The BSLWorkshop

Responsible Dog Ownership & Legislation

BSL Letters

State Abbreviations

State/Possession

Abbreviation

ALABAMA                             AL

ALASKA                              AK

AMERICAN SAMOA                      AS

ARIZONA                             AZ

ARKANSAS                            AR

CALIFORNIA                          CA

COLORADO                            CO

CONNECTICUT                         CT

DELAWARE                            DE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                DC

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA      FM

FLORIDA                             FL

GEORGIA                             GA

GUAM                                GU

HAWAII                              HI

IDAHO                               ID

ILLINOIS                            IL

INDIANA                             IN

IOWA                                IA

KANSAS                              KS

KENTUCKY                            KY

LOUISIANA                           LA

MAINE                               ME

MARSHALL ISLANDS                    MH

MARYLAND                            MD

MASSACHUSETTS                       MA

MICHIGAN                            MI

MINNESOTA                           MN

MISSISSIPPI                         MS

MISSOURI                            MO

MONTANA                             MT

NEBRASKA                            NE

NEVADA                              NV

NEW HAMPSHIRE                       NH

NEW JERSEY                          NJ

NEW MEXICO                          NM

NEW YORK                            NY

NORTH CAROLINA                      NC

NORTH DAKOTA                        ND

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS            MP

OHIO                                OH

OKLAHOMA                            OK

OREGON                              OR

PALAU                               PW

PENNSYLVANIA                        PA

PUERTO RICO                         PR

RHODE ISLAND                        RI

SOUTH CAROLINA                      SC

SOUTH DAKOTA                        SD

TENNESSEE                           TN

TEXAS                               TX

UTAH                                UT

VERMONT                             VT

VIRGIN ISLANDS                      VI

VIRGINIA                            VA

WASHINGTON                          WA

WEST VIRGINIA                       WV

WISCONSIN                           WI

WYOMING                             WY

Military "State"

Abbreviation

Armed Forces Africa                 AE

Armed Forces Americas               AA

Armed Forces Canada                 AE

Armed Forces Europe                 AE

Armed Forces Middle East            AE

Armed Forces Pacific                AP

 

Meeting with a Government Official

Meetings with legislators can be a very productive way of communicating, although some may be able to meet personally with only a tiny fraction of their constituents. To give your meeting the maximum effect:

  • Schedule an appointment in advance.
  • Plan, time and rehearse your comments prior to the meeting.
  • Be on time. The government official may be late, but you shouldn’t be.
  • Be prepared to wait. Legislators’ schedules are often very hectic.
  • Appoint a spokesperson who will do the talking for the group beforehand if you go with a small group.
  • Get to the main purpose of your visit in the first five minutes.
  • Other group members may add comments, but they should only be to reinforce or elaborate on your main point.
  • Expect the meeting to be brief. If the legislator wants to keep talking, that’s a bonus.
  • Answer any questions accurately and briefly. If you don’t know the answer, say so and offer to follow up.
  • End by asking the government official to do what you want him or her to do, such as, “Will you vote for Senate Bill 150?”
  • Leave a one-page statement of your issue and position.
  • If you meet with a staff aide instead of the legislator, remember that educating the staff is very important, too. Many legislators rely heavily on their staff’s advice.
  • Follow up with a thank-you letter, answers to any of the legislator’s questions that were not handled during the meeting or any other information you offered to gather for the legislator on the issue.

Calling A Government Official

When there is no time to write a letter, a phone call to your legislator’s office can be effective in delivering a quick, simple message. To give your phone call impact:

  • Plan exactly what you want to say before you call.
  • When you place your call to a state or federal official, ask to speak to that person’s legislative assistant who handles the issue you are interested in. If you get to speak to the state or federal Senator or Representative directly, that’s a bonus.
  • If you are calling a town, city or county official, they may or may not have an office staff, depending on the size of the locality. If they do have a staff, ask to speak to the staff assistant who handles the issue you are calling about. If they do not have a staff, you will probably get to speak directly to the legislator.
  • Make your message short and simple. State your name and your main point: “Please vote in favor of the amendments to Code Section 10” or “Please vote against Senate Bill 123.” Then say why in a few sentences.
  • End by repeating your name, where you live and/or your connection to the legislator’s jurisdiction. Give a phone number and offer to provide more information if the legislator requests it.
  • If the person who handles your issue is not available, leave your name and phone number. If your call is to support or oppose an upcoming vote, also give your main point as part of the message.
  • If you don’t know a federal legislator’s direct number, call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for that Senator or Representative’s office.
  • Look in the telephone book for listings of government offices to find telephone numbers for state and local officials.
  • Follow up with a letter if there is sufficient time.

