Running head: PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE 1

Paws Up, Don’t Euthanize: Breed Specific Legislation

Hannah M. Sullivan

First Colonial High School

Legal Studies Academy

PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
2
Abstract

In this paper, the topic of Breed Specific Legislation and its effects on bully breeds will be

addressed. What a bully breeds is is defined. Local, national, and international Breed Specific

Legislation will be introduced and compared. How bully breeds temperament and bite statistics

compare to non-bully breeds is addressed; multiple statistics are used to show how the breeds are

similar. Different insurance companies that offer homeowners insurance for bully breeds is

explained. And a clear solution to dog attacks is defined in this paper; an argument and counter

argument is written to clarify the opposing sides in distinct sections.

PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
3
Paws Up, Don’t Euthanize: Breed Specific Legislation

Bully breeds have been given a negative image by the media; whenever a bully breed

attacks another dog or a human, it immediately makes it into the news. But whenever a non-bully

breed attacks another dog or human, it rarely makes it into the news (G. Obenaus, Personal

communication, November 21, 2017). This leads people to believe that bully breeds are the only

dogs that are aggressive. The implementation of Breed Specific Legislation has shown to be

largely ineffective because it does not address the issue at its base.

What is a Bully Breed

Bully breed is a broad term that covers multiple dog breeds such as the American

Staffordshire terrier, the American Bulldog, the American Pit Bull terrier, Boxers, Rottweilers,

and even Boston Terriers (Huemer, 2000; Pit Crew Rescue, 2014; Foden, 2012). Bully breeds are

often characterized as stocky, well-built, muscular dogs with large chests, heads, and jaws, and

short hair (Foden, 2012; Pit Crew Rescue, 2014).

Bully breeds are negatively portrayed by the media as the evil of all dogs, predators of

the defenseless, and bred to kill (Cohen & Richardson, 2003). Many think that bully breeds have

the ability to lock their jaw, that they do not feel pain, or that they can hold something with their

front teeth and simultaneously chew with their back teeth; but it is all false. Bully breeds have

the same anatomy as all other dog breeds (Pit Crew Rescue, 2014).

Pit bulls are commonly used for dogfighting, and the popularization of dogfighting in the

1980s tarnished peoples image of pit bulls (Pisani, 2016). Dogfighters will train their fighting

dogs to be tough, strong, and aggressive. When and if the dogs are rescued, many people believe

their training can’t be reversed, so they should be euthanized, but according to Georgia Obenaus,
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
4
the owner of GO Rescue Dog Shelter, rescued fighting dogs don’t pose a threat to humans;

however, they do pose a threat to other dogs because of their past.

Breed Specific Legislation

Breed Specific Legislation are laws that target specific dog breeds with the purpose of

decreasing the number of dog bites. The laws will describe the targeted dogs as dangerous or

vicious, and usually include the following breeds: American Staffordshire terrier, American

bulldog, American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, and Rottweilers (Huemer, 2000. It is

used all across North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America, and is enforced with

the use of fines, jail time, and seizing the dogs from the home (Ban Pit Bulls, 2015).

Current Legislation

Virginia Laws

Virginia Code §3.2-6540 to §3.2-6540.1 states that no dogs will be found dangerous or

vicious based off breed, and no ownership of dogs will be banned based off breed (Wisch, 2015).

This means that Breed Specific Legislation is banned in Virginia.

State-by-State Laws

There are currently 29 states with Breed Specific Legislation, five states that completely

prohibit it, and 17 states with none, either because it is banned in the state, or the state hasn’t

passed any Breed Specific Legislation to be enforced (Greenwood, 2015). In California, stated in

West’s Annotated California Food and Agriculture Code §31683, there is no regulation of dogs

specific to breed, meaning Breed Specific Legislation is completely prohibited in California

(Wisch, 2015).

There are two cities in North Carolina with Breed Specific Legislation: Edenton and

Lumberton. The Edenton, North Carolina Code of Ordinances § 90.43 defines potentially
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
5
dangerous dogs to be bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers,

American pit bull terriers, and Rottweilers. In Lumberton, the city council defines pit bulls and

other terriers as “potentially vicious” (Parris, 2016). These cities are targeting dogs by breed and

defining them as vicious or dangerous. According to Brent Adams of Brent Adams & Associates,

North Carolina has one of the highest amounts of dog attacks annually in the United States;

because of this, North Carolina wants to make Breed Specific Legislation statewide, rather than

individual cities passing their own legislation. North Carolina’s state government believes this

will reduce the number of dog attacks.

