This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Pit Bull Laws
Arouno tLe Worlo
Created by Wikipedia
Breed- specific legislation
A muzzled pit bull-type dog.
Breed-specific legislation is a law or ordinance passed by a legislative
body pertaining to a specific breed or breeds of domesticated animals.
In practice, it generally refers to laws or ordinances pertaining to a
specific dog breed or breeds.
Some jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation in response
to a number of well-publicized incidents involving pit bull-type dogs
or other dog breeds commonly used in dog fighting, and some
government organizations such as the United States Army
have taken administrative action as well. This
legislation ranges from outright bans on the possession of these dogs to
restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establishes a legal
presumption that these dogs are prima facie legally "dangerous" or
"vicious." In response, some state-level governments in the United
States have prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal
governments within those states to enact breed-specific legislation.
It is now generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation;
however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific
legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities and injuries is disputed.
One point of view is that certain dog breeds are
a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all dogs of these
breeds, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from
Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer
education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution than breed-specific legislation
to the problem of dangerous dogs.
A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds
entirely but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, e.g., forbidding
certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas from which they would be prohibited, and
establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public
Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are
requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to slowly eliminate the population through
The importation of the Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese tosa, American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier,
and Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario into Australia is absolutely prohibited.
State Date Type Details
Restriction The following dogs are restricted dogs...:
(a) American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier,
(b) Japanese tosa,
(c) dogo Argentino,
(d) fila Brasileiro,
(d1) any other dog of a breed, kind or description whose importation into Australia is prohibited by
or under the Customs Act 1901 of the Commonwealth,
(e) any dog declared by an authorised officer of a council...to be a restricted dog,
(f) any other dog of a breed, kind or description prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of
Restricted dogs may not be sold, given away, or acquired, and must be spay/neutered. They must be
muzzled when in public, wear a special red-and-yellow collar, and may only be handled by a competent
adult over the age of 18. The dog must live a secure enclosure when at home, and the owner must post
"Warning: Dangerous Dog" signs on their property. The owner must also register the dog with the local
government and notify the government if the dog attacks a person or animal, cannot be found, dies, has
moved out of the area, or is now living at a different location within the local government's
Queensland July 1,
The dogo Argentino; fila Brasiliero; Japanese tosa; American pit bull terrier (or pit bull terrier); and Perro
de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario) are considered "prescribed breeds." Owners of prescribed breeds:
· must muzzle their dogs and ensure they are under effective control by means of physical restraint
· must spay/neuter their dogs
· may not sell or give away their dog, or advertise to sell or give away their dog
"Restricted breed" dogs are defined as those dogs prohibited from being imported by the Commonwealth
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, including the Dogo Argentino, the Japanese Tosa, the Fila
Brasileiro, the Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario) and the American Pit Bull Terrier (or Pit Bull
Terrier). Of these, the Pit Bull Terrier and the Perro de Presa Canario are the only breeds currently known
to exist in Australia.
Restrictions on these breeds include:
· a permit is required for a person to have more than two of a restricted breed;
· escape-proof and child-proof enclosures;
· permanent identification using microchip technology;
· owners must notify their council if the dog escapes, dies or there is a change of ownership;
· in the case of a change of ownership, owners must advise prospective owners that the dog is a restricted
· dogs must be leashed and muzzled when in public places;
· conspicuous "Beware: Restricted Dog" signs must be displayed on property access points; and
· minors are not to own a restricted breed or be in charge of a restricted breed in public places.
The following dog breeds are restricted:
· Dogo Argentino (Argentinean fighting dog)
· Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian fighting dog)
· Japanese Tosa
· American Pit Bull Terrier and Pit Bull Terrier breeds
· Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario
· and any dog of a mixed breed that visibly contains any of these breeds.
All restricted breed dogs must be muzzled, leashed and controlled by an adult who is physically capable of
handling the dog, in any environment except prescribed enclosures. Restricted breed dogs are also required
to be sterilised unless there are extenuating circumstances relating to the animal!s physical condition or
medical treatment. Owners of these breeds are required to display of warning signs where these dogs are
kept, meet stringent fencing requirements, notify the local government of changes in the dogs status
(moved, died, etc..), and ensure their dogs wear dangerous dog collars.
The Canadian federal government does not regulate pit bull-type dogs, but one provincial government and some
municipal governments in Canada have enacted breed-specific legislation banning or restricting pit bull-type dogs.
The following table discusses a sampling of the restrictions in force.
Samples of Legislation
Province Locality Date Type Details
Ontario All August
Ban Except as permitted by this Act or the regulations, no person shall,
(a) own a pit bull;
(b) breed a pit bull;
(c) transfer a pit bull, whether by sale, gift or otherwise;
(d) abandon a pit bull other than to a pound operated by or on behalf of a municipality, Ontario or
a designated body;
(e) allow a pit bull in his or her possession to stray;
(f) import a pit bull into Ontario; or
(g) train a pit bull for fighting.
Pit bulls are "grandfathered" if they were owned by an Ontario resident on August 29, 2005, or born in
Ontario within 90 days after August 29, 2005. These dogs are subject to strict regulation and control,
including the following:
· They must be muzzled and kept on a leash no more than 1.8 meters long when in public or not on
· They must be spayed or neutered unless a veterinarian certifies the dog is physically unfit to be
· They are automatically euthanized if a court finds they have bitten, attacked, or posed a menace, or if
their owners are found to be in violation of the law or a related court order.
· Their owners are entirely liable for any and all damage caused by a bite or an attack
A document purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario stating that a
dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act is receivable in evidence in a prosecution for an offence
under this Act as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a pit bull for the
purposes of this Act, without proof of the signature and without proof that the signatory is a member of
Winnipeg June 1,
"Pit Bull dog" means
(i) Pit Bull Terrier; or
(ii) Staffordshire Bull Terrier; or
(iii) American Staffordshire Terrier; or
(iv) American Pit Bull Terrier; or
(v) Any dog which has the appearance and physical characteristics predominantly conforming to
the standards for any of the above breeds, as established by the Canadian Kennel Club or the
American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club ...as determined by a veterinarian licensed to
practice in Manitoba.
...Any Pit Bull dog within the City of Winnipeg is and shall be conclusively deemed a dangerous dog.
...No person shall keep or harbour any Pit Bull dog regardless of age on or after June 1, 1990, except
where the owner has a valid dangerous dog licence for that dog which has been issued prior to that date.
In Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2007 CanLII 9231 (ON S.C.), Ms. Catherine Cochrane sued the
Province of Ontario to prevent it from enforcing the Dog Owner's Liability Act (DOLA) ban on pit bull-type dogs,
arguing that the law was unconstitutionally broad because the ban was grossly disproportionate to the risk pit bulls
pose to public safety, and that the law was unconstitutionally vague because failed to provide an intelligible
definition of pit bulls. She also argued that a provision allowing the Crown to introduce as evidence a veterinarian!s
certificate certifying that the dog is a pit bull violates the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
The presiding judge ruled that the DOLA was not overbroad because,
"The evidence with respect to the dangerousness of pit bulls, although conflicting and inconclusive, is
sufficient, in my opinion, to constitute a 'reasoned apprehension of harm'. In the face of conflicting
evidence as to the feasibility of less restrictive means to protect the public, it was open to the legislature
to decide to restrict the ownership of all pit bulls."
The presiding judge found the term "a pit bull terrier" was unconstitutionally vague since it could include an
undefined number of dogs similar to the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire
The judge also ruled that the government's ability to introduce a veterinarian!s certificate certifying
that the dog is a pit bull created a mandatory presumption that the dog was a pit bull, and that this placed an
unconstitutional burden of proof upon the defendant.
Ms. Cochrane and the Attorney General of Ontario appealed
different aspects of the decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
In Cochrane v. Ontario (2008 ONCA 718),
the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's ruling:
· It agreed with the lower court judge in finding that the "overbreadth#$claim failed because the legislature had
acted on a "reasonable apprehension of harm.#
· It disagreed that the definition of pit bull in the Act was insufficiently precise and restored the original wording of
"pit bull terrier" on the basis that, when read in the context of "a more comprehensive definition,#$the phrasing "a
pit bull terrier#$was sufficiently precise.
· It reversed the trial court and found that the government's ability to introduce a veterinarian's certificate certifying
a dog was a pit bull would constitute proof only if the defendant failed to answer the claim: it was therefore a
tactical burden, rather an evidentiary burden.
On June 11, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear further appeal of the case, thereby upholding the
Ontario ban on pit bulls.
The United States federal government has not enacted breed-specific legislation, but the United States Army
have banned "large dog breeds with a predisposition toward aggressive or dangerous behavior,"
including pit bull-type dogs (among other breeds) in on-base housing and privatized housing, as have a number of
U.S. Air Force and Navy installations. One state government and several hundred municipal governments in the
United States have enacted breed-specific legislation banning or restricting pit bull-type dogs and a few other
Samples of Legislation
State Locality Date Type Details
Maumelle April 6, 1998 Ban
Banned breeds of dogs are banned entirely and may not be owned or kept within the
city. Banned breeds of dogs are any of the following:
1. American Pit Bull Terrier.
2. Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
3. American Staffordshire Terrier.
4. American Bulldog.
5. Any dog whose sire or dam is a dog of a breed which is defined as a banned breed
of dog under this section.
6. Any dog whose owner registers, defines, admits or otherwise identifies the dog as
being of a banned breed.
7. Any dog conforming or substantially conforming to the breed of American Pit Bull
Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or American
Bulldog as defined by the United Kennel Club or American Kennel Club.
8. Any dog which is of the breed commonly referred to as "pit bull" and commonly
recognizable and identifiable as such.
9. Any vicious dog which is found at large in violation of section 10-90.
Aurora October 25,
Ban It [is] unlawful for any person to have, own, possess, keep, exercise control over,
maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull or restricted breed of
dog. "Pit bull" ... is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American
Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog 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.
