KC DOG BLOG

Maryland's missed opportunity

Last week, as the final deadline for the legislative approached, the bill to overturn a Maryland Court Decision failed to pass.

The bill in discussion was created to overturn the Solesky court case in which the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a ruling that stated that pit bulls, and their mixes, were presumed dangerous based on their breed.

The court decision caused a lot of problems for owners to get insurance, to get rental property and for landlords (who had liability passed along to them as part of the ruling).

While an agreement on how to overturn the bill during a special summer session couldn't be reached, both houses seemed ripe to pass a new law determining that dogs were not presumed dangerous based on breed and "restore the sanity." And they did. Kind of.

Both the House and the Senate UNANIMOUSLY passed versions of a bill that would over-ride the court ruling. However, the bills were somewhat different, with the Senate version putting the owner of a dog that bites on the hook for proving they had no reason to think the dog was aggressive, and the House version stating that the person who was bitten would have to prove the owner had reason to believe the dog was aggressive.

Unfortunately a compromise between the two bills could not be reached -- and in spite of ever, single, representative and senator having a desire to overturn the court ruling, they failed to do so.

The legislators are getting a lot of criticism for thier actions; shelters are starting to fill up with pit bulls that can no longer stay in their homes (putting increased pressure on organizations like the Maryland SPCA) and families are losing beloved pets. In the end, the only "winners" here are the trial lawyers. The Capital Gazette called the inaction a failure. Others note that the failure to over-ride the court case "let dog owners ".

Already, legislators are vowing to make up for it in next year's session. Another is calling to bring all lawmakers together for a one-day session to reach a compromise to "stop the carnage".

While I'm truly sad that the ruling did not get overturned, I'm optimistic that it will. It is so rare that such a ruling would create such UNANIMOUS opposition to support it being overturned. But in this case, the mass chaos, dogs' lives, and renters moving out of rentals has wreaked havoc on the state of Maryland and people have recognized, on a grand scale, the damage that singling out breeds does.

But make no mistake, this was not a win for the supporters of breed-specific legislation. In spite of their testimony, they influenced NO ONE that their side was correct and that the court ruling should stand.

When people and legislators really look at the facts, and look at what real experts say about canine behavior, they soon realize that breed-specific policies are not appropriate responses to the problem of bites by canines. And that message continuest to be heard, loud and clear.

 

Legislation favoring breed-neutral legislation moves forward in 3 states

There are quite a few state-level laws that are moving forward, and here's a quick update on where the bills are. There is certainly a lot of momentum for the laws that favor NOT singling out particular breeds of dogs and in favor of behavior-based legislation.

Maryland

In Maryland, the state House of Representatives UNANIMOUSLY approved a bill, HB 78, that overrides a 2012 court decision that increased liability for pit bulls because they were presumed "Inherently dangerous". The new law puts all dog owners on equal footing and makes all owners of dogs that bite equally liable under the law.

The fact that this passed by a vote of 133-0 is pretty telling. In partisan politics, there are very few things both parties can agree on, let alone ALL 133 delegates agreeing on the same thing. It's also important to note that several of the major pit bull bashers flew to Maryland to testify against this bill and still persuaded exactly no one to vote in their favor.

The bill now moves to the Senate to be heard there.

New Mexico

In Sante Fe, the state House of Representatives overwhelmingly supported a bill that makes it illegal for local municpalities to pass laws targeting specific breeds. New Mexico would become the 14th state to ban laws targeting specific breeds. Massachusetts passed similar law last year. The New Mexico bill passed with 77% of the vote, 48-14.

Originally the bill would have kept all cities from passing breed-specific laws, however, some modifications to the bill would allow the state's 11 home rule cities to target specific breeds if they want. It also allows the state's only two cities that currently have breed-specifc laws (Elephant Butte and Tijeras) to keep their laws. However, the law would prevent the other 120 incorporated cities in the state from targeting specific breeds.

