Stories of vicious dog attacks capture the imagination of concerned citizens and instill fear in communities. While dog-bite attacks are relatively rare, the viciousness of some attacks is enough to cause anyone concern. Localities turn to Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) as a way to regulate aggressive dogs and prevent attacks. Here’s what you need to know about BSL, why groups increasingly oppose it, and what other alternatives exist to be proactive about dog attacks.

What Are Breed-Specific Laws?

Breed-Specific Legislation is a blanket term that refers to any type of law designed to regulate certain breeds with the goal of reducing dog attacks. These laws are typically instituted by city and municipal governments. In its most drastic form, BSL includes a complete ban on a specific type of dog. The laws typically target “pitbull” types and other dog breed that are considered aggressive. Pit bulls aren’t a specific breed, but are a set of dogs that can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and other breed mixes. Bans in cities may also include bulldogs, rottweilers, and wolf-hybrids.

Other BSL has lesser requirements, such as mandatory spaying or neutering, muzzling, confinement, a minimum insurance, or preventing the chaining of dogs. Most BSL requires owners of dangerous breeds to carry liability insurance with coverage up to $500,000. If an attack does occur, victims can then receive medical payment. This also acts as a type of ban, since owners unable to afford such exorbitant insurance would not be allowed to own targeted breeds.

What is the reason for BSL?

The basis for these laws can be traced to numerous studies concluding pit bulls were implicated in a disproportionate number of attacks. A 20-year study (1978-1998) by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) showed that pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in 67 percent of dog-bite related fatalities during that time period. Numerous studies reveal similar conclusions. Some of the grizzly statistics can be seen below:

BSL advocates point to features specific to certain dogs that make them prone to harmful attacks. Pit bulls derive their genes from “the Butcher’s Dog,” which was originally bred for bull-baiting before being used for dogfighting. The dogs were bred to be muscular, aggressive, and agile. Reports claim these dogs are unique since they give no warning signs before attacking and will not retreat from an attack even when considerable pain is inflicted. These dogs will attack deep muscles and then hold on with their teeth and shake, causing tissues to rip.

Attacks by aggressive dogs can pose a large threat to communities and are too expensive of an issue to ignore. The AVMA estimates hospital expenses for dog-bite related emergency visits to be $102.4 million. A 2010 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study showed that the number of Americans hospitalized for dog bites almost doubled over a 15-year period. The study also concluded the average cost of a dog-bite related hospital stay was $18,200, approximately 50 percent higher than the average injury-related hospital stay. In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

What arguments are made against BSL?

Numerous organizations, including the American Bar Association, American Humane Association, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publicly oppose BSL. Many opponents refer to the laws as “Breed Discriminatory Laws.”  In 2013 President Obama even issued an official response to the controversial laws:

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”

Listen to a discussion from the American Kennel Club below:

State bans

Seventeen states ban legislation against specific types of dogs, and other states are considering similar legislation. An interesting case was made in Denver after Colorado approved legislation banning BSL. Denver passed its pit bull ban in 1989, repealed the ban in 2004 to comply with state law, but then reinstated the ban in 2005. The city’s challenge to the state’s BSL prohibition was ultimately ruled in Denver’s favor as a home-rule exception. The court ruled a state ban on BSL could not infringe on Denver’s right to enforce ordinances on matters of local concern. Most court cases have upheld the laws because localities enjoy widespread police powers. As long as cities can prove a BSL is related to improving public safety, it will be upheld. Even following Denver’s BSL, the county has dog bite rates many times higher than other Colorado counties without similar laws.

Profiling

Many take issue with BSL because it is difficult to predict a dog’s breed or behavior based on outward appearance. According to the American Pet Products Association, 31 million of 73 million pet dogs are classified by their owners as “mutts,” which makes them hard to classify as a specific breed. Laws banning “pit bulls” target a loosely-defined class of dogs or dogs with a similar appearance. In many localities, the decision of whether a dog is one of the prohibited breeds is left to a city manager or police who lack sufficient expertise in the matter. Other times animal control or a veterinarian will make the decision. The only certain way to tell a dog’s breed is by way of DNA tests, which can be very expensive. This means BSL is often difficult to effectively enforce.

Expense

The laws are typically enforced by animal control agencies on tight budgets. Counties rack up costs from enforcement, kenneling, euthanasia, and litigation. In 2008, Omaha proposed a BSL that would cost half a million dollars to enforce. A Baltimore auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.

Nature v. Nurture

Owners of these “dangerous” breeds contend any dog can become vicious if it is not treated properly. Dog owners who do not appropriately care for their dog, abuse it, or treat it as a guard dog rather than a pet make the dog more prone to attacks. In contrast, a loving family training a pit bull would raise a well-behaved dog with no aggression problems.