"Restricted Breed Of Dog#$shall mean any American Bulldog (Old Country Bulldog),
Dogo Argentino, Canary Dog (Canary Island Dog, Presa Canario, Perro De Presa
Canario), Presa Mallorquin (Perro de Presa Mallorquin, Ca De Bou), Tosa Inu (Tosa
Fighting Dog, Japanese Fighting Dog, Japanese Mastiff), Cane Corso (Cane Di
Macellaio, Sicilian Branchiero), Fila Brasileiro or any dog displaying the majority of
physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds.
Owners of pit bull dogs and restricted dogs licensed within 60 days of the ordinance's
effective date could keep their dogs only under restricted conditions, including:
· if the dog is licensed, spay/neutered, vaccinated against rabies, and has microchip
· the owner is at least 21 years old and has at least $100,000 US liability insurance
· the dog is kept indoors or locked in a secured pen, with government-provided
warning signs posted at entrances to the property;
· when off the property, the dog must be kept in a secure transportable container or
must wear a muzzle while held on a four-foot long non-extensible leash;
· the dog may not be sold or transferred to anyone outside the owner's immediate
· the owner must notify the government immediately if the dog is loose, stolen,
at-large, unconfined, has mauled, bitten, attacked, threatened, or in any way
menaced another animal or human, or has died.
Denver July 31, 1989
from April 21,
2004 to May
Ban It [is] unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain,
harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull. A "pit bull" ... is defined as any
dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire
Bull Terrier, or any dog 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. The A.K.C. and U.K.C. standards
for the above breeds are on file in the office of the clerk and recorder, ex officio clerk
of the City and County of Denver, at City Clerk Filing No. 89457.
The law allowed owners of pit bulls living in Denver in July, 1989 to keep them
provided the owner:
· Registered the dog with the city and allowed the city to tattoo it with the
· Was at least 21 years old
· Had $100,000 US in liability insurance
· Kept the dog confined
· Did not sell or otherwise transfer the dog to anyone except someone in the owner's
· Posted a sign of specified dimensions and lettering ("PIT BULL DOG") at every
possible entrance to the property where the dog was kept.
"It is illegal in Miami-Dade County to own any dog which substantially conforms to a
Pit Bull breed dog, unless it was specially registered with Miami-Dade County prior to
1989. Acquisition or keeping of a Pit Bull dog: $500.00 fine and County Court action
to force the removal of the animal from Miami-Dade County." Ref. Miami-Dade
County 89-22, Section 5-17.6(b)
"It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over,
maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city of Council Bluffs, Iowa, any pit
bull....A "pit bull#$is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American
Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of
physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds (more so than any other breed),
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. The A.K.C. and U.K.C. standards for the above breeds are on
file in the office of the director of public health."
Sioux City September 15,
"Current pit bull owners [as of Sept. 15, 2008] who keep their dog registered can keep
their pet but not to replace it with another pit bull when it dies. The ban exempts the
Humane Society, Animal Control, dogs participating in dog shows, and puppies born
to pit bulls in the city, up to six months of age.
Any pit bull not in compliance will be impounded, and the owner given 10 days to pay
the impoundment costs and produce evidence the dog will be permanently removed
from Sioux City. Otherwise it will be put down.
Overland Park September 21,
Ban "No person shall own, keep, or harbor any dangerous animal in the City of Overland
Park.... "For the purposes of this chapter "dangerous animal" means and includes...any
pit bull dog. "Pit bull dog" is defined to mean any and all of the following dogs:
a. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed of dogs;
b. The American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dogs;
c. The American Pit Bull Terrier breed of dogs;
d. Dogs which have the appearance and characteristics of being predominately
of the breeds of dogs known as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull
Terrier, or American Staffordshire Terrier.
"The registration of a dog at any time in any jurisdiction as a pit bull or any of the dogs
listed above shall constitute prima facie evidence the animal is prohibited by this
section. "All owners, keepers or harborers of registered pit bull dogs or wolf hybrids
must within ten (10) days of the effective date of this ordinance provide proof to the
City Clerk of public liability insurance in a single incident amount of $300,000.00 for
bodily injury to or death of any person or persons or for damage to property owned by
any persons which may result from the ownership, keeping or maintenance of such
Note: the ordinance was amended in 2007 to increase liability insurance requirements
from $50,000 to $300,000
Union County January 1,
A vicious dog (Pit Bull and Wolf-Hybrids) shall be annually registered and fee paid. A
fee of $50.00, Name, Address, and Telephone Number of owner, Address (place of
harbor), Identification, Genus, Species, Name, Gender, Color, Distinguishing Marks,
Size, Weight, and (2) two colored photographs before dog can be registered. Owner
must also have proof of Rabies Shots, and proof of spayed or neutered, otherwise
written statement from veterinarian for reason
1996 Bans new
"Effective February 3, 1997, in compliance with the Prince George!s County Code,
Section 3-185.01, it is illegal to own or harbor a non-registered Pit Bull in Prince
George!s County. To legally own a Pit Bull in the County, your pet must have been
registered with the Animal Management Group prior to February 3, 1997 and maintain
a current Pit Bull registration. The registration tag must be worn by the Pit Bull at all
times. All Pit Bulls with expired registrations are considered illegal and will be
impounded, and the owner may be fined or face criminal prosecution. If your
registered Pit Bull produces a litter, the puppies are considered illegal and must leave
Prince George!s County. Citizens and residents are prohibited by law from selling or
giving away Pit Bulls in Prince George!s County.
"The Code also requires that Pit Bulls be maintained within a building or secured
kennel if kept outdoors for any length of time. In addition, the Code states that Pit
Bulls outside of a building or kennel must be under the control of an adult and secured
by an unbreakable leash. Violations to this provision will result in fines up to $1,000 or
a sentence of not more than six months imprisonment.
"Pit Bulls include any and all of the following breed of dogs: Staffordshire Bull
Terrier; American Staffordshire Terrier; American Pit Bull Terrier; or dogs that exhibit
the characteristics of a Pit Bull more than any other breed of dog."
May 20, 2008 Restriction
"No Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire terrier,
American Bulldog, mixes (AKA Bully breeds) or any aggressive animal will be
adopted or placed from Livingston County Animal Control
· Stray Bully breeds and aggressive animals will be held for the State mandated
holding period (pending owner claim). If not claimed the animal will be humanely
· Owners may claim their aggressive animal after they show reasonable proof of
ownership and pay fees. Further, Animal Control Department will refer matter to
Prosecutor!s Office for a determination regarding potential prosecution for
violation of law.
· The Livingston County Animal Control staff has sole discretionary authority to
deem an animal to be aggressive or to be a bully breed"
Melvindale April 4, 1990 Ban
Pit bull or pit bull terrier means and refers to any canine (purebred or hybrid) which
exhibits those phenotypical characteristics which:
1. Substantially conform to the breed standards established by the American Kennel
Club for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers; or
2. Substantially conform to the breed standards established by the United Kennel
Club for American Pit Bull Terriers;
3. The standards of the American Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club referred
to herein shall remain on file with the clerk of the city. Technical deficiencies in
the dog's conformance to the standards of this definition shall not be construed to
indicate that the subject dog is not a pit bull terrier under this division.
It is unlawful for any person to acquire, possess or maintain, within the city any pit bull
terrier except for dogs owned prior to April 4, 1990. Penalty: $100 or up to 30 days in
jail for every day a pit bull is within the city limits.
Independence August 28,
Pit bulls are only allowed in the city limits if they were registered before August 28,
2006. No new pit bulls are allowed to register after this date.
Owners of pit bulls
already living in Independence have to register and microchip the dog, and the pit bulls
must also be spayed or neutered....Owners of pit bulls ... have to carry $300,000 in
liability insurance and face stiffer fines and jail time if there is a problem.
Kearney July 7, 2007 Bans new
"It shall be unlawful to keep, harbor, own or in any way possess within the corporate
limits of the City of Kearney, Missouri, any pit bull dog; provided, that pit bull dogs
residing in the City on the date of passage of this Section [July 2, 2007] may be kept
within the City subject to the standards and requirements herein set forth. "Pit bull
dog" is defined to mean:
1. The bull terrier breed of dog;
2. Staffordshire bull terrier breed of dog;
3. The American pit bull terrier breed of dog;
4. The American Staffordshire terrier breed of dog;
5. Dogs of mixed breed or other breeds than above listed which breed or mixed breed
is known as pit bulls, pit bull dogs or pit bull terriers;
6. Any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of
the breeds of bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier,
American Staffordshire terrier; any other breed commonly known as pit bulls, pit
bull dogs or pit bull terriers or a combination of any of these breeds.
7. A pit bull may be identified as any dog which exhibits those distinguishing
characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established by the
American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club as described in the identification
checklist which is on file in the City offices. An identification using the above
standards shall be prima facie proof and create a rebuttable presumption that a dog
is a pit bull."
The owners of any pit bull legally resident within the city must:
· register the dog with the city and provide two identification photographs of the dog
to the city
· securely confine the dog, and never tether the dog to an inanimate object
· post warning signs ("Beware of dog - pit bull")
· obtain a $300,000 USD liability insurance policy
· report the death, departure out of the city, or birth of any offspring of the dog
· never sell the dog to anyone in the city unless they are living in the same location
as the current owner
· any puppies born of a pit bull must leave the city at six weeks of age.
Springfield April 13, 2006 Bans new
It is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain,
harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull. Pit bull means any dog that is an
American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier,
or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one 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. The A.K.C. and U.K.C. standards for the above
breeds are on file in the office of the city clerk. People owning pit bulls on April 13,
· Register their dog with the city government
· Microchip and spay/neuter the dog.
· Notify the city within 5 days if the dog is lost, stolen, dies, or has a litter.
· Remove any pit bull puppies from the city limits or turn them over to the city to be
· Post a sign stating "PIT BULL DOG" in two-inch letters at each possible entrance
to the owner's property
May 1, 2009 Ban
Residents of the New York City Housing Authority are prohibited from owning the
following dog breeds: Akita Inu, Alangu Mastiff, Alano Español, American Pit Bull
Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Argentine Dogo, Bedlington Terrier, Boston
Terrier, Bull and Terrier, Bull Terrier, Bully Kutta, Cane Corso, Dogue de Bordeaux,
Dogo Sardesco, English Mastiff, Fila Brasileiro, Gull Dong, Gull Terr, Irish
Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Korean Jindo Dog, Lottatore Brindisino, Neapolitan
Mastiff, Perro de Presa Canario, Perro de Presa Mallorquin, Shar Pei, Staffordshire
Bull Terrier, Tosa Inu
Ohio All July 10, 1987 Restriction
A "vicious dog" is one "that, without provocation meets any of the following criteria:
· (i) Has killed or caused serious injury to any person;
· (ii) Has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person, or has
killed another dog.