In New York, stated in McKinney’s Agriculture and Markets Law §107, regulation laws

that specify certain dog breeds is not allowed (Wisch, 2015). Dogs are targeted individually,

based on a threat they can pose, rather than targeted as a whole breed (ASPCA, 2009). This

means that Breed Specific Legislation is completely prohibited in the state of New York, but

regulations can be passed to regulate dangerous dogs. This does not prevent cities in New York

from passing their own laws that ban specific breeds; there are six cities in New York with Breed

Specific Legislation.

Hempstead, New York has Breed Specific Legislation that defines vicious dogs as any

dog that is identified by the owner as a pit bull, which includes American Staffordshire terriers,

American pit bull terriers, bull terriers, and Staffordshire bull terriers (Article III: Dangerous and

Vicious Dogs, 1989).

Larchmont, New York defines pit bull terriers as any breed having qualities of bull

terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, or American Staffordshire terriers.

Stated in §97-21, the ownership of a pit bull terrier is prohibited in Larchmont (Article IV: Pit

Bull Terriers, 1998).

PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
6
In Peekskill, New York, the pit bull is defined as dangerous. The breeds that are

identified as pit bulls include bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers,

American Staffordshire terriers, and Rottweilers (Article II: Dangerous Dogs, 1998)

In the Town of LaGrange, New York, §75-3 of the Code of Ordinances defines pit bulls

as any dog that meets the standards of American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers,

American Staffordshire terriers, American Bulldogs, or any purebred or mixed breed of the

breeds previously listed. These breeds are prohibited in off-leash parks because of the discomfort

their presence gives people (Chapter 75: Dog Parks, 2010).

The Village of New Hyde Park, New York, stated in their Code of Ordinances §80-3

defines pit bulls as vicious; the American Staffordshire terrier, the American pit bull terrier, the

bull terrier, and the Staffordshire bull terrier are identified as pit bulls (Article I: General

Provisions, 1981).

In the Village of Spring Valley, New York, the pit bull is defined as dangerous. Breeds

that have the characteristics of a pit bull are labelled as pit bulls; these breeds include: bull

terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, and any dog that has the

appearance or characteristics of a pit bull (Article II: Pit Bulls and Dangerous Dogs, 2002).

The six cities in New York that have Breed Specific Legislation share the breeds they

define pit bulls as; the American Staffordshire terrier, the American pit bull terrier, the bull

terrier, and the Staffordshire bull terrier were consistently defined as pit bulls. The cities differ

on the grounds they define as a dangerous or vicious dog; they typically based their definitions

on the appearance of the dogs, or the behavioral history of certain breeds. How the cities punish

the offending owners differs as well; Hempstead, Larchmont, Peekskill, LaGrange, New Hyde

Park, and Spring Valley require the owner pay a fee. Offenders in Hempstead, Larchmont,
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
7
LaGrange, and New Hyde Park will also face jail time (Article III: Dangerous and Vicious Dogs,

1989; Article IV: Pit Bull Terriers, 1998; Article II: Dangerous Dogs, 1998; Chapter 75: Dog

Parks, 2010; Article I: General Provisions, 1981; Article II: Pit Bulls and Dangerous Dogs,

2002).

As of right now, the New York City Housing Authority has strict rules about dogs living

on their property. They do not allow any dogs over 25 pounds, or Doberman Pinschers, Pit bulls,

or Rottweilers (NYCHA, 2010). However, currently New York State’s Senate is working on

passing a bill that prohibits housing organizations from banning certain breeds. If this bill is

passed, the New York City Housing Authority will no longer be allowed to prohibit their tenants

from owning specific breeds (New York State Senate Bill S5944, June 12, 2015). The Senate Bill

S5944 states:

Section 1 of the bill adds a new section 223-c of the public housing law as it

relates to prohibiting public housing authorities from restricting a person occupancy

based on a person's ownership of a specific breed of dog. It will not restrict a public

housing authority's right to impose reasonable restrictions on the ownership of dogs,

regardless of their breed, or dangerous dogs. Section 2 of the bill adds a new section

238-a of the real property law as it relates to prohibiting landlords from prohibiting a

person occupancy based on a person's ownership of a specific breed of dog. It will not

restrict a landlord's right to impose reasonable restrictions on the ownership of dogs,

regardless of their breed, or dangerous dogs.