I should also note that most of the opposition to the bill seems to be centered around the idea that the big state government is being overly-involved in local affairs and not because anyone necessarily thinks breed-specific laws are a good idea.

The bill now moves onto the Senate.

Connecticut

In Connecticut, HB 6311 was proposed and it would also prohibit towns from addressing dangerous dogs in a breed-specific manner. Public testimony was supposed to take place yesterday on the bill. The author of the bill, Rep. Diana Urbana, notes that it is important to realize that dogs can still be labeled as dangerous, but that bred can't be the criteria.

This is all outstanding progress for the dogs, dog owners, and the public in this country. The sooner people realize that targeting dangerous dogs based on dangerous behavior, and not what they look like, the better we'll be able to use resources to target dangerous dogs (and negligent owners).

I'll continue to keep people periodically up to date on these laws and if you live in these states, please contact your state representatives and senators to encourage them to support these bills. For more regular updates, follow Bless the Bullies either on their blog, or on Facebook, as she posts updates as they happen.

State Bills to Watch

January is the month that most states begin to propose bills for new legislation for the year. Breed-Specific laws are a popular topic in many states. While a few states are proposing ill-conceived bills to target specific breeds based on the input of a key constituent, more are looking to protect their citiznes from ill-conceived and arbitrary legislation that targets dogs by how they look on a local level. Here is the latest.

New Mexico

In New Mexico, Republican Rep Yvette Herrell has proposed HB 63that is a bill that would prohibit local governments from passing breed-specific legislation in the state. The bill would resemble a law passed last year in Massachussetts (we'll talk more about that one in a bit) and has the support of local animal welfare organizations and a group called Ban Breed-Specific Legislation in New Mexico -- who's organizer Melissa Roberts notes "We need to get out of reactive, knee-jerk mode. Breed Specific Legislation doesn't address the issue of dog bites and it prevents real conversation from happening." 

The only opposition that is even expected is maybe from the New Mexico Municpal League -- which like most municpal leagues prefers local control of this and all issues. Here's the thing, local governments have often shown they lack the ability to listen to expert opinion when it comes to breed-specific laws (expert opinion almost universally is opposed to such legislation) - -and sometimes the states need to protect residents from these types of politicians.

Th bill has been assigned to the Health and Government Affairs Committee.

Best of luck to the folks in New Mexico!

Massachussetts

Last year, the state of Massachussetts passed a law that prohibited breed-specific legislation in what has become model legislation elsewhere in this country. It's not a new concept -- in fact, 12 other states have similar legislation prohibiting laws targeting breeds of dogs including states like Illinois, Virginia, Oklahoma, New York, Texas, California, Florida and Colorado (note, that some localalities in those states have bans though because of Home Rule or old laws were grandfathered in).

The Massachussetts bill was, fortunately, particularly strong as it did not allow for exceptions for Home Rule, and forced communities with existing laws to overturn them. While most cities with existing laws, like Worcester, Martha's Vineyard and Lowell simply changed their city laws, the folks in Boston have decided to waste taxpayer dollars to try to change the law.

The new law is written so that it would allow cities to enact breed-specific laws if "a city or town deems a specific breed to be deemed dangerous through analysis of municipal attack data and by a majority vote of the city council with the approval of the mayor." 

Given the propensity of cities (like Boston) to manipulate data to "prove" whatever they want to prove, this is just a waste.

The bill is SD1247, and was proposed by Senator Michael Rush (of Boston) and is really appears to have only the support of people within boston.  

Given that the state just discussed this ordinance a year ago to pass it in the first place, I don't expect Boston to have a lot of success. Already, several media reports have come out saying the attempt at changing the law is "not fair, sensible" -- noting that dog bites in Boston hae not decreased in Boston since their breed-specific law was passed 8 years ago (good for this author for having the data, I've made repeated FOI requests to Boston over the years and they never can produce the information when I ask).  

The Massachussetts SPCA (those testy experts again) also oppose the change.