· (iii) Belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership,
keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the
ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog."
A vicious dog must be confined on the owner's property by means of a locked fenced
yard, a locked dog pen that has a top, or some other locked enclosure that has a top
(such as a house). The owner must maintain at least $100,000 of liability insurance
coverage on the animal.
No person shall own, keep, harbor or have on public or private property a pit bull dog
as hereinafter defined within the Municipal limits of the City of Garfield Heights, Ohio
(City). "Pit bull dog#$as used in this section means any dog whose blood line includes
that of a Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, American pit bull or
American pit bull terrier, or any other dog whose appearance and characteristics render
it identifiable as partially of one or more of such breeds.
Toledo January 9,
Restriction (a) No person or organization or corporation shall own, keep, harbor or provide
sustenance for more than one dog commonly known as a Pit Bull or Pit Bull mixed
breed dog, regardless of age, in the City of Toledo, with the exception of puppies
commonly known as Pit Bull or Pit Bull mixed breed for which the owner has filed an
ownership acknowledgment form in person with the Dog Warden of Lucas County,
prior to reaching seven (7) days of age. The ownership of these puppies must be
transferred according to Ohio R.C. 955.11(B) and (D) before they are three (3) months
of age. Additionally, this section requires that all dogs commonly known as Pit Bull or
Pit Bull mixed breed dogs are required, when off the owners' premises, to be securely
confined as described in Ohio R. C. 955.22 and muzzled.
(b) Any Pit Bull which is outside the premises of the dog owner shall be kept on a
leash and muzzled until the dog's return to the premises of ownership.
(c) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Each
day that a violation of this section exists shall constitute a separate offense.
(d) Any Pit Bull or Pit Bull mixed breed dog which has been seized in connection with
a violation of this Section may be ordered destroyed or returned to its Owner only on
the condition that the dog is first spayed or neutered at the owner's expense.
Pawtucket January 1,
Ban "It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over,
maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the City any pit bull dog." City of Pawtucket
Municipal Code, Chapter 116, Article IV, Section 116-37.1.
Sparta August, 2005 Active
Delta January 8,
"The term pit bull dog used within this part shall refer to any dog which has any or all
of (a) pit bull breeding; (b) characteristics resembling a pit bull and/or (c) exhibits
those distinguishing characteristics which
1. Substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club
for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers or
2. Substantially conform to the standards established by the United Kennel Club for
American Pit Bull Terriers
3. Technical deficiencies in the dogs conformance to the standards described in
subsection one and two shall not be construed to indicate that the subject dog is not
a Pit Bull Dog under this ordinance
It shall be unlawful to keep any Pit Bull Dog as defined in this ordinance within the
incorporated area of the City of Delta, Utah."
Enumclaw 1990 Ban
"Pit bull dog#$means any dog over the age of six months known by the owner to be a
Pit Bull Terrier. Pit Bull Terrier shall mean any Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull
Terrier, or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dog or
any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of Bull
Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American
Staffordshire Terrier so as to be identifiable as partially of the breed Bull Terrier,
American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire
Terrier. It is unlawful to keep, or harbor, own or in any way possess a pit bull dog
within the city.
Royal City January 12,
Section 6.04.020: ...A "dangerous dog" also includes:
1. Any dog known by the owner to be a Pit Bull Terrier, which shall be defined as any
American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog or
American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dog or any mixed breed of dog which
contains as an element of its breeding the breed of American Pit Bull Terrier,
Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog or American Staffordshire Terrier as
to be identifiable as partially of such breeds (hereafter a "pit bull dog").
2. Any dog known by the owner to be a Rottweiler breed of dog or any mixed breed
of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of Rottweiler as to be
identifiable as partially of such breeds (hereafter a "Rottweiler dog").
No one shall keep, possess or harbor a dangerous dog, as defined by Section 6.04.020
within the city.
Yakima July 28, 1987 Ban "Pit bull dog#$means any pit bull terrier. "Pit bull terrier#$means any American pit bull
terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American bulldog or American Staffordshire terrier
breed of dog or any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding
the breed of American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American bulldog or
American Staffordshire terrier so as to be identifiable as partially of the breed
American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American bulldog or American
It is unlawful to keep, or harbor, own or in any way possess a pit bull dog within the
city of Yakima. Violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. The minimum fine
for a violation of this section shall be two hundred fifty dollars for the first offense and
five hundred dollars for a second or subsequent offense, which fine shall not be
suspended or deferred. For purposes of this section, proof of a prior violation shall not
require proof that the same pit bull dog is involved. Each day of violation shall be a
This [does] not apply to pit bull dogs which: (1) do not reside in the city of Yakima,
(2) are brought into the city for the purposes of participating in a dog show or canine
sporting event for which the owner is able to show proof of entry, and (3) do not
remain in the city of Yakima for a period exceeding ninety-six consecutive hours.
Wheeling January 17,
Restriction Definitions: "Canary Dog.#$Any canary dog or Perro do Presa Canario, or any mixed
breed of dog which contains, as an element or its breeding, the breed of canary dog or
Perro do Presa Canario as to be identifiable as partially of the breed canary dog or
Perro de Presa Canario. If there is a question of whether a particular canine fits the
definition herein; it will be sufficient to show identification of a canine as either a pure
bred or belonging to a mixed breed if a member of the American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA) would identify the canine as such.
"Pit Bull Terrier.#$Any Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, or American
Staffordshire terrier breed or dog, or any mixed breed of dog which contains, as an
element of its breeding, the breed of Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier,
or American Staffordshire Terrier, as to be identifiable as partially of the breed of
Staffordshire bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier. If there is a question of
whether a particular canine fits the definition herein; it will be sufficient to show
identification of a canine as either a pure bred or belonging to a mixed breed if a
member of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) would identify the
canine as such.
"Vicious Dog.#$Any dog that, without provocation, meets any of the following
1. Has killed or caused serious injury to any person;
2. Has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person or has killed
3. While off the premises of the owner, bites or causes physical harm to a human
being, domestic animal, or feline;
4. While on the premises of the owner or premises under control of the owner, bites
or otherwise causes physical harm to mail carriers, utility workers, City of
Wheeling employees, delivery persons, or any police or emergency person; or
5. Belongs to the breed that is commonly known as a pit bull terrier, canary dog, and
American bull dog. The ownership, keeping or harboring of such a breed of dog
shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping or harboring of a vicious
Owners of vicious dogs must:
· securely confine their dogs
· leash and muzzle their dogs when the dogs are not confined
· Post "Beware of Dog" signs at entrance points to their property
· Procure $100,000 US in liability insurance
· Spay/neuter the dog
· Notify the government if the dog escapes, or if it bites a person or an animal
Ban "Pit Bull" as used in this ordinance means: Any Pit Bull Terrier, which shall be defined
as any American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American
Staffordshire Terrier breed of dog, or any mixed breed of dog which contains as an
element of its breeding the breed of American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull
Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier as to be identifiable as partially of the breed
of American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire
No person shall harbor, keep or maintain within the City limits of the City of South
Milwaukee any Pit Bull which was not currently registered and licensed by the City of
South Milwaukee on or before April 1, 1989. This prohibition shall not be applied to
animals being transported through the City limits of the City of South Milwaukee
within a one-hour period of time and to dogs exempted under Sec. 174.005 and
A pup born to a female Pit Bull licensed and registered pursuant to paragraphs 8(A)
and 13 hereof shall be removed from the City of South Milwaukee before the date on
which it is required to be licensed pursuant to Chapter 174, Wis. Stats.
Court challenges to breed-specific legislation on constitutional grounds have been largely unsuccessful. Dana M.
Campbell summarized the legal challenges and the general court findings as of July 2009:
Court cases challenging BSL have focused on constitutional concerns such as substantive due process,
equal protection, and vagueness. Most BSL will survive the minimum scrutiny analysis allowed by the
due process clauses of the Constitution!s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because there is no
fundamental right at issue. This analysis requires that the law being challenged must be rationally
related to a legitimate government goal or purpose. Because state and local jurisdictions enjoy broad
police powers, including protecting the public!s safety and welfare, courts have not had trouble finding
that BSL is rationally related to the goal of protecting the public from allegedly dangerous breeds.
Challenges based on equal protection arguments are similarly difficult to sustain. Here courts are
looking at whether there is a rational purpose for treating pit bull breeds differently from other dog
breeds. Dog owners have attacked the rational purpose requirement by arguing either that BSL is
over%inclusive, because it bans all dogs of a breed when only certain individuals within the breed have
proven to be vicious, or under%inclusive, because many types of dogs have injured people and the BSL
fails to include those other breeds. However, again under minimum scrutiny review, BSL will survive as
long as the government can establish that the BSL is rationally related to its purpose, even if the law is
found to be over%inclusive or under%inclusive.
Claims that BSL is unconstitutionally vague have brought dog owners mixed success. Procedural due
process requires that laws provide the public with sufficient notice of the activity or conduct being
regulated or banned. Here owners of pit bulls or other banned breeds argue that the breed ban laws do
not adequately define just what is a "pit bull#$(or other banned breed) for purposes of the ban. Another
argument is that the laws are too vague to help the dog%owning public or the BSL enforcement
agency& such as animal control or police& to be able to identify whether a dog falls under the BSL if
the dog was adopted with an unknown origin or is a mixed breed.
Sente// r. New Or/eans and Carra//tan Ra//raad Campanv
In Sentell v. New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company, 166 U.S. 698 (1897), Mr. Sentell sued the New
Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company to recover the value of his female Newfoundland dog that he alleged to
have been negligently killed by the railroad company. The company claimed that Louisiana law held that only
people who licensed their dogs were entitled to sue for compensation if the dog were killed, and that Mr. Sentell was
not entitled to damages since he had not licensed his dog. The trial court in Orleans Parish found for Mr. Sentell and
awarded him $250 US, so the railroad company appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, which reversed the
decision of the trial court. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so Mr. Sentell then appealed to
the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Sentell and established the precedent in U.S. jurisprudence that the regulation
of dogs was within the police power of the state, and that the dogs were not as valuable as horses, cattle, sheep, or
other domesticated animals:
It is true that under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state can deprive a person of his life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, but in determining what is due process of law, we are bound to
consider the nature of the property, the necessity for its sacrifice, and the extent to which it has
heretofore been regarded as within the police power. So far as property is inoffensive or harmless, it can
only be condemned or destroyed by legal proceedings, with due notice to the owner; but, so far as it is
dangerous to the safety or health of the community, due process of law may authorize its summary
Although dogs are ordinarily harmless, they preserve some of their hereditary wolfish instincts, which
occasionally break forth in the destruction of sheep and other helpless animals. Others, too small to
attack these animals, are simply vicious, noisy, and pestilent. As their depredations are often committed
at night, it is usually impossible to identify the dog or to fix the liability upon the owner, who, moreover,
is likely to be pecuniarily irresponsible [irresponsible with money]. In short, the damages are usually
such as are beyond the reach of judicial process, and legislation of a drastic nature is necessary to protect
persons and property from destruction and annoyance. Such legislation is clearly within the police
power of the state. It ordinarily takes the form of a license tax, and the identification of the dog by a
collar and tag, upon which the name of the owner is sometimes required to be engraved, but other
remedies are not uncommon.
Vanater r. V///age af Saath Pa/nt
In Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F. Supp. 1236 (D. Ohio 1989), the Ohio federal district court held that the
criminal ordinance of South Point, Ohio prohibiting the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers within the village
limits was not overly broad, concluding:
The Court concludes that the definitions of a Pit Bull Terrier in this Ordinance are not unconstitutionally
vague. An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer's guide or any dog book for
guidance and instruction; also, the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club have set forth
standards for Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers to help determine whether
a dog is described by any one of them. While it may be true that some definitions contain descriptions
which lack "mathematical certainty," such precision and definiteness is not essential to constitutionality.
The court made the following findings of fact when it determined the village showed that pit bull terriers are
uniquely dangerous and therefore, are proper subjects of the village's police power for the protection of the public's
health and welfare:
· Pit Bulls ... possess the quality of gameness, which is not a totally clear concept, but which can be described as
the propensity to catch and maul an attacked victim unrelentingly until death occurs, or as the continuing
tenacity and tendency to attack repeatedly for the purpose of killing. It is clear that the unquantifiable,
unpredictable aggressiveness and gameness of Pit Bulls make them uniquely dangerous.
· Pit Bulls have the following distinctive behavioral characteristics: a) grasping strength, b) climbing and
hanging ability, c) weight pulling ability, d) a history of frenzy, which is the trait of unusual relentless ferocity
or the extreme concentration on fighting and attacking, e) a history of catching, fighting, and killing instinct, f)
the ability to be extremely destructive and aggressive, g) highly tolerant of pain, h) great biting strength, i)
undying tenacity and courage and they are highly unpredictable.
· While these traits, tendencies or abilities are not unique to Pit Bulls exclusively, Pit Bulls will have these
instincts and phenotypical characteristics; most significantly, such characteristics can be latent and may appear
without warning or provocation.
· The breeding history of Pit Bulls makes it impossible to rule out a violent propensity for any one dog as
gameness and aggressiveness can be hidden for years. Given the Pit Bull's genetical physical strengths and
abilities, a Pit Bull always poses the possibility of danger; given the Pit Bull's breeding history as a fighting
dog and the latency of its aggressiveness and gameness, the Pit Bull poses a danger distinct from other breeds
of dogs which do not so uniformly share those traits.
· While Pit Bulls are not the only breed of dog which can be dangerous or vicious, it is reasonable to single out
the breed to anticipate and avoid the dangerous aggressiveness which may be undetectable in a Pit Bull.
Amer/can Dag Owners Ass´n, Inc. r. Dade Caantv, F/a.
In American Dog Owners Ass´n. Inc. v. Dade County. Fla., 728 F.Supp. 1533 (S.D.Fla.,1989), dog owners sued in
the federal district court of Florida to prevent Dade County from enforcing a pit bull ban, claiming that there is no
such thing as a pit bull dog but rather three separate breeds; however, their own expert witnesses repeatedly
identified dogs from the three separate breeds as "pit bull dogs" during the trial. The court upheld the Dade County
Based upon the substantial evidence presented at trial, this court finds that Dade County Ordinance No.
89-022 provides sufficient guidance to dog owners, both in its explicit reference to pit bull dogs, and in
its definitional section, to enable pit bull owners to determine whether their dogs fall within the
proscriptions of the ordinance....Certainly there are some applications of the ordinance which pass
constitutional muster. As long as the enactment is not impermissibly vague in all its applications, this
court must uphold its constitutionality. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the
pleadings, memoranda, exhibits and arguments of counsel and upon application of the controlling
authority, this court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof and that the Court is
required to uphold the constitutionality of Dade County Ordinance No. 089-22.
Amer/can Can/ne Federat/an and F/arence V/anzan, r. C/tv af Aarara, CO
In American Canine Federation and Florence Vianzon v. City of Aurora. Colorado, 618 F.Supp.2d 1271, the
plaintiffs sued in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to prevent Aurora, Colorado from
enforcing a pit bull ban on the grounds that the law was unconstitutionally vague, that the law was an abuse of the
city's police power, and that the ban represented an unconstitutional taking of property. The court rejected each of
these claims based on existing legal precedents and upheld the city's ordinance.
In Holt v. City of Maumelle, 817 S.W.2d 208 (AR., 1991), Mr. Steele Holt sued the city of Maumelle, Arkansas in
1988 in an attempt to have its prohibition against pit bulls overturned on the grounds that the ordinance was
impermissibly vague, that it was unreasonable to ban pit bull-type dogs, and that the city's Board of Directors
committed a breach of contract by passing a pit bull ordinance that it had previously agreed to forego; Mr. Holt also
asked that the city pay compensatory damages, punitive damages, and his attorney's fees. The Pulaski County circuit
court made a summary judgment dismissing the suit, and Mr. Holt appealed. In 1991, the Arkansas Supreme Court
affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding that the pit bull ordinance was not impermissibly vague, that the
restrictions were reasonable, and that any agreement made by the city to limit its own legislative powers was null
and void since the city's first duty was to protect the public interest.
In Colorado Dog Fanciers. Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 820 P.2d 644, Colo., 1991, the Colorado Supreme
Court upheld a Denver city ordinance that dog owners had complained was unconstitutional, along the following
· the dog owners claimed the ordinance was fundamentally unfair and therefore violated their right to procedural
due process by forcing them to meet the burden of proving their dog was not a pit bull; however, the higher court
found the ordinance was not fundamentally unfair provided the city was required to prove that dogs were pit bulls
by the civil standard of "preponderance of evidence" rather than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable
· the dog owners claimed the ordinance violated substantive due process by creating a legislative presumption that
a pit bull owner knowingly and voluntarily possesses a pit bull, and because it allowed the use of non-scientific
evidence (e.g., expert opinion) to prove a dog is a pit bull; however, the higher court determined the ordinance
preserves substantive due process by providing dog owners with a constitutionally adequate post-impoundment
hearing, and reversed the trial court's imposition of a pre-impoundment hearing; in addition, the city was not
required to prove a dog was a pit bull with mathematical certainty, and could use expert opinion and
non-scientific evidence to prove its case in court.
· the dog owners felt the city ordinance treated all pit bulls and substantially similar dogs as inherently dangerous
and was, therefore, unconstitutionally overbroad; however, the higher court ruled that outside the limited area of
fundamental constitutional rights such as, for example, first amendment rights of speech or association, a statute
may not be attacked as overbroad.
· the dog owners felt the term "pit bull" was imprecise and, thus, unconstitutionally vague because the average dog
owner is not afforded fair warning of the act prohibited by the ordinance; however, the higher court found the
standards for determining whether a dog is a pit bull are readily accessible to dog owners, and because most dog
owners are capable of determining the breed or phenotype of their dog, the trial court properly determined that the
ordinance provides adequate notice to dog owners and is not unconstitutionally vague.
· the dog owners argued that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause by creating an irrational distinction
between one who owns a dog with the physical characteristics of a pit bull and one who owns a dog lacking those
characteristics; however, the higher court ruled that there was ample evidence to establish a rational relationship
between the city's classification of certain dogs as pit bulls and the legitimate governmental purpose of protecting
the health and safety of the city's residents and dogs, and thus the ordinance did not violate the dog owners' right
to equal protection of the laws.
· the ordinance is an abuse of the city's police power and constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property;
however, the higher court noted that, in Colorado, dogs are accorded qualified property status and are, thus,
subject to the proper exercise of police power for the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare.
In City & County of Denver v. State of Colorado, 04CV3756, Denver challenged a 2004 law passed by the Colorado
General Assembly that prohibited breed specific laws on the grounds that the state law violated the city's home rule
authority in regard to animal control legislation. The Denver District Court Judge ruled in favor of Denver, finding
· the State failed to provide any new evidence to undermine the original 1990 trial court's decision regarding the
differences between pit bulls and other dogs.
· the City had provided new evidence to provide additional support for the original 1990 trial court's decision.
· the 2000 CDC study on fatal dog bite attacks was irrelevant to the narrow issues identified in the 1990 trial court's
· the State of Colorado had failed to meet its burden of proof to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that no rational
basis for Denver!s pit bull ban existed
In State of Florida v. Peters, 534 So.2d 760 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988), the Florida Third District Court of Appeal
reviewed the City of North Miami ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city limits, and
held: (1) the ordinance did not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution since the city's
action in light of the evidence was neither arbitrary or irrational; (2) the ordinance's requirement to obtain liability
insurance did not violate due process since the city had the right to regulate dogs under its police powers; (3) the
definition of "pit bull" was not unconstitutionally vague, citing substantial precedent that laws requiring "substantial
conformance" with a standard are not considered vague; and that mathematical certainty of a dog's identity as a pit
bull was not required for a legal determination that a dog was in fact a pit bull.
In Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 772 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1989), the Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed the ruling of a
county court that overturned an ordinance of the City of Overland Park regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs
within the city limits, and held: (1) The ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) the ordinance
does not violate the due process rights of plaintiffs under the United States and Kansas Constitutions; (3) the
ordinance does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions; and (4) the
district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).
In Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky.App.,2006), the Kentucky Court of Appeals reviewed
a Bracken County ordinance that banned pit bull terriers. The appellants (Mr. Bess and Mr. Poe) had sought a
temporary injunction against the ordinance in the Bracken County Circuit Court. The Circuit Court dismissed the
motion on the grounds that the police power of the fiscal court allowed it to ban pit bull terriers and seize them
without compensation. The appellants appealed on the grounds that
· (1) that the ordinance is inconsistent with KRS (Kentucky Revised Statutes) Chapter 258 and specifically with the
definition of "vicious dog#$contained in KRS 258.095;
· (2) that it impermissibly allows the forfeiture of property without compensation;
· (3) that it denies dog owners procedural due process; and
· (4) that it impedes the right of nonresident owners of pit bull terriers to travel through Bracken County.
The Appeals court upheld the Bracken County ordinance, finding that
· (1) the breed-specific ordinance supplemented, rather than replaced or superseded, the definition of a "vicious
dog" in the state statute;
· (2) the banning of pit bull terriers was permissible under the police power, and that property seized under the
police power was not subject to compensation
· (3) dog owners had the right of appeal to the Circuit Court under the ordinance, so the right of due process was
· (4) the ordinance did not discriminate against non-resident pit bull owners, and that the appellants had not
provided any evidence that traveling with a pet "occupies a position fundamental to the concept of a federal
In American Dog Owners Ass´n. Inc. v. City of Lynn, 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (Mass.,1989), the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court reviewed a series of ordinances enacted by Lynn, Massachusetts targeting dogs variously
referred to as "American Staffordshire Terrier[s], a/k/a American Pit Bull Terrier[s] or Bull Terrier[s]" (July 1985);
"American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier or Bull Terrier, hereinafter referred to as 'Pit Bulls'" (June
1986); and ""American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier or any mixture thereof" (September
The Supreme Judicial Court determined that the issue was technically moot since each of the ordinances in question
had been repealed by passage of a subsequent "pit bull" ordinance in June 1987; however, the court specifically
observed (but did not rule) that the 1987 ordinance relied on the "common understanding and usage" of the names of
the breeds in question, and warned that
the Lynn Pit Bull ban ordinance depends for enforcement on the subjective understanding of dog
officers of the appearance of an ill-defined "breed,#$leaves dog owners to guess at what conduct or dog
"look#$ is prohibited, and requires "proof#$ of a dog's "type#$ which, unless the dog is registered, may be
impossible to furnish. Such a law gives unleashed discretion to the dog officers charged with its
enforcement, and clearly relies on their subjective speculation whether a dog's physical characteristics
make it what is "commonly understood#$to be a "Pit Bull.#
As a result of this case, breed-specific legislation in the United States often relies on the published standards of the
American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club to clearly identify the characteristics of dogs subject to regulation as
In Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 767 P.2d 355 (1988), the New Mexico Court of Appeals reviewed an ordinance of
the Village of Tijeras that banned the ownership or possession of a breed of dog "known as American Pit Bull
Terrier#; any dog found in violation of the ordinance after a court hearing would be euthanized. The court held
against each of the defendants' claims and upheld the ordinance on the following grounds:
1. The defendants claimed the ordinance violated their due process rights because it was vague in how it defined
"pit bull"; however, the ordinance was not vague because vagueness applies in the sense of "to whom does the
law apply." The law was therefore not vague since the defendants knew the ordinance applied to them.
2. The defendants claimed the ordinance was not rationally related to the purpose of preventing pit bull attacks
because environment and training are more important than genetics in determining how a dog acts; however, the
court held there was substantial, credible evidence of breed-specific issues that the Village's actions were
3. The defendants claimed that the ordinance violated equal protection rights because it singled out the owners of pit
bulls; however, the court ruled that there was substantial, credible evidence that pit bulls posed a special threat to
the people of Tijeras and that there were no grounds to overturn the ordinance.
4. The defendants claimed the ordinance denied them procedural due process against the loss of property; however,
the court ruled that the court hearings specified by the ordinance were sufficient due process to ensure the owners
had "the opportunity to be heard and present evidence would occur at a meaningful time, that is, prior to the
destruction of the dog."
5. The defendants claimed the ordinance would deprive them of property without compensation; however, the court
ruled that well-established precedent did not require compensation for property seized under a city's police
In Toledo v. Tellings - Reversed - 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007), the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeal struck
down a portion of the Toledo, Ohio municipal code that limited people to owning only one pit bull. The law relied on
a state definition of a vicious dog as one that has bitten or killed a human, has killed another dog, or "belongs to a
breed that is commonly known as a Pit Bull dog." The court held that the legislation was void for violation of a Pit
Bull owner's right to due process since the owner could not appeal a designation of his pet as a vicious dog. The
court held that,
"Since we conclude that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious, then the
city ordinance limitation on ownership is also arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory."
The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Court of Appeal (Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724),
and reinstated the Toledo ordinance for the following reasons:
· |¶ 30¦ The court of appeals found R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14
unconstitutional with respect to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection, and
under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. We disagree.
· |¶ 31¦ First, the court of appeals declared that the laws violated procedural due process pursuant to State v.
Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 2004-Ohio-4777, 814 N.E.2d 846. In Cowan, a Portage County deputy dog
warden determined two dogs to be vicious following a complaint that the dogs had attacked a woman. Id. at ¶
1. The dogs were determined to be vicious because of the alleged attack, not because they were pit bulls. We
held that when a dog is determined to be "vicious#$under R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a), procedural due process requires
that the owner have notice and an opportunity to be heard before the owner is charged with a crime. Id. at ] 13.
· |¶ 32¦ In Cowan, the dogs were determined to be vicious under the first two subsections of R.C.
955.11(A)(4)(a) because they had caused injury to a person. Thus, the case concerned the dog warden!s
unilateral classification of the dogs as vicious. However, in this case, the "vicious dogs#$at issue are those
classified as pit bulls under the third subsection of R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a). Unlike the situation in Cowan, the
General Assembly has classified pit bulls generally as vicious; there is no concern about unilateral
administrative decision-making on a case-by-case basis. The clear statutory language alerts all owners of pit
bulls that failure to abide by the laws related to vicious dogs and pit bulls is a crime. Therefore, the laws do not
violate the rights of pit bull owners to procedural due process.
· |¶ 33¦ Second, R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are not unconstitutional for
violating substantive due process or equal protection rights. Laws limiting rights, other than fundamental
rights, are constitutional with respect to substantive due process and equal protection if the laws are rationally
related to a legitimate goal of government. See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560-561, 664
N.E.2d 926. As we discussed previously when evaluating whether the statutes and ordinance in question are
valid exercises of state and city police power, R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 January Term, 2007 and Toledo
Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
· |¶ 34¦ Finally, the court of appeals erred in holding that R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code
505.14 are void for vagueness. This court has previously held that the term "pit bull#$is not unconstitutionally
void for vagueness. In State v. Anderson, we stated: "In sum, we believe that the physical and behavioral traits
of pit bulls together with the commonly available knowledge of dog breeds typically acquired by potential dog
owners or otherwise possessed by veterinarians or breeders are sufficient to inform a dog owner as to whether
he owns a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog.#$57 Ohio St.3d 168, 173, 566 N.E.2d 1224.
· |¶ 35¦ In conclusion, the state and the city of Toledo possess the constitutional authority to exercise police
powers that are rationally related to a legitimate interest in public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Here, evidence proves that pit bulls cause more damage than other dogs when they attack, cause more fatalities
in Ohio than other dogs, and cause Toledo police officers to fire their weapons more often than people or other
breeds of dogs cause them to fire their weapons. We hold that the state of Ohio and the city of Toledo have a
legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls, and that R.C.
955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to that interest and
Mr. Tellings appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, which declined to hear the case.
In City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners of Texas, 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. 1990), several people
("Responsible Dog Owners") sued the city of Richardson, Texas to prevent it from enforcing restrictions on pit bulls
within its city limits on the grounds that the Texas state legislature had passed legislation preempting the a city's
power to adopt an ordinance regulating the keeping of dogs. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
the City, but the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision (781 S.W.2d 667). The Supreme Court of
Texas reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the original decision on the grounds that
Under article XI, section 5 of the Texas Constitution, home-rule cities have broad discretionary powers
provided that no ordinance "shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State,
or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State...." Thus, the mere fact that the legislature
has enacted a law addressing a subject does not mean that the subject matter is completely
preempted....Although there is a small area of overlap in the provisions of the narrow statute and the
broader ordinance, we hold that it is not fatal.
In McQueen v. Kittitas County, 115 Wash. 672, 677 (1921), the Washington Supreme Court established the broadly
accepted precedent that cities have the power to regulate dogs, even to the point of banning specific breeds.
[D]ogs do not stand on the same plane as horses, cattle, sheep, and other domesticated animals
the general question, it is the almost universal current of authority that dogs are a subject of the police
power of the state, and their keeping subject to any kind of license or regulation, even to absolute
prohibition...since dogs are a subject of the police power, we see no reason why the legislature may not
make distinctions between breeds, sizes and the localities in which they may be kept. The object of the
statute is protection. The purpose is to prevent injuries to persons and property by dogs. Any distinction
founded upon reasons at least, is therefore valid..."
In American Dog Owners Ass´n v. City of Yakima, 777 P.2d 1046 (Wash.1989, en banc), the Washington Supreme
Court reviewed a pit bull ban in Yakima, Washington. The dog owners asked a state court to prevent Yakima from
enforcing its ban on pit bull dogs. The trial court issued a temporary injunction against the city and accepted motions
for summary judgment from both the dog owners and the city. The court decided in favor of the city and lifted the
injunction, whereupon the dog owners appealed to the Washington Supreme Court on the grounds that the ordinance
was vague because a person of ordinary intelligence could not tell what was prohibited, and that the trial court had
improperly decided the summary judgment in favor of the city.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it specified the
dog breeds that together fit the definition of "pit bull", whereas an earlier case in Massachusetts, American Dog
Owners Ass´n. Inc. v. Lynn, 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (1989), had resulted in the pit bull ban being annulled
because the ordinance did not specify in sufficient detail what a "pit bull" was; in addition, the higher court ruled that
the summary judgment had been properly awarded, thus upholding the Yakima pit bull ban.
In Dog Federation of Wisconsin. Inc. v. City of South Milwaukee, 178 Wis.2d 353, 504 N.W.2d 375
(Wis.App.,1993), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reviewed the appeal of a trial court decision upholding a pit bull
ban in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court on the following grounds:
· The dog owners claimed that the definition of "pit bull#$in the ordinance was too vague in its description of a "pit
bull"; however, the Court of Appeals found that the ordinance's reference to the breed descriptions of the
American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club were enough to allow someone to know whether they owned a
"pit bull" or not
· The dog owners claimed the pit bull ban ordinance was overbroad because it treated "all pit bulls as if they are
inherently dangerous, and more prone to cause harm than other dogs as a matter of law"; however, the higher
court found that the prohibition against "overbroad" ordinances protected only fundamental rights such as the
freedom of speech, and that there was no fundamental right to own a particular breed of dog.
· The dog owners claimed the pit bull ban violated their right to equal protection since pit bulls were singled out for
prohibition, for which there was "no scientific or empirical basis#$and that dangerousness is a function of
"environment, training, and upbringing.#$The Court of Appeals found that the evidence of the unique danger
posed by pit bull-type dogs was sufficient that the dog owners could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
discrimination was unfounded, as required by previous court precedent.
Nation Locality Date Type Details
Breeding Pit Bull Terriers and Japanese Tosa dogs is banned.
Ecuador March 2009 Banned
Private ownership of pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers is prohibited.
France April 30, 1999 Restricted
Non-pure-breed animals resembling pit-bulls are to be spay/neutered
Germany February 2001 Banned
Ownership is punishable by fines and up to two years in prison.
Importation of the
pitbull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, or bull terrier is
August 12, 1991 Banned
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Owning dogs of the types known as the pit bull terrier,
Japanese tosa, Argentine Dogo, or Fila Brasiliero is prohibited.
No person shall&
· breed, or breed from, a prohibited dog type;
· sell or exchange such a dog or offer, advertise or expose such a dog for sale or
· make or offer to make a gift of such a dog or advertise or expose such a dog as a gift;
· allow such a dog of which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge
to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead; or
· abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner or for the time being
in charge of such a dog, allow it to stray.
Note: the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 does not apply in Northern Ireland;
the same restrictions apply in Northern Ireland under the Dangerous Dogs (Northern
Ireland) Order 1991.
Ireland 1998 Restricted
The Control of Dogs Regulations 1998 place controls on 10 breeds of dogs, namely the
American Pit Bull Terrier; English Bull Terrier; Staffordshire Bull Terrier; Bull Mastiff;
Doberman Pinscher; German Shepherd (Alsatian); Rhodesian Ridgeback; Rottweiler;
Japanese Akita; Japanese Tosa and to every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban
Dog (or Bandog).
The controls, which must be observed when the dog is in a public place, require that these
dogs, or strains and crosses thereof, must be securely muzzled and kept on a strong short
lead [only up to 2 metres long] by a person over 16 years of age who is capable of
controlling them. Dogs that are not kept under control will be euthanized.
The following restrictions apply to dogs of these breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo
Argentino, Brazilian Fila, or Japanese Tosa
· It is illegal to import them alive or as semen, ova, or embryos
· They are automatically considered "menacing dogs", which must be muzzled and on
leash in public
· Regional councils may order them spay/neutered
· They must be microchipped
Norway August 20, 2004
(First law against
American Pit Bull
Terrier came July
The following breeds are forbidden to give, sell, breed or import, including those in
embryonic form, but dogs bred before the law came into effect are legal to possess:
· Pit Bull Terrier
· American Staffordshire Terrier
· Fila Brasileiro
· Tosa Inu
· Dogo Argentino
Poland 1997 Restricted
Owners can have pit bulls but must display clear warning signs and keep the dogs behind
The ban affects the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, American Staffordshire Terrier,
Fila Braziliero, Dogo Argentino, Tosa Inu and Pit Bull.
July 23, 1998 Banned
The introduction, import, possession, acquisition, breeding, purchase, sale and transfer in
any form in the island of Puerto Rico, of the dogs known as "Pitbull Terriers#, or hybrids
produced by cross-breeding with dogs of other breeds, is ... prohibited. The matter
concerns the product of cross-breeding bulldogs and terriers. This product is defined as a
breed of bull terriers which includes Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire
Terriers, American Pitbull Terriers and crossbreeds of these and other terrier strains.
Owners of existing pit bull-type dogs had until March 23, 1999 to register their dogs.
Romania April 26, 2002 Restricted
The following restrictions apply:
· Owners of the following breeds of dogs must be at least 18 years old, be certified
psychologically fit to own a dog of this breed, and have a court order allowing them to
own the dog: Pit bull, Boerboel, Bandog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire
Bull Terrier, Tosa, Rottweiler, Dogo Argentino, and Neapolitan Mastiff.
· The import of pit bull-type dogs, Boerboels, and Bandogs is prohibited.
· The following dogs must be muzzled in public places: Belgian Malinois, German
Shepherd Dog, Doberman Pinscher, Presa Canario, Komandor, Giant Schnauzer, and
Singapore June 4, 1991 Restricted
The following breeds of dogs and their crosses are not allowed to be imported into
Singapore - Pit Bull (which includes the American Pit Bull Terrier also known as the
American Pit Bull and Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull
Terrier, the American Bulldog, and crosses between them and with other breeds);
Neapolitan Mastiff, Tosa, Akita, Dogo Argentino, Boerboel, Fila Brasileiro and their
Owners of these breeds of dogs already in Singapore must comply with the
· the dog shall be implanted with a microchip;
· the dog, if over 6 months of age, shall be sterilised;
· the licensee shall have in force a policy of insurance approved by the Director-General
for an amount of not less than $100,000 to cover any injury to persons or animals or
damage to property that might be caused by the dog; and
· the licensee shall furnish to the Director-General security in the form of a banker!s
guarantee for $5,000, which shall be forfeited if &
· the owner allows the dog to be in a public place otherwise than on a leash and
securely fitted with a muzzle sufficient to prevent it from biting a person; or
· the dog is reported lost.
A royal decree restricts several breeds, including the American Pit Bull Terrier, American
Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
Turkey 2004 Restricted
The breeding, buying, selling, exchanging and advertising of Pit Bulls, Japanese Tosa dogs,
and other "wild animals" is banned. Pit bull owners must register and sterilize their
Ukraine 1998 Restricted Dangerous breed list approved by Cabinet resolution from July 9, 2002, has over 80 breeds,
including several varieties of Bull Terriers, Bulldogs, Livestock Guardian dogs, Boxer,
Briar, Labrador Retriever, Welsh Terrier, German Shepherd and their mixes. Compliance
requirements include mandatory insurance and micro chipping, walking on a short leash
and muzzle in public places, other restrictions. Ukraine allows adapting local municipal
laws to enforce further restrictions.
In Ukraine capital, Kiev, as per law adapted at 1998, the list of breeds forbidden for
breeding and requiring mandatory sterilization, includes Akbash, APBT, Presca Canario,
Kangal, Romanian Shepherd, Greek Shepherd, Alek Roshhin Doberman, Superdog and
Superdog Mainkong mixes and 18 other recognized and unrecognized breeds. Besides
mandatory spay, law requests muzzle, insurance, short leash, very high license fees and
As per Ukrainian Kennel Club KSU, dangerous breeds list includes over 20 breeds, such as
American Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, English Mastiff, Dogo Argentino,
Dogue De Bordeaux.
Venezuela 2014 Banned
It will be illegal to import, breed, adopt, raise, or sell pit bull-type dogs starting December
 "Garrison Policy Memorandum #08-10, Mandatory Pet Micro-Chipping and Pet Control" (http:/ / www. scribd. com/ doc/ 13296614/
US-Army-Bans-Pit-Bulls-and-Other-Breeds-from-All-RCI-Housing). US Army Installation Management Command, Fort Drum, NY.
2009-02-03. . Retrieved 2009-08-03.
 "Marine Corps Housing Management" (http:/ / www.mcrdpi. usmc. mil/ ops/ housing/ docs/ PETPOLICY. pdf). United States Marine Corps.
 "States prohibiting or allowing breed specific ordinances" (http:/ / www. avma.org/ advocacy/ state/ issues/ sr_breed_ordinances.asp).
American Veterinary Medical Association. October, 2007. . Retrieved 2009-07-12.
 Campbell, Dana (July/August 2009). "Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed%Specific Legislation" (http:/ / www.abanet. org/ genpractice/
magazine/ 2009/ jul_aug/ pitbull.html). GP-Solo (American Bar Association) 26 (5). . Retrieved July 30, 2009.
 Lynn, Colleen (2009). "About dogsbite.org: Common Sense Laws" (http:/ / www. dogsbite. org/ about-dogsbite. htm). dogsbite.org. .
 Nelson, Kory (2005). "One city's experience: why pit bulls are more dangerous and why breed-specific legislation is justified" (http:/ / www.
dogbitelaw.com/ pitbullDenver.pdf). Municipal Lawyer 46 (6): pp.12%15. August 2005. . Retrieved 2009-07-11.
 "HSUS Statement on Dangerous Dogs" (http:/ / www.hsus. org/ pets/ issues_affecting_our_pets/ dangerous_dogs.html). Humane Society of
the United States. 2009. . Retrieved 2009-07-11.
 "A community approach to dog bite prevention" (http:/ / www. avma. org/ public_health/ dogbite/ dogbite. pdf). Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association 218 (11): pp.1731%1749. June 1, 2001. . Retrieved 2009-07-11.
 Phillips, Kenneth (October 10, 2008). "Breed Specific Laws" (http:/ / www. dogbitelaw. com/ PAGES/ breedlaws.html#arguments).
dogbitelaw.com. . Retrieved 2009-07-11.
 Barlow, Karen (2005-05-03). "NSW bans pit bull terrier breed" (http:/ / www. abc. net. au/ pm/ content/ 2005/ s1359018. htm). Sydney,
Australia: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. . Retrieved 2009-12-23.
 Hughes, Gary (2009-10-20). "Pit bull bite prompts call for national approach to dangerous dog breeds" (http:/ / www. theaustralian.com. au/
news/ pit-bull-bite-prompts-call-for-national-approach-to-dangerous-dog-breeds/ story-e6frg6of-1225788552051). The Australian (Sydney,
Australia). . Retrieved 2009-12-23.
 "Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 No. 90, as amended - Schedule 1" (http:/ / www. austlii. edu.au/ au/ legis/ cth/ consol_reg/
cir1956432/ sch1.html). Commonwealth of Australia. 2009-07-06. . Retrieved 2009-07-18.
 "Companion Animals Act 1998 No. 87; Section 55 - Interpretation" (http:/ / www.legislation. nsw.gov. au/ scanview/ inforce/ s/ 1/
?TITLE="Companion Animals Act 1998 No 87"& nohits=y). New South Wales Parliament. 2009-07-06. . Retrieved 2009-07-18.
 "Restricted Dogs" (http:/ /www. blacktown.nsw. gov.au/ residents/ animal-services/ restricted-dogs. cfm). Blacktown City Council, NSW,
Australia. 2006-01-13. . Retrieved 2009-07-17.
 "Dog and Cat Management Act (1995)" (http:/ / www. dogsncats. asn. au/ webdata/ resources/ files/ Dog_and_Cat_Management_Act.pdf).
Government of South Australia. 2005-07-01. . Retrieved 2009-07-19.
 "Things you should know about restricted breed dogs" (http:/ / www. pets. dpi. vic. gov. au/ community/ attachments/ attachment15.pdf).
Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia. 2005-11-04. . Retrieved 2009-07-18.
 "Dangerous Dogs" (http:/ / www.melbourne. vic. gov.au/ info. cfm?top=6& pa=523& pg=527). City of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. .
 "Laws for Responsible Dog Owners - the Dog Act of 1976" (http:/ / www. dlgrd. wa. gov. au/ Publications\Docs\dogactbrochure.pdf).
Government of Western Australia. . Retrieved 2009-07-18.
 "An Act to amend the Dog Owners!$Liability Act to increase public safety in relation to dogs, including pit bulls, and to make related
amendments to the Animals for Research Act" (http:/ / www. e-laws. gov. on. ca/ html/ statutes/ english/ elaws_statutes_90d16_e.htm).
Government of Ontario, Canada. 2005-08-29. . Retrieved 2009-07-13.
 "Information on The Dog Owners' Liability Act and Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005" (http:/ / www.
attorneygeneral. jus. gov.on. ca/ english/ about/ pubs/ dola-pubsfty/ dola-pubsfty. asp#TOC_03). Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario,
Canada. 2005-08-29. . Retrieved 2009-07-13.
 "Frequently Asked Questions: Banned Breeds - Pit Bulls & Dangerous Dogs" (http:/ / www.winnipeg. ca/ cms/ animal/ faqs/
DangerousDogs_faq.stm#6). Government of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 2005-08-29. . Retrieved 2009-07-13.
 "The Pound By-Law" (http:/ / www. winnipeg. ca/ CLKDMIS/ DocExt/ ViewDoc. asp?DocumentTypeId=1& DocId=428& DocType=C).
Government of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 2005-08-29. . Retrieved 2009-07-13.
 "Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2007 CanLII 9231 (ON S.C.)" (http:/ / www. canlii.org/ en/ on/ onsc/ doc/ 2007/ 2007canlii9231/
2007canlii9231. pdf). Ontario Superior Court of Justice. 2007-03-23. . Retrieved 2009-07-21.
 "Who let the dogs out?" (http:/ / www. law. ualberta. ca/ centres/ ccs/ news/ ?id=310#_edn8). Center for Constitutional Studies, University
of Alberta, Canada. 2009-06-12. . Retrieved 2009-07-21.
 "Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2008 ONCA 718" (http:/ / www.canlii. org/ en/ on/ onca/ doc/ 2008/ 2008onca718/
2008onca718. pdf). Ontario Court of Appeal. 2008-10-24. . Retrieved 2009-07-21.
 "City Code of Maumelle, Arkansas" (http:/ / www.municode. com/ resources/ gateway. asp?sid=4& pid=13387). City of Maumelle,
Arkansas. . Retrieved 2009-08-30.
 "City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado" (http:/ / www.municode. com/ resources/ gateway.asp?pid=10331& sid=6). City of Aurora,
Colorado. 2009-01-12. . Retrieved 2009-08-01.
 "Revised Municipal Code - City and County of Denver, Colorado" (http:/ / www. municode.com/ resources/ gateway.asp?pid=10257&
sid=6). City of Denver, Colorado. 2009-05-19. . Retrieved 2009-07-21.
 Miami-Dade County Online Services. "Miami-Dade County - Animal Services" (http:/ / www.miamidade. gov/ animals/ pit_bull_law. asp).
Miamidade.gov. . Retrieved 2009-08-18.
 "Council Bluffs Bans Pit Bulls" (http:/ / www.ketv. com/ news/ 3902325/ detail. html). ketv.com. 2004-11-09. . Retrieved 2009-07-09.
 "Chapter 4.20 ANIMAL CONTROL" (http:/ / municipalcodes. lexisnexis. com/ codes/ councilbluffs/ _DATA/ TITLE04/
Chapter_4_20_ANIMAL_CONTROL. html#19). Municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com. . Retrieved 2009-07-09.
 ""Council passes ban on pit bulls"" (http:/ / www.siouxcityjournal. com/ articles/ 2008/ 09/ 16/ news/ local/
79377d0e6eca4c9f862574c600111a35. txt). Sioux City Journal. 2008-09-16. . Retrieved 2009-07-08.
 "Pit Bull Ordinance" (http:// www.siouxcityanimalcontrol. com/ pitord. htm). Sioux City Animal Control. . Retrieved 2009-07-08.
 "Overland Park Municipal Code, Title VI, Chapter 6.10 - Dangerous Animals" (http:/ / www.opkansas. org/ _Assets/ law/ opmc/
opmc_by_chapter/ 06-10.pdf). Overland Park, Kansas. 2006-09-30. . Retrieved 2009-07-09.
 "Dog Ordinance" (http:// unioncounty.ky.gov/ govsvcs/ dogwarden. htm). Union County, Kentucky. 2006. . Retrieved 2009-07-30.
 "Animal Management Group" (http:/ / www.princegeorgescountymd. gov/ Government/ AgencyIndex/ DER/ PDFs/ AMG broch 10-08.
pdf). Prince George's Department of Environmental Resources. 2008-10-01. . Retrieved 2009-07-08.
 "Policy Prohibiting the adoption or placement of pit bull terriers" (http:/ / co.livingston. mi. us/ commissioners/ pdf2/ 080519. pdf).
Livingston County, MI Board of Commissioners. 2008-05-19. . Retrieved 2009-07-08.
 "Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4, Article II, Division 5: "Pit Bull Terriers"" (http:/ / www.municode.com/ Resources/ gateway.
asp?pid=14351& sid=22). City of Melvindale, Michigan. 2008-05-19. . Retrieved 2009-07-08.
 "Animal Services" (http:/ /www.ci. independence. mo. us/ health/ AnimalControl. aspx). City of Independence, Missouri. . Retrieved
 "Independence Passes Pit Bull Ban" (http:/ / www.kmbc. com/ news/ 9752235/ detail.html). KMBC-TV, Kansas City, Missouri. August 28,
2006. . Retrieved 2009-07-08.
 "The Municipal Code of the City of Kearney" (http:/ / codes. sullivanpublications. com/ kearney-slp/ ). Sullivan Publications. October 20,
2008. . Retrieved 2009-07-21.
 "Code - City of Springfield, Missouri" (http:/ / www.municode. com/ resources/ gateway.asp?pid=11598& sid=25). City of Springfield,
Missouri. 2009-03-23. . Retrieved 2009-07-21.
 "Changes to NYCHA's Pet Policy" (http:/ / www.nyc. gov/ html/ nycha/ downloads/ pdf/ j09apre.pdf). New York City Housing Authority
Journal 39 (4). April 2009. .
 "Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 955 (Dogs)" (http:/ / codes. ohio. gov/ orc/ 955). State of Ohio. 2008-06-15. . Retrieved 2009-07-22.
 "Codified Ordinances, City of Garfield Heights, Ohio - Part Five, General Offenses Code" (http:/ / www. garfieldhts. org/ images/ Current/
Council/ CodifiedOrdinances/ 5-GenOff. pdf). . Retrieved 2009-09-25.
 "Toledo Municipal Code, Chapter 505 .14 (Limitations on Dangerous Dogs)" (http:/ / www. amlegal.com/ nxt/ gateway.dll/ Ohio/ toledo/
toledomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default. htm$3. 0$vid=amlegal:toledo_oh). City of Toledo. 2009-01-09. . Retrieved 2009-07-21.
 "Pit Bull and Hybrid Dog ordinance" (http:/ / www.deltautah. com/ documentsonline/ otherdocuments/ ordhybriddogs. pdf). Delta, Utah.
2001-01-08. . Retrieved 2009-07-08.
 City of Enumclaw, Washington (2009-02-23). "Enumclaw Municipal Code" (http:/ / www. codepublishing. com/ WA/ enumclaw.html).
Code Publishing, Inc.. . Retrieved 2009-07-22.
 City of Royal City, Washington (2009-05-09). "Municipal Code, City of Royal City, Washington" (http:/ / www. municode. com/ resources/
gateway.asp?pid=16593& sid=47). www.municode.com. . Retrieved 2009-07-22.
 City of Yakima, Washington (2008-12-09). "Yakima Municipal Code" (http:/ / www.codepublishing. com/ WA/ yakima/ ). Code
Publishing Company. . Retrieved 2009-07-31.
 "Codified Ordinances of the City of Wheeling, West Virginia" (http:/ / www.conwaygreene.com/ Wheeling/ lpext. dll?f=templates&
fn=main-h. htm& 2. 0). W. H. Drane Co. - Codified Ordinances. 2009-03-03. . Retrieved 2009-07-22.
 "Municipal Code: City of South Milwaukee, Wisconsin" (http:/ / www. ci. south-milwaukee.wi. us/ mc-ch23. htm#23. 20). City of South
Milwaukee. April 17, 2007. . Retrieved 2009-08-13.
 "Sentell v. New Orleans and Carrolton Railroad Company, 166 U.S. 698 (1897)" (http:/ / supreme. justia.com/ us/ 166/ 698/ case.html).
Supreme Court of the United States. 1897-04-16. .
 "Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F. Supp. 1236 (D. Ohio 1989)" (http:/ / www.animallaw.info/ cases/ caus717fsupp1236.htm).
Michigan State University College of Law. . Retrieved 2009-06-30.
 "American Dog Owners Ass´n. Inc. v. Dade County. Fla., 728 F.Supp. 1533 (S.D.Fla.,1989)" (http:/ / www.animallaw.info/ cases/
causfd728fsupp1533. htm). Michigan State University College of Law. . Retrieved 2009-07-31.
 "American Canine Federation and Florence Vianzon v. City of Aurora. Colorado, 618 F.Supp.2d 1271" (http:/ / www.dogsbite. org/ pdf/
aurora-v-acf-florence-vianzon.pdf). United States Circuit Court of Colorado. . Retrieved 2009-08-20.
 "Holt v. City of Maumelle, 817 S.W.2d 208 (AR., 1991)" (http:/ / www. theanimalcouncil. com/ files/ Holt_v_City_of_Maumelle. pdf).
Arkansas Supreme Court. 1991-10-28. . Retrieved 2009-08-30.
 "Colorado Dog Fanciers v. City and County of Denver. Colorado, 820 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1991)" (http:/ / www.animallaw.info/ cases/
causco820p2d644. htm). Animal Legal and Historical Center. 1991-11-12. . Retrieved 2009-07-30.
 Nelson, Kory (2005-04-15). "Denver's Pit Bull Ordinance: a review of its history and judicial rulings" (http:/ / www. californiapolicechiefs.
org/ nav_files/ research/ pdfs_ords/ denvers_pit_bull_ordinance. pdf). . Retrieved 2009-07-30.
 "State of Florida v. Peters, 534 So.2d 760 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988)" (http:/ / www.animallaw. info/ cases/ caus534so2d760.htm). State
University of Michigan College of Law. 1988. . Retrieved 2009-08-15.
 "Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 772 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1989)" (http:/ / www. animallaw.info/ cases/ causks772p2d758.htm). State University
of Michigan College of Law. 1989. . Retrieved 2009-07-09.
 "Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky.App.,2006)" (http:/ / opinions. kycourts. net/ coa/ 2005-ca-000541. pdf).
Kentucky Court of Justice. 2006-12-01. . Retrieved 2009-07-30.
 "American Dog Owners Ass´n. Inc. v. City of Lynn, 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (Mass.,1989)" (http:/ / www. animallaw.info/ cases/
causma533ne2d642. htm)). . Retrieved 2009-08-09.
 "Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 767 P.2d 355 (1988)" (http:/ / www. animallaw. info/ cases/ causnm767p2d355. htm). . Retrieved 2009-08-15.
 "Toledo v. Tellings - Reversed - 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007)" (http:/ / www.animallaw.info/ cases/ causma533ne2d642. htm). . Retrieved
 "Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724." (http:/ / www. sconet.state.oh. us/ rod/ docs/ pdf/ 0/ 2007/ 2007-ohio-3724.
pdf). Supreme Court of Ohio. . Retrieved 2009-06-29.
 "Certeriorari - Summary Dispositions (Order List: 552 U.S.)" (http:/ / www. supremecourt.gov/ orders/ courtorders/ 021908pzor.pdf).
United States Supreme Court. 2008-02-19. . Retrieved 2009-08-03.
 "City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners of Texas, 794 S.W.2d 17" (http:/ / www. animallaw. info/ cases/ caustx794sw2d17.htm). .
 Karp, Adam (2004-03). "The law of breed-specific legislation" (http:/ / skagitbar. org/ newsletter/ 03_04. pdf). Skagit County Bar
Association News. . Retrieved 2009-08-30.
 Weight, Michael (1987-02). "City bites dog - legislating vicious dogs/pit bull terriers" (http:/ / www. mrsc.org/ Subjects/ PubSafe/ animal/
ib444-164. pdf). Legal Notes (Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington) 444. . Retrieved 2009-08-30.
 "American Dog Owners Ass´n v. City of Yakima, 777 P.2d 1046 (Wash.1989)" (http:/ / www. animallaw. info/ cases/ causwa777p2d1046.
htm). . Retrieved 2009-07-28.
 "Dog Federation of Wisconsin. Inc. v. City of South Milwaukee, 178 Wis.2d 353, 504 N.W.2d 375 (Wis.App.,1993)" (http:/ / www.
animallaw. info/ cases/ causwi504nw2d375.htm). . Retrieved 2009-08-13.
 Straka, Alena (January 31, 2005). "Dangerous Dogs: Protection Strategy" (http:/ / vancouver.ca/ ctyclerk/ cclerk/ 20050217/ pe2.htm). City
of Vancouver, B.C., Canada. . Retrieved 2009-08-10.
 "Ecuador descalifica a perros pit bull y rottweiler como mascotas" (http:/ / www.hoy. com. ec/ noticias-ecuador/
ecuador-descalifica-a-perros-pit-bull-y-rottweiler-como-mascotas-332398. html) (in Spanish). Ecuador: Diaro Hoy. 2009-02-04. . Retrieved
 "Rural code, articles L211-11 to L211-28" (http:/ / www. legifrance. gouv. fr/ WAspad/ UnCode?commun=& code=CRURALNL. rcv) (in
French). Government of France. April 30, 1999. . Retrieved 2009-08-10.
 "Ministerial decision" (http:// www.legifrance. gouv.fr/ WAspad/ UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=AGRG9900639A) (in French). Government of
France. April 30, 1999. . Retrieved 2009-08-10.
 "Dangerous dogs" (http:/ /www. zoll. de/ english_version/ a0_passenger_traffic/ e0_vub/ h0_dangerous_dogs/ index. html).
Bundesministerium der Finanzen ("Federal Finance Ministry"). 2001-04-21. . Retrieved 2009-08-15.
 "Types of dogs prohibited in Great Britain" (http:/ / www.defra. gov. uk/ animalh/ welfare/ domestic/ ddogsleaflet. pdf). Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2003. . Retrieved 2009-08-02.
 "Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991" (http:/ / www.opsi.gov. uk/ acts/ acts1991/ Ukpga_19910065_en_1.htm). Office of Public Sector
Information. 2001-07-25. . Retrieved 2009-08-02.
 "Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991" (https:/ / www. hmso. gov. uk/ si/ si1991/ Uksi_19912292_en_1.htm). Office of Public
Sector Information. 1991-10-31. . Retrieved 2009-09-21.
 "Dangerous dogs" (http:/ /www. environ.ie/ en/ LocalGovernment/ DogControl/ ). Department of Environment, Heritage, and Local
Government. 2007. . Retrieved 2009-08-16.
 "Dog Control Amendment Act of 2003" (http:/ / www. dia. govt. nz/ diawebsite. nsf/ wpg_URL/
Resource-material-Dog-Control-Dog-Control-Amendment-Act-2003?OpenDocument& ExpandView). New Zealand Department of Internal
Affairs. 2009-07-02. . Retrieved 2009-08-02.
 "FOR 2004-08-20 nr 1204: Forskrift om hunder." (http:/ / www. lovdata. no/ for/ sf/ jd/ xd-20040820-1204. html#map0) (in Norwegian).
Government of Norway. . Retrieved 2009-10-02.
 "H.B. 595 (Law 198) - Approved July 23, 1998" (http:/ / www.oslpr. org/ download/ en/ 1998/ 0158. pdf). Puerto Rico Office of Legislative
Services. 1998-07-23. . Retrieved 2009-08-04.
 "Cainii din rasa Pitbull vor fi interzisi in Romania" (http:/ / www.adevarul. ro/ articole/ 2002/
cainii-din-rasa-pitbull-vor-fi-interzisi-in-romania. html) (in Romanian). Adevárul (Bucharest, Romania). 2002-04-26. . Retrieved 2009-11-16.
 "Veterinary Conditions for the importation of dogs/cats for countries under Category A (1/4)" (http:/ / www. ava.gov. sg/ NR/ rdonlyres/
A17F6A0D-7A46-497E-B0CB-CDBD8C325B52/ 24663/ VetConditionsCatA. pdf). Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore.
2008-08-04. . Retrieved 2009-08-04.
 "Dog Licensing and Control Rules 2007" (http:/ / www. ava. gov. sg/ NR/ rdonlyres/ 0CA18578-7610-4917-BB67-C7DF4B96504B/ 17971/
ABDogLicensingandControlRules2007.pdf). Government of Singapore. 2007-08-06. . Retrieved 2009-08-04.
 Egrikavuk, Isil. "Pit Bull attacks reignite debate on Turkish ban against breed" (http:/ / www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ n.
php?n=who-is-more-violent-the-dog-or-the-men-2010-04-30). Hürriyet (Istanbul, Turkey). . Retrieved 2010-04-30.
 "Justice had be blind" (http:/ / ms.petsinform. com/ ms3-06/ zakon. html). Mir Sobak. 2006-03. . Retrieved 2009-11-14.
 "Venezuela restringe tenencia de perros Pit Bull" (http:/ / www. laprensa. com. ni/ 2010/ 01/ 06/ internacionales/ 12316) (in Spanish). La
Prensa (Managua, Nicaragua). 2010-01-06. . Retrieved 2010-01-08.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.