Allowing Breed Discrimination Laws In Florida Expensive: $25.7 Million Price Tag
Save Email Print
Bookmark and Share
Posted: 3:03 PM Feb 2, 2010
Allowing Breed Discrimination Laws In Florida Expensive: $25.7 Million Price Tag
Allowing breed discrimination laws would be expensive for sunshine state, says Best Friends Animal Society.
Reporter: Press Release
Email Address: news@wctv.tv
width:250 and height: 150 and picwidth: 240 and pciheight: 144
Font Size:

Best Friend Animal Society Press Release:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla.──

For the third year in a row, Florida legislators are considering changes to state law that would allow dogs to be banned in communities, based on their perceived breed. And a national animal welfare organization warns that the costs associated with enforcing breed bans are high, and ultimately ineffective.

Best Friends Animal Society commissioned a study in 2009 that, according to an established formula, determines that enforcing breed bans in Florida would cost taxpayers $25.7 million. The figure was arrived at using the Fiscal Impact Calculator, a tool developed during the study that helps individual communities determine the true cost of implementing and enforcing breed discriminatory laws.

Florida State House Rep. Perry Thurston has proposed House Bill 543, and Senator Anthony Hill has proposed the companion bill ─ SB 1276 ─ to repeal the state’s current prohibition on breed discriminatory laws. Florida is one of 12 states that prohibit local governments from enacting laws that prohibit a specific breed. HB 543 has been referred to three separate legislative committees for consideration. Similar efforts in 2008 and 2009 to make breed-specific laws legal were unsuccessful. 
Amazingly, the Florida bill would allow communities to outlaw any breed of dog, no questions asked," said Ledy VanKavage, senior legislative analyst for Best Friends Animal Society. "This is America. Responsible guardians should be allowed to care for any dogs they choose. The reckless owners who do not control their dogs are the ones who should be prevented from having a dog."

Best Friends Animal Society has criticized breed discriminatory laws, which exist in approximately 300 different U.S. communities to outlaw certain dogs based solely on appearance, with no regard to the animal’s behavior or temperament. It is estimated there are approximately 73.9 million dogs in the United States, of which approximately five million (6.9 percent) can be described as pit bulls or pit bull mixes based solely on their appearance. 

Currently Miami-Dade is the only county in Florida that is allowed to "profile" dogs, after enacting a "pit bull" ban in 1989. In 2008, approximately 800 "pit bulls" were picked up and destroyed simply because of their looks.

"Best Friends opposes canine profiling and believes it is not only expensive but ineffective in protecting the public. All dogs can bite. Studies show that breed discriminatory laws don’t reduce dog attacks. Dogs are individuals and should be treated as such, not judged by appearance, but by temperament," VanKavage said.

"Breed discriminatory laws are expensive and ineffective," VanKavage said. "And if breed restrictive ordinances are passed, people who love their pets will fight the government’s arbitrary visual identification of their dog, making them even more difficult to enforce, and a true waste of tax dollars."

In some cities, such as Denver, animal control authorities can take a family’s dog away because it has the characteristics of a pit bull. Pit bulls usually include the pure breeds such as the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier, or the Staffordshire bull terrier. However, there are many mixed breed dogs that share lineage of the above-named pure breeds, along with many short-haired muscular dogs often confused for pit bulls.

"If you take someone’s property away," VanKavage said, "the burden of proof is on the government to prove that the pet is subject to the law, which means the city must prove it is a pit bull. That becomes an expensive battle that may require DNA testing to see if the dog actually is subject to the ban."

According to the Best Friends’ economic study, breed discriminatory legislation tends to exhaust limited resources in already under-funded animal control programs by flooding the system with potentially "unadoptable" dogs due to the ban. Costs to regulate or ban the pets can run into the millions and provide no help to prevent dog bites.

"For more information about the issues surrounding breed specific legislation/breed discrimination, please visit the Stop BSL community http://www.network.bestfriends.org/stopbsl/news/ on the Best Friends Network.


Latest Comments

Posted by: Jessi Location: Miami, FL on Sep 6, 2010 at 06:07 PM

Paula & Luke - this has nothing to do with the safety of your children, that's the point. Banning something simply because it has the potential to cause harm is a slippery slope which you don't want to go down. Same argument with guns - do you want guns banned? There goes your second amendment. What about cars? What about alcohol? We need to stop being a culture that bans everything that has the potential to hurt us. This is America and we are a nation that is supposed to believe in personal responsibility. There is no way that if pit bulls are banned that crime violence will go down. I have been born and raised in Miami and let me tell you, this place reaks of criminals and we have a pit bull ban. Dirtbags will find and train whatever big scary dog they can to "guard" them and if it's not pit bull, it will be some other dog. Let's mandate spay and neutering for all dogs, since, incase you didn't know, 75% of all animals involved in dog incidents/bites are unneutered males.
Posted by: Danny Location: C on May 22, 2010 at 09:54 AM

I own an APBT and have owned this breed since I was a child. I was a police officer for four years and understand that gang and drug related activities usually go hand in hand with pit bull type dogs. However the breed is not to blame, every pit bull type dog I found with these criminals were neglected and abused. So why not put heavier punishments on the owners, that too would bring down the criminal activity. These dogs do what they are trained to do, they are not naturally aggressive. So if we go after the owners of these neglected animals then we are essentially going after the true criminals. I have never seen a Pitbull sell drugs to a teenager, but I have seen an owner of one do so. If people reported animal abuse more often Police and the ASPCA could better crack down on these rings of criminal activity. So leave the breed out of it and focus on these idiots that turn them into beasts. If we ban the breed they will only conceal their activity even more, making the cops job harder
Posted by: Caitlin Location: Florida on Mar 11, 2010 at 01:06 AM

If you think banning breeds would solve a lot of the animal related injuries, look at how many people are injured by COWS each year. Should we ban cattle too? Come on people, be reasonable. I personally own an APBT mix. She's a complete wuss.. Runs away and hides behind me at the sight of a running plastic bag. I have more problems with Chihuahuas and other small dogs than I do with larger dogs. Irresponsible owners who own these unsocialized aggressive animals should be held responsible for the deed; the breed should not be blamed.