AKC Canine Legislation Department
5580 Centerview Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606-3390
phone: 919.816.3720

STATE OF ___________ 

                                 INTRODUCED dated___________
                                                

Sponsored by:


CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced. 

Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of ____________:


1.10 Short title.
1.20 Definitions.
1.30 Attacking dogs
1.35 Exemptions
1.40 Violators
1.50 Penalties

1.10 This title shall be known, and referred to and cited as the "Irresponsible Dog Owner's Act".

1.20 Definitions: Whenever in this title the following terms are used, they shall be deemed and construed to have the meaning ascribed to them in this section, unless it is apparent from the context thereof that some other meaning is intended.

A. "Dog" includes any intact or neutered male dog or any spayed or non spayed female dog.

B. "Attack" includes any act of aggression by a dog that causes a defensive action by any human to prevent bodily injury which results in injury when the person or the dog are off of the property of the owner or keeper of the dog or

(1) has attacked a person or domestic animal causing severe injury
(2) has attacked a person or domestic animal causing death

C. "Unprovoked" Any act of aggression by a dog against a human or domestic animal unless the dog

(1) is on its own private property and it is responding to a trespasser; or
(2) is defending a human from direct bodily harm while the human is engaged
     in a lawful activity; or
(3) is defending a litter of puppies in near proximity; or
(4) is defending itself from a physical attack by a human or domestic animal; or

D. "Owner or "Individual" Any person found to be in possession of any dog that falls under the description of this Act.

E. Severe injury means; any injury requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery

1.30 Attacking dogs: An animal control officer shall seize and impound a dog when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the dog:

A. has attacked a human or domestic animal and caused death or bodily injury.
B. has attacked a human or domestic animal during an unprovoked attack and poses a serious threat of harm to persons or domestic animals;
C. engaged in dog fighting; or
D. has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited or encouraged to engage in unprovoked attacks upon persons or domestic animals

1.35 Exemptions: Any dog that has been professionally trained for guard or protection work including by a member of a Schutzhund Club, licensed individual or training facility that’s bonded and insured. When that dog is defending a human from direct bodily harm while the human is engaged in a lawful activity.

1.40 Violators: Any individual found by a court to have trained, tormented, badgered, baited or encouraged an animal to engage in unprovoked attacks upon humans or domestic animals shall have that animal confiscated and shall not be permitted to own, harbor, possess or adopt or reside with an animal for a period of five years.

1.50 Penalties:

(1) Any person found guilty of owning or possessing a dog that attacks causing injury to a human or domestic animal shall be guilty of a Gross Misdemeanor

(2) Any person found guilty of owning or possessing a dog that causes severe injury to a human or death to a domestic animal shall be found guilty of a violation of (existing penalty dangerous dogs state statute) Class C Felony.

(3) Any person found guilty of owning a dog that attacks causing death to a human shall be guilty of Negligent Homicide.

This act shall take effect immediately.

This bill is in response to recent incidents involving irresponsible owners. It is the writer's belief that this bill will help remove dogs from individuals who are not only irresponsible but from those that intend to use dogs for harmful purposes.

 

 

 

Please copy and RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and their enclosures.

(if you type this with a 10 point font it will fit on one page)



(TO:..insert name here) (address) (city, state,zip)

(FROM:..Your name) (Your address) (your city, state, zip)

Dear (insert name here):

To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY ie., city council, etc,)that would fail all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. .

The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited. However, these very breeds as a whole have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.

Our Country was not founded on the restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a few....when has this changed?

A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls", concluded in part that:

..statistics did not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, ..when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. .. focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

In light of this and other studies, we urge you to take the following actions:

1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of responsible ownership.

2. Actively pursue legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.

We suggest that the appropriate policy should be "blame the owner, not the dog." Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets.

Bottom line: the legislation proposed will not only be unfair for responsible citizens but it addresses the wrong problem. Voting for this proposal as it stands only harms the law abiding responsible dog owner.

YOUR NAME

Please copy and RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and their enclosures.

Dear Sirs,

I understand your concern and desire to protect your constituents from the awful tragedy a dangerous dog can cause. You, I am sure, intend to do so with the law you are (INSERT drafting/proposing/enforcing). However, all you will do with such a law is turn thousands of pet loving voters against you personally and you will be viewed as those terrible people who will cruelly deprive animal lovers of their well behaved pets.