Unintended effects

Others believe BSL has more dangerous effects. Owners intent on keeping the outlawed breeds may keep their dogs in hiding, meaning the dogs do not get proper socialization or visits to the veterinarian. Opponents also claim these laws encourage ownership by the most irresponsible people, who own pit bulls as a status symbol to show disregard for the law. If there is a ban on pit bulls or rottweilers, owners can still have other unregulated aggressive breeds. One dog owner created a video against BSL below:

Have these laws been effective?

One highly cited case study comes from Prince George’s County in Maryland, as it was one of the few places to examine BSL effectiveness. The county of more than 900,000 people banned pit bulls in 1996. Any pit bulls found in the county after the ban were either put down or sent to live with families in other areas. A 2003 task force found the 15-year pit bull ban cost the county more than $250,000 each year, with no measurable effect on safety. The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit-bull is roughly $68,000. In fiscal year 2001-2002, the county spent more than half a million dollars enforcing the ban. Due to ineffectiveness, the task force recommended repealing the ban and found that other, non-breed-specific laws already were in place to cover vicious animals, leash laws, and other public health and safety concerns.

In 2000, the CDC looked at 20 years of data regarding dog bites and fatalities in the United States. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of total dog bite injuries, and that it’s impossible to calculate the bite rates of specific breeds. No evidence supports the idea that a specific type of dog is more prone to attacks. Furthermore, breed specific laws have not succeeded in reducing overall bite-related injuries in any area where they were implemented.

The U.S. Military also has contentious BSL. The Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force all ban large dogs with a predisposition for aggressive behavior. Dogs such as pit bulls and rottweilers are not allowed to live at base housing, and families wishing to have these dogs may be moved off base. Many feel this treatment is unfair to those who are fighting for their country.

Are there other alternatives to BSL?

Organizations who oppose BSL advocate a number of solutions they feel are more effective. The CDC proposes a community-based approach. This approach includes:

• Public dialogue identifying community issues
• Developing an advisory council
• Monitoring bite response
• Data reporting
• Public education campaign
• Businesses addressing prevention techniques
• Effectively conveying information through local media

The CDC reports that aggression in dogs is tied to a number of factors beyond breed. These factors include sex, socialization, heredity, and treatment. More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog. Eighty-four percent of bite cases involved dogs who were maintained by reckless owners — the dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or allowed to interact with children unsupervised. Seventy-eight percent of the dogs in bite cases were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.

The statistics show that rather than outlawing specific breeds, campaigns to prevent dog-biting should focus on creating caring owners and encouraging the spaying and neutering of dogs. Further, children must be educated to understand how to play with dogs and when to leave them alone. Dogs themselves may not be dangerous, but a bad situation can make any dog more prone to aggressive behavior. While pit bulls and other “aggressive” breeds can pose threats to a community, outlawing these dogs through BSL is not a surefire solution.

Resources

Primary

ASPCA: Breed Specific Legislation

DogsBite.org: Military Breed-Specific Policies

DogsBite.org: BSL by State

Additional

TIME: Obama Blasts Legislation Targeting Specific Dog Breeds

StopBSL.org: Expense of BSL

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Challenging Denver’s Pit Bull Ban

American Veterinary Medical Association: Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation

National Canine Research Council: Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective

Animal Law Coalition: Denver’s Holocaust: Call For an End to the Pit Bull Ban

United Kennel Club: Punish the Deeds, Not the Breeds

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying Pit Bulls: Do Breed-Specific Laws Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Whether you are moving to Washington DC permanently, attending one of the many universities in the city, or simply visiting, there is always something to do in the city. However, people new to DC and even longtime residents may not know the nuances of the DC code. From smoking outside, drinking in public, or to simply riding a bike, Washington has some unique laws that you may not know about. Read below for a quick breakdown of many of the rules and regulations in our nation’s capital.

This article is meant to be a guide to laws in DC; however, it should not be interpreted as the law itself. To see the actual wording of the laws check out the Official DC Code.

Alcohol

Underage Drinking/Fake ID’s

If a person under the age of 21 is convicted of purchasing, attempting to purchase, posses, or drinking alcoholic beverages they are guilty of a misdemeanor and upon first offense will face a fine of up to $300 and suspension of driving privileges for 90 days.

A person will face the same penalty for falsely representing his or her age, or possess an identification document that is fraudulent in any way for the purpose of buying, possessing, or drinking alcohol.

Bottom Line: Under DC law, it is illegal to drink alcohol underage. If you get caught drinking, possessing, or buying alcohol you will likely face a fine and suspension of your driver’s license.

Providing Alcohol to Minors

If a person who is not a licensed vendor offers, provides, or make alcohol available to someone under the age of 21 they may be face a fine of up to $1,000 and/or be imprisoned for up to 180 days for the first offense.

Open Container/Public Intoxication

No person may drink or possess and open container of an alcohol in a public area. Lawful consumption of alcoholic beverages must be in a public place that is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, during times that such a place is authorized to sell, or in a private residence with permission of the owner. It is also unlawful in both public and private places for a person to be intoxicated and endanger the safety of himself, herself, or any person or property.

Any person convicted of violating these laws is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished with a fine no more than $500 and or up to 90 days in jail.

