POTUS Pans BSL
The official White House response succinctly states, “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,” and cites data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention illustrating that BSL is bad policy. The Administration is right that canine profiling doesn’t work, and just serves as a distraction from the real public safety issues that can be addressed using a multi-pronged approach to community management.
While the White House response is welcome news for pit bull-type dogs and their advocates, we hope the Administration will do more than just comment on the issue, and will take the opportunity to examine policy changes that can make a real difference for dogs. For example, at the end of 2011 the Obama Administration pledged through its “We the People” site that it would crack down on large-scale puppy mills, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a proposed rule in May 2012 to require Internet puppy sellers to be licensed and inspected under the Animal Welfare Act. However, more than a year later the rule is languishing and has not been finalized.
On the BSL issue, while most policies are handled at the state and local levels, the federal government has a role to play, too. Federal housing agencies and military bases, for example, could be prohibited from banning dogs based on breed. Both public building managers and private landlords whose breed-specific policies tear families apart and leave thousands of dogs homeless, can be encouraged to adopt well-rounded guidelines for residents that incentivize pet owners to take steps toward managing their pets’ health and behavior to avoid problems, such as refundable deposits for sterilized pets, and rules about proper restraint on communal property.
Too often, policy makers learn the hard way that breed-specific laws don’t work. Misguided local officials in dog-loving communities like Watertown, Wisconsin, and Bluefield, West Virginia, have made poor decisions by trying to pass breed-specific policies that negatively impact thousands of families and place undue burden on animal welfare agencies. These leaders would better serve their communities by redirecting their focus toward increasing access to pet care and veterinary services, to prevent dog-related problems by strengthening pet ownership resources.
Thirteen states (California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington) have wisely prohibited municipalities from enacting breed-specific laws, recognizing that there are more effective and holistic approaches to building safe, humane communities—other states should follow this smart policy path. In 2013, Connecticut, Nevada, and Rhode Island joined the ranks of states which have rejected breed-specific legislation and the mess that follows. This trend is a positive one for dogs, families, and communities.
Maryland remains the only state in the country with poorly crafted, breed-specific dog laws in effect statewide, following a court ruling in 2012 deeming all pit bull-type dogs “inherently dangerous.” Maryland lawmakers, and anyone else considering breed as a regulatory factor, whether public or private, should take this cue from the White House and find a better way forward. State and local officials can work toward developing effective, humane approaches to managing animal issues—and the Obama Administration has an opportunity to implement important policy reforms that will protect millions of dogs, who aren’t as fortunate as Bo and Sunny.