I am sure this is not your intention. To avoid making such a terrible mistake in your proposed legislation I suggest you contact the American Kennel Club in New York and ask for their draft version of a dangerous dog law. This law has been enacted in several states and provides the general populace ample protection from dangerous dogs while still permitting the people who properly train and socialize their pets to retain them.

The loss of a child is a terrible thing but many people will claim the loss of a beloved pet is very close emotionally to it. Banning or restricting a specific breed will not keep children or adults from being injured by dogs that have not been properly trained it will merely change the type of dog that is kept by those who desire the protection of a guardian breed. As it is the owners who control the training and socialization of the puppies they purchase or adopt they are the ones responsible for those dogs that learn to bite people.

Neither (INSERT breed/s here) are dangerous dogs per se rather they are breeds that are popular not only with those devoted to them and their proper care but those who wish a macho image. Prior to this decade other dog breeds were in similar situations for example Dobermans, German Shepherds and ChowChows, all breeds that were victims of great popluarity and subsequent poor handling by less than competent owners bringing them an undeserved reputation as a 'dangerous' breed. Banning (INSERT breed/s here) will merely hasten the upswing in popularity of some other breed.

Controlling the people who will abuse the owner dog relationship through ignorance or otherwise is a far better and wiser solution to the problem these owners present to their neighbors no matter what breed of dog they own.

Respectfully,

 

 

Please copy and RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and their enclosures.

Dear Sirs:

This is in response to the pending legislation in your jurisdiction as to regulating vicious/potentially dangerous dogs via breed specific legislation.

All dogs are dangerous under certain circumstances. Only when the owner or custodian of the animal does not properly train and confine his/her animal, does that animal pose a potential risk to human safety. A common ingredient to the dog personality is to guard and protect it's owner and property. ANY dog with that personality can become a problem for the public, if that dog is allowed to run loose and is not responsibly supervised. The key word here is responsibility (per Websters, definition of responsibility: Being legally or ethically accountable for the welfare or care of another.) To say certain breeds of dogs are dangerous is not a complete statement. All dogs can be dangerous if in the hands of an irresponsible owner.

Please retract your breed specific bill/ordinance. Don't punish all of us responsible owners that maintain our dogs as companions and members of our families. We can and do maintain our dogs so they do not pose a threat to anyone, why should we be denied our companions simply because irresponsible owners of the same breed of dog have not "ethically and legally" protected others from injury?

There are several samples of existing non-breed specific legislation (ie., the State of California) that is competent to regulate the irresponsible owners and not punish those that maintain their dogs safely and humanely. I, as a responsible dog owner, ask that you seriously consider the impact of breed specific legislation. The irresponsible owners don't care what breed of dog they lose the right to own....they'll find another dog breed to fit their needs. I deeply care, because it threatens me with the loss of a family member.

Sincerely,

 

 

Please copy and RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and their enclosures.

(if you type this with a 10 point font it will fit on one page)

(TO:..insert name here) (address) (city, state,zip)

(from:..Your name) (Your address) (your city, state, zip) Dear (insert name here):

To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY ie., city council, etc,) that fails all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. It is discriminatory, impractical, and unenforcable. Worst of all, it will not solve the problem. I urge you to vote against it.

The proposed bill would restrict the ownership of certain types of dogs, specifically (INSERT beed/s here). These breeds have been the subject of irresponsponsible and sensationalist reporting across the country. The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited.

The plain fact is that there is no relationship between the type of the dog and the number of incidents. If your town has 100 German Shepherds and 1 Poodle, you'll soon learn that the German Shepherds are responsible for 100 times as many incidents as the Poodles. Does this mean that German Shepherds are intrinsically vicious? Of course not.

Taken as a whole, the (INSERT breed/s here) breeds have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.

A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls," concluded in part that:

- statistics do not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, - when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. - focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

In light of the studies, the facts, and the discriminatory nature of the proposed legislation, we urge you to take the following actions:

1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue: responsible ownership.

2. Work to establish reasonable guidelines for responsible pet ownership, and encourage legislation that supports owner responsibility without reference to specific breeds.

Study after study shows that ANY dog, regardless of breed, will be whatever its owner makes of it....nothing more, nothing less. Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets. We suggest that the appropriate policy is "blame the owner, not the dog." If a dog atacks a person, the law should treat it as though the owner attacked that person.

Voting for this proposal as it stands will harm both the law abiding, responsible dog owners and the victims, but it won't solve anything.

YOUR NAME