Bottom line: Under DC law, it is illegal to drink alcohol in public unless you are in an enclosed outside area at a licensed venue. It is also illegal to be drunk and endanger yourself, others, or anyone’s property.

When You Can Buy Alcohol

The Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration issues several different classes of licenses, which allow for the sale of alcohol during certain hours.

Class A (Grocery store, liquor store, corner store…): May sell beer, wine, and spirits from 7 am-midnight, Monday-Sunday.

Class B (Grocery or convenience store): May sell beer and wine from 7 am-midnight, Monday-Sunday

Restaurant/Tavern/Night Club/Hotel/Multipurpose Facility: May sell and serve beer, wine, and spirits (depending on type of restaurant license) from 8 am-2 am Monday-Friday, and from 8 am-3 am Saturday-Sunday

Controlled substances

Medical Marijuana

A patient may possess and administer marijuana as well as any other related paraphernalia given that they have a signed written recommendation from a physician operating within DC law. The patient must also register with the mayor, a process which requires providing a copy of a doctor’s written recommendation as well as the designation of a specific dispensary for use by the patient.

Upon registration a patient will receive an identification card for verification by law enforcement, each card must be renewed annually. While use and possession of marijuana is legal for those who are registered, patients are not allowed to operate a vehicle under the influence of marijuana.

Marijuana

Currently, possession of less than 1/2 lb of marijuana is a misdemeanor, which if someone is convicted of can be punished by up to 180 days in jail and or up to a $1,000 fine. However, DC just passed a bill that would decriminalize possession of up to one ounce. Under the new bill, people caught possessing small amounts would only face a $25 fine. The bill was signed by DC Mayor Vincent Gray on March 31, 2014 and now currently faces a 60-day period of congressional review.

Bottom line: Marijuana not obtained through the city’s medical program remains illegal in DC. However, if the current bill passes through the congressional review process penalties for possessing small amounts will dramatically decrease and jail time will no longer be on the table.

Other Controlled Substances

DC law makes possession of an illegal drug, except PCP, a misdemeanor. The punishment for a first offense is up to 180 days in jail and or up to a $1,000 fine. Punishment is largely dependent on the severity of the offense and the substance involved.

DC has five classes of substances ranging from Schedule I characterized by a high potential for abuse and little to no medical value, to Class V characterized by low potential for abuse and dependence as well as widely accepted medical value.

Biking laws

Helmets

It is required for any person under the age of 16 to wear a helmet while biking in public. It is unlawful for any parent or guardian to knowingly allow their child to operate a bicycle without a helmet, an offense that can result in a $25 fine.

Riding a bike

Bicyclists riding on highways are subject to the same duties as drivers of motor vehicles, including traveling in the same direction of traffic. There is no law requiring bicyclists to use provided bike lanes; however, in the Central Business District (CBD) biking on sidewalks is prohibited.

The CBD is defined by the area between 2nd Street NE and SE, D Street SE and SW, 14th Street SW and NW, Constitution Ave NW, 23rd Street NW, and Massachusetts Ave NW (click here for a map). Within the CBD biking is allowed on parks and land owned by the Federal Parks Service.

Bicycles must also be equipped with an “audible warning device” such as a bell, which can be heard at least 100 feet away. Finally, although it is not advisable, there is no law prohibiting cell phone use while biking, as existing laws only apply to motor vehicles.

For further information check out the Pocket Guide to DC Bike Laws provided by the District Department of Transportation

Miscellaneous

Littering: 1^st violation is a $75 fine (in a 60 day period)

Crosswalks: An intersection of two or more roadways is considered a crosswalk, whether it is marked or not. Drivers must yield the right of way to pedestrians in both marked and unmarked crosswalks.

Smoking 

DC’s smoke free laws went into full effect in January of 2007, after which point people are no longer able to smoke in public buildings, worksites, restaurants, and bars. The city passed further legislation that prohibits smoking within 25 feet of public parks, playgrounds, recreational centers, and bus stops.

Bottom line: You can only smoke outdoors, in cigar bars, and your residence or a rented hotel room. Otherwise you will face a fine between $10 to $50 on your first offense, and $50 to $100 for subsequent offenses. Simply put, save the cost of a pack of cigarettes and walk outside.

Renting

If you are moving to DC and plan to rent an apartment there are several laws and regulations in place to help protect consumers. Before you submit an application, a potential landlord must disclose: the cost of the non-refundable application, the amount of rent and any surcharges for the unit, the frequency that rent increases may be implemented, the cost of the security deposit (if there is one), and all reports for housing code violations that occurred in the past year.

Bottom Line: look for the important details about the cost and conditions of the building before you submit the application. There are several laws in place to help protect renters, for more information about your rights as a renter and important details about the renal process check out the Washington DC Tenant Survival Guide.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Feature Image Courtesy of [Sgt. Andy Dunaway/U.S Navy via Wikimedia]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Traveling to DC: Here are Your Legal Need to Knows appeared first on Law Street.