Currently there are hundreds of communities across the United States that have Breed

Specific Legislation, but after not seeing the results local governments were hoping for, many are
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
8
repealing it. It has shown to be ineffective in dropping dog bites, but has increased the number of

dogs euthanized, reaching into the millions (Madhani, 2014).

Breed Specific Legislation Overseas

Europe

There is very strict Breed Specific Legislation in the United Kingdom. In 1991, the

Dangerous Dogs Act was passed with the purpose of reducing the number of dog attacks. This

act bans Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos, and Fila Brasileiros, and any dogs

that are or appear to be crosses of these breeds because of their assumed ability to cause

significant harm to humans and other animals. When it was passed, approximately 1,000 dogs of

the targeted breeds were seized and euthanized (Hallsworth, 2011). Breed Specific Legislation in

the U.K. is different from U.S. Breed Specific Legislation in how strict it is. In the U.K. under

the Dangerous Dogs Act, the dogs specified as dangerous must wear muzzles in public, as well

as a leash; owners must spay/neuter their dog, get it tattooed and chipped for identification, and

must be registered and insured. If a police officer or any local authority see these dogs in public,

they can seize it, and if they see it on private property, they can obtain a warrant and seize it. If

these dogs kill a human, then the handler can face a 14 year maximum jail sentence. If these dogs

injure a human then the handler can face a five year maximum jail sentence, and if these dogs

injure or kill a service dog then the handler can face a three year maximum jail sentence. If these

dogs are out on public or private property and out of control, then the handler is also guilty of an

offence (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; Brannan, 2017).

In 2008, the Netherlands repealed their Breed Specific Legislation, because after 15 years

it hadn’t improved public safety. The country is now focusing on behavior based legislation.
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
9
Which means instead of defining specific breeds as dangerous or vicious, they are defining any

dog with behavioral problems as having the potential to be dangerous or vicious (Kray, 2013).

Canada

Multiple cities in Canada have passed some form of Breed Specific Legislation; a couple

of them include Montreal and Ontario. Montreal passed Breed Specific Legislation with the

purpose of decreasing the amount of dog attacks, but in recent news is planning on repealing

their Breed Specific Legislation and following in Calgary, Canada’s steps by basing their new

legislation off of Calgary’s Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaws, also called the Calgary Model.

The Calgary Model doesn’t place bans on specific breeds, but instead it focuses on educating the

public on responsible dog ownership (Marchand, 2017; Bruemmer, 2016). Calgary shifted “from

the ‘standard animal control’ model to a ‘responsible pet owner’ model” after finding in 2000

that Labrador Retrievers were responsible for the most bites; they have very strict animal

regulations with expensive fines if broken, but they don’t regulate by breed (Bruemmer, 2016).

Ontario, Canada, has Breed Specific Legislation similar to the legislation in the United

States. When it was passed in 2005, it defined American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull

terriers, American pit bull terriers, and any dogs that look “ ‘substantially similar’ to those

breeds.” Ontario allowed owners to keep their banned dogs if they already owned them before

the legislation was passed, but didn’t allow any breeding of the dogs. Since it’s passage in 2005,

Ontario hasn’t seen a decrease in dog bites; there were more dog bites in 2014, than in 2005,

with German Shepherds and Labrador Retrievers with the most bites (Hanson, 2016).

Breed Specific Legislation has shown to be largely ineffective in Canada; it hasn’t

decreased the number of dog bites. From some cities shifting their system to focusing on

educating the public on responsible dog ownership, rather than focusing on specific “problem
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
10
breeds”, a decrease in dog bites has occurred. The results are incredibly promising by simply

addressing the problem at the root.

