In Massachusetts

Massachusetts
MSPCA’s website
ASPCA’s position 
Cost of BDL Legislation in Massachusetts

In the Country

Who has BDL? (List of all Countries)
States with BDL
Search BDL in U.S
Understand-a-Bull
Table of BDL Cases

Fighting BSL

Support the Animal Control Bill Currently in the Legislature
Model Non- Breed-Discriminatory Ordinances – How to Fight BDL
NEW:  10/1/10 JAVMA: New Study Explains Why Breed Specific Legislation Does Not Reduce Dog Bites
Constitutionality of BDL
Animal Legal & Historical Center
Dog Bite Law
JAVMA: “A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention”

Legal Resources/Case Law

 

Animal Legal Defense Fund
Understand-a-Bull

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision: Am. Dog Owners Ass’n v. City of Lynn, 404 Mass. 73 (Mass. 1989)
OVERVIEW: Appellant dog owners filed an action, seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief against appellee city, alleging that city ordinances restricting the ownership and control of “Pit Bulls” were unconstitutional. The trial court upheld two of a series of three ordinances, but declared the third void for vagueness. Both sides sought review. The court transferred the case on its own motion and declared the case moot. Once the third ordinance became inoperable it did not revive the two prior ordinances. The third ordinance was itself impliedly repealed by a fourth ordinance that was not before the trial court. However, to conserve judicial resources and to guide future conduct of the parties, the court observed that if testimony regarding breed identification and the findings based thereon remain unchanged, then the fourth ordinance was as unconstitutionally vague as the third. Dog owners did not receive fair notice from the ordinance of the conduct proscribed or the dog “types” covered by the law. Such a law gave unleashed discretion to the dog officers charged with its enforcement and clearly relied on their subjective speculation of whether a dog was a “Pit Bull.”

Most Recent Case in opposition to BSL: Dias v. City & County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. Colo. 2009)
OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek prospective relief for either claim because they had not shown a credible threat of future prosecution. There was no credible threat of future enforcement because none of the plaintiffs currently resided in Denver and none alleged an intent to return. However, each plaintiff alleged an injury in fact to support retrospective relief. The facial vagueness challenge failed because the pit bull ban was not vague in all its applications. The ordinance was sufficiently definite such that it did not encourage arbitrary enforcement with respect to registered pure breeds. Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to support a conclusion that the human/companion animal bond was a fundamental liberty interest, and a strict scrutiny analysis did not apply. The ordinance nonetheless had to bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the ban was not rationally related to such interest. The district court prematurely dismissed the substantive due process claim for retrospective relief because it could not have concluded at the dismissal stage that the ordinance was rational as a matter of law.

Law Review Articles/BSL Related Articles:

CDC REPORT ON FATAL DOG ATTACKS  

Article from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) called “A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention” http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/CDCReport/CDCReport.htm

 

Practicality Of Breed Specific Legislation In Reducing Or Eliminating Dog Attacks On Humans And Dogs.  http://www.dogplay.com/Articles/MyArticles/pitbull.html

COMMENT: THE NEW BREED OF MUNICIPAL DOG CONTROL LAWS: ARE THEY CONSTITUTIONAL? 53 U. Cin. L. Rev 1067

COMMENT: BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION: UNFAIR PREJUDICE & INEFFECTIVE POLICY  10 Animal L 313

ARTICLE: The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination By Homeowners’ Insurance Companies  11 Conn. Ins. L. J. 1

Breed-Specific Legislation Revisited: Canine Racism 1 or the Answer to Florida’s Dog Control Problems?  27 Nova L. Rev 415

NOTE: ATTACKING THE DOG-BITE EPIDEMIC: WHY BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION WON’T SOLVE THE DANGEROUS-DOG DILEMMA
74 Fordham L. Rev 2847

Comment: Canine Profiling: Does Breed-Specific Legislation Take a Bite out of Canine Crime? 108 Penn St. L. Rev 855

NOTE: BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION: THE GAP IN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROVISIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS 32 Seton Hall Legisl J. 351

COMMENT: PIT BULL BANS AND THE HUMAN FACTORS AFFECTING CANINE BEHAVIOR  56 DePaul L. Rev. 1285