
four sections:
 Section 157A. “Potentially dangerous dog” means any of the following: --
 Any dog, regardless of breed, breeding, type or appearance, which, when unprovoked,
on two separate occasions within the prior 36 month period, engages in any behavior that
requires a defensive action by a domestic animal to prevent bodily injury when the person and
the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog.
Any dog, regardless of breed, breeding, type or appearance, which, when unprovoked, on two
separate occasions within the prior 36 month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted serious
injury upon, or attacked a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog.
 “Vicious dog” means any of the following: --
 Any dog, regardless of breed, breeding, type or appearance, which, when unprovoked,
in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being. Any dog previously
determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog which, after its owner or
keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behavior described in paragraph (a)
of section 157B or is maintained in violation of paragraph (b) of said section 157B.

22. Rep. Brad Hill’ H1948
Section 157B. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury
or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained,
was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon, premises occupied by the owner or
keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, or was
committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially
dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the
immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be
declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a
domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing,
tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.
(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a
domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding
dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or
keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate
to the work of the dog.

23. Rep. Brad Hill’ H1948
Section 157C. If there are no additional instances of the behavior described in section
157A within a 36 month period from the date of designation as a potentially dangerous
dog, the dog shall be removed from the list of potentially dangerous dogs. The dog may,
but is not required to be, removed from the list of potentially dangerous dogs prior to the
expiration of the 36 month period if the owner or keeper of the dog demonstrates to the
animal control department that changes in circumstances or measures taken by the owner
or keeper, such as training of the dog, have mitigated the risk to the public safety.
 Section 157D. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or
county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially
dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that
may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more
restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, provided that no
program shall regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed.