Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Stop Breed-Specific Legislation in Tennessee

States with Laws Prohibiting BSL

Home
Why I Created this Web-Site
AVMA Dog Bite Prevention Report
Organization Position Statements
State Anti-BSL Laws
"Pit Bull" Facts
Rottweiler Facts
Doberman Facts
How You Can Help
Sample Letters to Officials
E-Mail Addresses of Officials

STATES WITH LAWS PROHIBITING BSL



The following states all have laws that prohibit local governments from enacting breed-specific legislation or have statements saying that BSL may not hold up in court: California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

Below are actual state laws and links to the laws on the web, where available.

California

Division 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code, Section 1, Chapter 9, Article 5 Miscellaneous

31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, provided that no program shall regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed.

Click here for full text.


Colorado

18-9-204.5. Unlawful ownership of dangerous dogs.

(5) (a) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a municipality from adopting any rule or law for the control of dangerous dogs; except that any such rule or law shall not regulate dangerous dogs in a manner that is specific to breed.

Click here for full text.


Florida

Chapter 767 - Damage By Dogs

767.14. Additional local restrictions authorized. -- Nothing in this act shall limit any local government from placing further restrictions or additional requirements on owners of dangerous dogs or developing procedures and criteria for the implementation of this act, provided that no such regulation is specific to breed and that the provisions of this act are not lessened by such additional regulations or requirements.

Click here for full text.


Illinois

Public Act 093-0548

Sec. 24. Nothing in this Act shall be held to limit in any manner the power of any municipality or other subdivision to prohibit animals from running at large, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to, in any manner, limit the power of any municipality or other political subdivision to further control and regulate dogs, cats or other animals in such municipality or other political subdivision provided that no regulation or ordinance is specific to breed.

Click here for full text.


Maine

Title 7: AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS; Part 9: ANIMAL WELFARE; Chapter 725: MUNICIPAL DUTES (HEADING: PL 1987, c. 383 @3 (new))

3950. Local regulations. Each municipality is empowered to adopt or retain more stringent ordinances, laws or regulations dealing with the subject matter of this chapter, except that municipalities may not adopt breed-specific ordinances, laws or regulations.

Click here for full text.


Minnesota

347.51 Dangerous dogs; registration. Subd. 8. Local ordinances. A statutory or home rule charter city, or a county, may not adopt an ordinance regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed of the dog. Ordinances inconsistent with this subdivision are void.

Click here for full text.


New Jersey

4:19-36. Act to supersede inconsistent local laws

The provisions of this act shall supersede any law, ordinance, or regulation concerning vicious or potentially dangerous dogs, any specific breed of dog, or any other type of dog inconsistent with this act enacted by any municipality, county, or county or local board of health.

Click here for full text.


New York

Article 7, Section 107

5. Nothing contained in this article shall prevent a municipality from adopting its own program for the control of dangerous dogs; provided, however, that no such program shall be less stringent than this article, and no such program shall regulate such dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision one of this section, this subdivision and section one hundred twenty-one of this article shall apply to all municipalities including cities of two million or more.

Click here for full text.


Oklahoma

Title 4 - ANIMALS

4-46. B. Potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs may be regulated through local, municipal and county authorities, provided the regulations are not breed specific.

Click here for full text.


Pennsylvania

AGRICULTURE (Title 3) - THE DOG LAW - ARTICLE V-A. DANGEROUS DOGS

459-507-A. Construction of article. (c)Local ordinances. - Those provisions of local ordinances relating to dangerous dogs are hereby abrogated. A local ordinance otherwise dealing with dogs may not prohibit or otherwise limit a specific breed of dog.

Click here for full text.


Texas

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE - CHAPTER 822. REGULATION OF ANIMALS - SUBCHAPTER A. DOGS THAT ARE A DANGER TO PERSONS

822.047[0]. LOCAL REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS. A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangers dogs if the requirements or restrictions: (1) are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs; and (2) are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter.

Click here for full text.


Virginia

Code of Virginia > 3.1-796.93:1

C. 2. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor shall the local governing body prohibit the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed.

Click here for full text.


Washington

16.08.100

(3) The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human, whether or not the dog has previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a class C felony punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the human severely injured or killed by the defendant's dog: (a) Trespassed on the defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog; or (b) provoked the defendant's dog without justification or excuse on the defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog. In such a prosecution, the state has the burden of showing that the owner of the dog either knew or should have known that the dog was potentially dangerous as defined in this chapter. The state may not meet its burden of proof that the owner should have known the dog was potentially dangerous solely by showing the dog to be a particular breed or breeds. In addition, the dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, quarantined, and upon conviction of the owner destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner.

Click here for full text.