Bully Breeds vs. Non-Bully Breeds

Bully breeds do statistically have a higher bite rate than other dog breeds; in a study done

in the United States between 1979-1998, of the 238 dog attacks, over half of them were from pit

bull type dogs and Rottweilers (AVSAB, 2014). In 2014 in Calgary, Canada, 16% of dog bites

were related to pit bulls, 9% to retrievers, and 10% for shepherds. But according to the American

Temperament Test Society, pit bulls are consistently shown to be among one of the most tolerant

breeds (Woods & Hare, 2016). A German temperament test had similar results, where of 415

dogs, 95% of the dogs that reacted appropriately were bully breeds, and other breeds people

assume to be friendly showed the same results (AVSAB, 2014). This contrasts from what most

people believe to be true of bully breeds.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the breeds with the most

fatal bites include: Pit bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Huskies, Wolf Hybrids,

Malamutes, Doberman Pinschers, Chow-Chows, Saint Bernards, and Great Danes (Lallanilla,

2013). And of the approximate 4.5 million dog bites in the United States every year, Chihuahuas,

Bulldogs, Pit bulls, German Shepherds, Australian Shepherds, Lhasa Apsos, Jack Russell

Terriers, Cocker Spaniels, Bull terriers, Pekingese, and Papillons were among the breeds with the

most bites (S.L. Wilson, 2017). The U.S. study mentioned above that was done from 1979-1998,

also found that dogs most people assume are friendly are just as responsible for dog bites as

bully breeds are; the study found that of the 238 dog bites, 29 of them were from Cocker

Spaniels, Boxers, Chesapeake Bay Retrievers, and West Highland White Terriers Of three vets

in the United States, Canada, and Australia surveyed from 2002-2009, Jack Russell Terriers,
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
11
Labrador Retrievers, and Golden Retrievers were referred the most for aggression (AVSAB,

2014).

Homeowners Insurance

State Farm Insurance does not have specific breed policies, but they have a case-by-case

policy; this means their coverage varies on the behavior of the individual dog. (Baldwin, 2015).

Allstate’s Pet Insurance coverage varies based on the breed, meaning a small dog will have

cheaper insurance, and a larger dog that can pose a threat will have more expensive insurance

(Allstate, 2017). Nationwide Homeowners Insurance coverage is based on the breed and the bite

history of the dog (Nationwide, 2016).

In North Carolina, a woman was required to list the breeds of any dogs she owned when

applying for umbrella liability homeowners insurance coverage with Nationwide. She owned

three dogs, none of which were bully breeds. She was denied coverage when Nationwide

contacted her on lying about owning a Rottweiler mix breed, which they found out by a picture

on her Facebook page. Rottweilers are ineligible under Nationwide Insurance coverage, so after

confirming her dog wasn’t a Rottweiler she was eligible for their insurance. Nationwide doesn’t

cover Rottweilers because they find them to be potentially dangerous (D. Wilson, 2017).

Lawsuits

“On February 26, 2015, Madelyn Wissell Buchda filed a federal lawsuit against the

Village of Fall River, Wisconsin, in an attempt to have code restrictions on keeping pit bulls

within the village ruled unconstitutional in federal court,” reported by the Courthouse News

Service. Buchda owns two dogs that she describes as “mostly bulldog-boxer mixes.” On

December 13, 2013, she received two citations for owning them, based on an ordinance in

Wisconsin that defines pit bulls as any dog that appears to be Staffordshire bull terriers,
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
12
American Staffordshire terriers, and American pit bull terriers, and any dogs that appear to be

mixes of those breeds (Daugherty, 2015).

Denver and Aurora, two cities in Colorado have bans on pit bulls. This ban caused an

uproar with a group of disabled people whose service dogs were pit bulls, claiming their rights

under the Americans with Disabilities Act was being violated by not giving them the breed of

choice for their service dog. They filed a class-action lawsuit against Denver, which resulted in a

new federal rule that says, “Local governments cannot use breed-specific laws to prevent a

disabled person from accessing a service dog of their choosing,” (Maher, 2011).

In 2009, in the court case Dias vs. City and County of Denver, three former residents of

Colorado, Sonya Dias, Hilary Engel, and Sheryl White claimed the ban on pit bulls violated their

14th Amendment rights. The court found their claim on the ban lacked substantial evidence, and

stated that it doesn’t warrant “legitimate government interest” (Dias vs. City and County of

Denver).

Both of these lawsuits were filed in Colorado, but they had substantially different results.

Why these lawsuits turned out so differently despite being in the same state is because of why

they were filed. The one regarding the disabled people was about their right to choose whichever

breed they wanted for their service dog, which is actually fair and the verdict was a big step for

not only the Americans with Disabilities Act, but also Breed Specific Legislation and gradually

reducing its power on the people. The case where the women tried to claim the breed ban

violated their 14th Amendment rights was a good effort in an attempt to repeal the Breed Specific

Legislation in Denver, but they needed a stronger argument with a better reasoning.
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
13
Effects on the Owners

Pets play an extremely important role in people’s lives; the loss of a pet is equal to that of

losing a parent or sibling. When someone owns a banned dog in a city with Breed Specific

Legislation, Animal Control will remove the dog from its home and potentially euthanize it,

depending on the city (Gray, 2016). If owners want to avoid the imminent death of their dog,

they either have to move, or relocate the dog to somewhere that allows their dog.

Argument

Breed Specific Legislation does not address the issue of dog bites at the base. If the goal

is to reduce the number of dog bites, then educating the public on the behavior of dogs and how

to be a responsible dog owner is the best way to achieve that. Nevada implemented dog

education programs and by doing so has seen a drop in the number of dog bites (AVSAB, 2014).

Not only is Breed Specific Legislation extremely costly, but for all the money it costs, it doesn’t

produce any positive results; it hasn’t shown a decrease in dog bites, as demonstrated in

Colorado (Bruemmer, 2016). In 1989, Colorado implemented Breed Specific Legislation to

reduce the number of dog bites, but rather than seeing a decrease, there was actually an increase

in dog bites, according to the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior’s Position

Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation.

Breed Specific Legislation targets very specific breeds that are commonly used for

dogfighting, hence why they are considered dangerous and vicious by the public. By driving out

pit bulls, dogfighters will shift from using pit bulls to using other breeds (Weiss, 2001). This

demonstrates how targeting specific breeds won’t fix the problem because it hardly addresses it

in the first place. Banning specific breeds will polarize communities and give regular people the

image of a criminal or a thug by simply owning a bully breed (Bruemmer, 2016).

PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
14
Counterargument

Statiscally bully breeds have the highest bite rates compared to other breeds. According

to Dog Bite Attorney Kenneth Phillips, pit bulls and rottweilers bite and/or fatally wound the

most out of other breeds. A study found that out of 101 dogs, “pit bulls and pit bull mixes were

responsible for the largest number of bites, followed by German Shepherd Dogs and mixes,

Siberian Huskies, Malamutes, Dobermans, and Rottweilers,” (National Canine Research

Council, 2013). Historically, pit bulls were bred to fight and to be aggressive. People found their

strength impressive and put it to malicious uses, such as dogfighting (Cohen & Richardson,

2003).

Conclusion

Breed Specific Legislation has not shown effectiveness in multiple cities. To fix the issue

of dog bites the public needs more education on dog behavior and how to recognize aggression

in dogs to avoid being bitten (AVSAB, 2014). By learning how to be a responsible dog owner

and raising dogs in healthy environments, the number of dog bites will drop, as shown in

Nevada, Calgary, and Ontario (Hanson, 2016; Marchand, 2017; Bruemmer, 2016). If the

problem of dog bites is addressed at base, then Breed Specific Legislation will be completely

unnecessary.
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
15

References

Adams, B. (2012, December 18). Should pit bulls be illegal to own in North Carolina? Retrieved

from http://www.brentadams.com/library/north-carolina-pit-bull-bans-breedspecific-dog-

bans-in-nc.cfm

Allstate. (2017, February 16). How does dog insurance work? Retrieved from

https://www.allstate.com/tools-and-resources/pet-insurance/dog-insurance.aspx

Animal Legal and Historical Center. (2016, October). West's Annotated Code of Virginia.

Retrieved from https://www.animallaw.info/statute/va-fighting-%C2%A7-32-6571-

animal-fighting-penalty

Animal Legal Defense Club. (2009, February). Animal fighting facts. Retrieved from

http://aldf.org/resources/laws-cases/animal-fighting-facts/

ASPCA. (2009, January 27). Are breed-specific laws effective? Retrieved from

https://www.aspcapro.org/resource/disaster-cruelty-animal-cruelty-animal-fighting/are-

breed-specific-laws-effective

AVSAB. (2014). Position statement on breed-specific legislation [PDF].

Baldwin, S. (2015, September 10). The lies, damn lies and statistics behind dog bites. Retrieved

from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffen-baldwin/the-lies-damn-lies-and-

st_b_8112394.html

Ban Pit Bulls. (2015, September 8). Where are pitbulls banned and restricted internationally.

Retrieved from http://www.banpitbulls.org/where/where-are-pit-bulls-banned-

internationally/
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
16
Brannan, A. (2017, March 30). Dangerous dogs act: What breeds are covered? Retrieved from

https://www.caninejournal.com/dangerous-dogs-act/

Bruemmer, R. (2016, August 24). How Calgary reduced dog attacks without banning pit bulls.

Retrieved from http://vancouversun.com/storyline/how-calgary-reduced-dog-attacks-

without-banning-pit-bulls

Bully Breed Education. (2014). Retrieved from http://bullybreededucation.com/

Cohen, J., & Richardson, J. (2003). Pit Bull Panic. The Journal of Popular Culture, 36(2), 285-

317. doi:10.1111/1540-5931.00007

Colangelo, L. L. (2009, July 05). Barking up wrong tree. Retrieved from

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/aspca-fears-nycha-dog-ban-city-housing-

fill-animal-shelters-article-1.428976

D. (2017, October 02). North Carolina breed-specific laws. Retrieved from

https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-north-carolina.php

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, The National Archives §§ 65-1-10 (1991).

Daugherty, P. M. (2015, March 09). Breed-specific laws: Woman files federal lawsuit to be able

to keep her dogs. Retrieved from https://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-

rights/bsl-federal-lawsuit-owning-pit-bull-constitutional-right

De Keuster, T. C. (2005, November 24). Human and animal health: Strengthening the links. BMJ

: British Medical Journal, 331(7527), 1269.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1269-a

Copyright - Copyright: 2005 (c) 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Last updated - 2016-

04-02

Dias vs. City and County of Denver (United State Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit 2009).
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
17
Edenton, North Carolina, Code of Ordinances, Section 90.43

Foden, S. (2012, September 05). What is a bully dog? Retrieved from

https://pets.thenest.com/bully-dog-4860.html

Gibson, H. (2005). Detailed discussion of dog fighting. Retrieved from

https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-dog-fighting

Gray, A. (2016, August 10). How breed bans are destroying families. Retrieved from

https://www.petful.com/animal-welfare/breed-bans-destroy-families/

Greenwood, A. (2015, May 06). Here's a map of where your it bull isn't welcome. Retrieved

from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/bsl-map_n_7216190.html

Hallsworth, S. (2011, June). Then they came for the dogs! Crime, Law and Social Change, 55(5),

391-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9293-6

Hanson, H. (2016, February 20). This city's pit bull ban has failed miserably to prevent dog bites.

Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pit-bull-ban-toronto-dog-

bites_us_56c8cd2ce4b0928f5a6c218e

Huemer, A. (2000). Scapegoats and underdogs: The pit bull dilemma. The Animals' Agenda,

20(4), 30-33+. Retrieved October 2, 2017, from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/215887860?accountid=3785.

Name - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Copyright - Copyright Animal

Rights Network, Inc. Jul/Aug 2000 Last updated - 2014-05-20 Huemer discusses local

and national legislation restricting the ownership of pit bulls, a broad term that includes

several dog breeds (including the American bulldog, the American Staffordshire terrier

and the American pit bull terrier), as well as PETA's reaction to the legislation and the

slippery slope that will likely result from such breed bans.
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
18
Kray, F. M. (2013, May 21). Failure to improve safety. Retrieved from

https://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/the-failure-to-improve-safety/

Lallanilla, M. (2013, February 14). Are pit bulls really dangerous? Retrieved from

https://www.livescience.com/27145-are-pit-bulls-dangerous.html

Madhani, A. (2014, November 18). U.S. communities increasingly ditching pit bull bans.

Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/17/pit-bulls-breed-

specific-legislation-bans/19048719/

Maher, J. J. (2011, April 29). Pit bulls as service animals: Denver quietly changes its policy.

Retrieved from http://www.westword.com/news/pit-bulls-as-service-animals-denver-

quietly-changes-its-policy-5877640

Marchand, L. (2017, October 26). Projet Montréal has vowed to repeal the pit bull ban. What

would happen next? Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/projet-

montr%C3%A9al-has-vowed-to-repeal-the-pit-bull-ban-what-would-happen-next-

1.4374155

National Canine Research Council. (2013). Breed-specific fegislation FAQ. Retrieved from

https://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/public-policy/breed-specific-legislation-

faq

Nationwide. (2016, November 13). Homeowners insurance FAQs. Retrieved from

https://www.nationwide.com/homeowners-insurance-faqs.jsp

New York State Senate Bill S5944 [PDF]. (2015, June 12).

NYCHA. (2010, April). (United States, The New York City Housing Authority). Retrieved from

http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/Pet_GM_Policy_Overview_2010_04_

d2.pdf
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
19
Obenaus, G. (2017, November 21). [Telephone interview].

Parris, M. (2016, June 14). Lumberton city council adopts new dog ordinance. Retrieved from

http://wbtw.com/2016/06/14/lumberton-city-council-adopts-new-dog-ordinance/

Phillips, K. M. (2010, December 01). All dog bite statistics. Retrieved from

https://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/all-dog-bite-statistics

Pisani, E. (2016, May 24). Pit bulls: Dog breed discrimination and laws. Retrieved from

https://www.globalanimal.org/2015/07/10/pit-bull-discrimination-a-people-problem/

Ryback, R. (2016, August 22). Why losing a pet hurts so much. Retrieved from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-truisms-wellness/201608/why-losing-pet-

hurts-so-much

State of Ohio v. Anderson (February 13, 1991), Google Scholar 57 Ohio St. 3d 168 (1991).

United States. (1981). Article I: General provisions. Village of New Hyde Park, NY. Retrieved

from https://ecode360.com/5186785.

United States. (1989). Article III: Dangerous and Vicious Dogs. Village of Hempstead, NY.

Retrieved from https://www.ecode360.com/7216535.

United States. (1998). Article II: Dangerous dogs. City of Peekskill, NY. Retrieved from

https://ecode360.com/6429154.

United States. (1998). Article IV: Pit Bull Terriers. Village of Larchmont, NY. Retrieved from

https://www.ecode360.com/7080072.

United States. (2002). Article II: Pit bulls and dangerous dogs. Village of Spring Valley, NY.

Retrieved from https://ecode360.com/9392283.

United States. (2010). Chapter 75: Dog Parks. Town of LaGrange, NY. Retrieved from

https://ecode360.com/14489574.
PAWS UP, DON’T EUTHANIZE
20
Villavicencio, M. (2007, July 19). A history of dogfighting. Retrieved from

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12108421

Virginia Code Annotated Section 3.2-6540.1

Virginia Code Section 3.2-6540

Virginia Code Annotated Section 3.2-6571

Weiss, L. S. (2001). Breed-specific legislation in the United States. Retrieved from

https://www.animallaw.info/article/breed-specific-legislation-united-states

Wilson, D. (2017, February 13). Woman's insurance cancelled over Facebook pictures. Retrieved

from http://abc13.com/pets/womans-insurance-cancelled-over-facebook-

pictures/1753011/

Wilson, S. L. (2017, November 01). Dog bite statistics. Retrieved from

https://www.caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics/

Wisch, R. F. (2015). Overview of states that prohibit breed-specific legislation by state law.

Retrieved from https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-states-prohibit-bsl

Woods, V., & Hare, B. (2016, September 19). Pit bulls are chiller than Chihuahuas. Retrieved

from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/pit-bulls-are-chiller-than-

chihuahuas/500558/