Hopefully the legislators in Massachussetts will stick to their initial impressions after passing the well-thought-out bill last year and Boston will succumb to reality that their law is not progressive, not effective, and not recommended or supported by any professional organization with knowledge of canine behavior.

Maryland

In Maryland, attempts are once again underway by state officials to legally overturn a court ruling from a year ago.

In April of 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a ruling that essentially stated that 'pit bulls' and their mixes were presumed dangerous by the nature of their breed. The ruling creates a whole host of problems for owners of pit bull type dogs, landlords, and insurance companies.

The legislators in Maryland tried to swiftly overturn the court argument, but ran out of time before the end of the session. However, the legislature is back in session and thus a repeal bill is back on the table. Delegate Luiz Simmons has submitted a bill that he thinks provides balance between victims of dog bites and dog owners and will "restore sanity" to the Maryland law regarding dog bites.

The bill, HB 78, is being supported by a whole host of people and legislaters including the Maryland SPCA and several media outlets.

The bill is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, January 30. If approved (which I fully expect) the bill will pass as emergency legislation and take effect immediately. Best of luck to those in Maryland at getting this bill passed quickly.

Oklahoma

I'm hesitant to even mention this one at this point, but I do think it's pretty important. Two weeks ago, Senater Patrick Anderson (Enid) was proposing a bill that would eliminate the state's ban on breed-specific legislation.  While the bill wasn''t targeting specific breeds, it would have allowed individual communities to enact laws targeting specific breeds.

However, a week and a half after proposing the bill, he abandoned the proposal after realizing there was no support for the measure.

More and more legislators are realizing there is no professional support for breed-specific laws and that they are ill-conceived and very difficult to enforce.

Pit Bull Legal news you can use: Miami, Maryland and the ABA

It's only Tuesday and there has been a LOT of legal news and information this week -- so I'm going to hit a few of the highlights in case you missed them.

Miami Dade set to vote on the repeal of their Pit Bull ban

Miami-Dade has a 23 year old ban on pit bull type dogs. It has been the subject of several legal challenges, including one in which the law violated due process due to the arbitrary nature of enforcement and nearly repealed by the state legislature earlier this spring.

In order to stop the state repeal, the city opted to put the subject up for a vote in a city-wide election -- which will be held next Tuesday, August 14.  County Commissioner Sally Heyman noted that the ban was "an emotional respnse to a travesty in 1989...Now it's time for us to make an intelligent decision."

I don't know if this is the first vote of its kind, but I'm not aware of any other situation where a breed ban has come up for a public vote. It's a tough, up-road battle for the advocates in this situation as most Miami residents haven't seen a law abiding Pit Bull owner in 23 years -- and there are fewer pit bull enthusiasts there than in other places where they aren't banned. However, an August vote will be fairly light at the polls, which could allow for pit bull advocates to be very influential. On the flip side, August elections generally draw older voters who will likely be opposed to the repeal.  

The people opposing the repeal are up their normal fear tactics -- raising fears that if the law is repealed pit bulls are going to be 'running loose all over the place' -- as if Miami's leash law will be repealed also.

There are a lot of high profile advocates down there, including Marlins Pitcher Mark Buerhle and his wife Jamie, and the issue has been getting quite a bit of press (and the repeal got the support of the Miami Herald), so there may be a good turnout. Will be very interesting to watch.

American Bar Association Urges Breed Neutral Laws

Yesterday, the American Bar Association passed Resolution 100 that urges legal professionals to pass breed-neutral dangerous dog laws that focus on behavior of dogs, not their looks. This resolution continues the trend of there being no professional support for breed-specific laws.  Congrats to the folks at the ABA.

Update on Maryland

It looks like the Maryland General Assembly is going to have a special session in which they will discuss making legal changes that will over-ride a very controversial court ruling this spring. This would be a great step in overturning the controvsial and ill-advised court ruling. This would be great to not have to wait until the regular session for this to be inevitably overturned.

