Nevada takes a bite out of Breed Specific Legislation!
Nevada Ends Pit Bull Ban
“A local authority shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that deems a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on the breed of the dog.”
— Nevada AB 110, signed by Governor Brian Sandoval on May 24, 2013
With the addition of those words to state law last month, it became illegal for any city, town, or county in Nevada to pass any legislation banning a dog simply because of its breed. This is a huge step in the right direction, one which should inspire other states to do the same.
Various studies have already shown that breed specific legislation (BSL) is ineffective at best and a waste of resources in general. A 2003 study by a Prince George’s County, Maryland, task force — seven years after BSL was enacted there — showed that the “public safety benefit is unmeasurable.”
For that negligible effect, the county spent over half a million dollars a year, with the cost to seize and destroy a single pit bull $68,000 per incident. At the same time, the task force reported, “Across the board, dog bites had decreased among all breeds at about the same rate. The ban did not appear to have had any noticeable effect on public safety.”
Even a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study on dog bite fatalities in the US concluded that, “Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”
According to the ASPCA, the problem is never the breed, but the way a dog is treated by the humans around it. In one study, they determined that 97 percent of dogs involved in fatal attacks were not spayed or neutered, and that more than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. The ASPCA report on BSL concludes, “Recognizing that the problem of dangerous dogs requires serious attention, the ASPCA seeks effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for the actions of their animals.”
For more information