Legislators line up to introduce bills to negate Maryland Court decision

I've been meaning to cover the situation in Maryland for awhile -- but, because of some other stuff going on I just haven't gotten to it. But here's the latest -- and some background for those who haven't been keeping up (and it's been a LOT to keep up with).

Back on April 26, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a ruling that essentially states that pit bulls, and their mixes, are presumed dangerous by the nature of their breed (or type). The ruling provides a whole host of problems for owners of pit bull type dogs -- including problems getting insurance and if their dog is involved in a bite incident, further liability than other dog owners in similar situations because their dog is a presumed risk (whether they've demonstrated bad behavior befor or not).  This has been particularly problematic for renters and landlords as they even transferred the burden on landlords that they were also liable if they knew there was a 'pit bull' on their rental property.

However, legislators are lining up to pass a new law that will negate the decision -- including one by Senate Minority Leader EJ Pipkin -- who called the decision "unprecedented and misguided" and a "Judicial overstep".  The law should be heard in a special session in July. Other legislators have also spoken out in favor of the law over-riding the judicial ruling including Thomas "Mike" Miller, JB  Jennings, Heather Mizeur, Frank Turner, Michael Smigiel Sr, Herbert McMillan and Jon Cardin - and will no doubt be supported by Annapolis Mayor Josh Cohen  -- who ows a 'pit bull mix" name Tula. Cohen doesn't really get a vote, but as the mayor in the capital city he no doubt has some influence.

The court decision has been opposed by nearly everyone, including The Washington Humane Society, rescue organization Presidential Pits, B-More Dog,the Maryland SPCA, Second Hope Rescue, Baltimore Humane Society,  Humane Society of the United States and Best Friends has also created an action alert (and many other orgs have expressed interest in repealing this)  Immediately after the decision came out Senate President Thomas Miller Jr. and House Speaker Michael Busch announced a joint legislative task force to study the Court opinion.  Apparently the new laws being filed are a result of the task force.

The court ruling was made in conjunction with a 2007 attack of a boy by a dog in Towson, MD. According to the courts, the fact the dog was a "pit bull" was prima facie evidence that the dog's owners should have KNOWN the dog was aggressive -- and thus, were more liable for negligence than had the bite happened by any other type of dog.

The ruling (no kidding), used as one of it's proof points, an 1882 dog bite case that involved a Newfoundland dog that was involved in an attack. The court, in 1882, ruled that "the fact that the owner kept his dog tied and did not permit him to run at large, it MUST BE PRESUMED that he had konwledge that the dog was vicious, unruly and not safe...."  Or may I suggest that in 1882 the dog was in a rural community and the dog was a working dog, used to protect the flock in the evenings while the owner was asleep.  Just a guess.

Either way, the court then argued that they could then make many of the same presumptions in this case -- and through a series of presumptions, ruled that all 'pit bulls' are inherently aggressive. 

You can read the court ruling in their entirety here.

The ruling was a 5-4 decision -- so a close one and four of the nine judges didn't agree. And I think the further "logic" of the court case is summed up excellently by the dissenting opinion. Here's an exerpt (emphasis mine):

"By the virtue of this new rule, grounded ultimately upon the perceptions of the majority of this court about a particular breed of dog, rather than upon adjudicated facts showing that the responsible party possessed the requisite knowledge of the animal's incliantion to do harm, the majority transforms a clear factual question into a legal one in an effort to create liability. If the majority believes that it has not transformed the relevant inquiry from a factual determination into a legal one, in the present case, then I pose this question: "What expert testimony or factual predicate is contate within this record to support a factual finding that pit bulls and mixed-breed pit bulls are inherently dangerous? I have considered the record and foudn no such factual predicate."

This should give you a pretty good feel for the decision -- and why the legislature has jumped on adding a law that specifically overides the court decision on its agenda for the summer emergency session.

Best of luck to all the folks who are working hard to overturn this decision. It isn't a good judgement -- and I suspect that with the continued work of advocates in the area that Maryland will become yet another state that will outlaw breed-specific laws.