Blog - Paws4Change - Paws4Change®

Breed Specific Laws: Still Bad for Us, Still Bad For Them

7/13/2026

I believe local laws related to companion animals can have two indirect consequences: 1) good laws can be infectious in a good way, encouraging other cities and counties to embrace a similar law or laws; and 2) bad laws can spread like a disease, infecting other cities and counties with laws that do not help animals and do not help people. I recently learned of two cities in south Alabama considering breed specific restrictions regarding pit-bull type dogs, one of which is the City of Geneva which is located in Geneva County. The name of the second city isn't important for purposes of this blog at this point. I'll explain why later.

In my experience, it is not uncommon for cities to consider breed specific laws in the wake of a dog attack that caused injuries or a dog bite-related fatality. Such is the case in the City of Geneva. A man was attacked by a pack of dogs and died in March 2021; the media report of that incident references the previous death of a child but does no indicate when that happened. In March of this year, a woman was attacked and injured by three dogs. The owner of the dogs was charged with a misdemeanor because the injuries did not rise to a level to be considered serious. People want to be kept safe, so the default action is often to try to control dogs that look like the dog who either seriously hurt or killed someone even if that dog (or dogs) have already been determined not to be dangerous (because the negative contact was provoked or the dog was defending its owner or property) or the dog was already destroyed. I believe that focusing on laws that target dogs who look like the dangerous dog is more of a reaction to a specific event than a genuine focus on public safety moving forward.

The ordinance enacted by Geneva is one of the most draconian I have seen in years. It applies to dogs that even look like pit bull type dogs, requires dogs to be registered with the city, requires people to post signs that they own a dangerous dog and if people don't comply, their dogs will be taken from them and most likely killed because they are deemed dangerous just because of how they look. It also imposes a pet limit which requires people to re-home animals they have in excess of the limit and charges a $250 penalty for someone to reclaim a lost pet as a first offense and $500 for a second offense (in addition to daily fees). I reached out to the city to ask if I could submit some questions after the ordinance was enacted and was told I could. When I submitted my questions I extended an offer to gift city officials four copies of Bronwyn Dickey's seminal book about pit- bull type dogs so they can educate themselves on a topic about which they believe they have sufficient knowledge to create new laws. I don't really expect to hear back from anyone. I don't live there. I don't vote there. It should be noted that the City of Geneva is in Geneva County which has failed to adopt the state's dog confinement law. Neighboring counties have not adopted the statute either which means dogs are essentially roaming around like its 1870. Dogs don't know jurisdictions. If areas surrounding the City of Geneva allow dogs to run loose (perhaps forming packs) that presents issues related to public safety when dogs cause vehicle accidents or injure or kill someone.

Despite what you may read on some websites and find in an AI search on the subject, dog bites are rare events and the vast majority of dogs targeted by breed bans or restrictions will never bite. Dog bite related fatalities are also exceedingly rare events. The one dog bite fatality case in which I helped defend an Alabama City just over a decade ago involved not pit-bull type dogs but Rottweilers who attacked and killed WWII veteran Donald Thomas when he went to check his mail. I interviewed the neighbors, all of whom felt threatened by the dogs running loose, but who did not report the dogs or their concerns to the city because they didn’t think it would do any good. One woman who did call the police department after having been chased by the dogs (a few years before the attack that killed Mr. Thomas) failed to go to city hall to engage with a magistrate to swear out a warrant. All the neighbors with whom I spoke regretted they had not done more that may have prevented Mr. Thomas’ death.

This contact with cities about breed restrictions caused me to go back and look at one of the original pages of my website written many years ago called Breed Bans: Bad for Us, Bad for Them. Fast forward over a decade and I stand by what I wrote. They are still bad for us and bad for dogs. Not much has changed other than we now have new sources to use to help educate those considering banning or regulating dogs based on breed. This is what we know:

The reasons for actual dog attacks (as opposed to incidents of simple and avoidable injuries) are often complex, but the answer to preventing dog attacks is relatively simple: humane care and control of dogs is often all that is needed to prevent most dog attacks.
The National Canine Research Council's investigations into dog bite-related fatalities reveals the majority of these tragic cases involved circumstances where owners failed to provide necessary care and human control of their dogs:
- Failure by dog owners to spay or neuter dogs not involved in a responsible breeding program.
- Maintaining dogs in semi-isolation on chains or in pens.
- Allowing dogs to run loose (which happens in the majority of counties in Alabama).
- Neglecting or abusing dogs.
- Maintaining dogs not as household pets, but as guard dogs, fighting dogs, intimidation dogs, breeding dogs or yard dogs; and
- Allowing children to interact with unfamiliar dogs.
According to the CDC:
- Children are more likely than adults to be bitten by a dog. The injuries from dog bites in children also tend to be more severe. Most dog bites affecting young children occur during everyday activities and while interacting with familiar dogs.
- Having a dog in the household is linked to a higher likelihood of being bitten than not having a dog. As the number of dogs in the home increases, so does the likelihood of being bitten.
- Adults with two or more dogs in the household are five times more likely to be bitten. This is comparison to people living without dogs at home.
- Among adults, men are more likely than women to be bitten by a dog.
Breed bans or restrictions are over-inclusive because they penalize responsible dog owners and dogs that are beloved family pets and have never been involved in any type of aggressive behavior;

Breed bans or restrictions are also under-inclusive because they do not target specific dogs that present a danger to the public;
Banning or restricting certain breeds can lead people to believe that only certain breeds of dogs can be aggressive when, in fact, a number of types of breeds and mixed breeds engage in aggressive behavior;
The breed of dogs tells us what they look like and not how they behave;
About half the dogs labeled as pit bull type dogs lack the DNA of breeds commonly classified as pit bulls;
Many dogs are a combination of breeds (based on DNA testing) that surprise most people (see the images below created by the Animal Farm Foundation and available as flashcards in the AAF resources trove); and
Dogs targeted for breed discriminatory laws are not more likely to bite and don't bite harder.
The media would have us believe that only certain breeds of dogs have the capacity to be aggressive. The reality is that there is no such thing as the “super predator” dog hyped by the media and falsely accused of the majority of injuries or attacks.

I am by no means an authority on this topic. I encourage anyone interested in learning more about issues related to pit-bull type dogs, breed bans and restrictions and causes of dog attacks to learn more on the websites for the National Canine Research Council and the Animal Farm Foundation. I also highly encourage anyone with any level of interest on this topic to read what I consider a treatise - Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon written by Bronwyn Dickey. I also highly recommend The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression by Karen Delise.

(click on each image to see a larger copy; you can also view all the flashcards here)

My questions to the City of Geneva about the ordinance included the following:

The City of Huntsville has a well written, breed-blind vicious and dangerous animal ordinance that has worked well (and has been adopted by other cities like Albertville) and some cities in the state have repealed their breed specific laws. Did the city consult with any other cities in Alabama about their breed restrictions prior to enacting the new animal ordinance? If so, what data were those places able to provide to support the effectiveness of the restrictions?
Because breed identification of dogs is so inaccurate, how will your ACO accurately make determinations regarding breed to enforce the ordinance and without unfairly targeting dogs who have no known bite history and to avoid litigation by dog owners whose dogs are unfairly targeted?
Your ordinance allows restriction of dogs based on appearance even though many breeds look like pit-bull type dogs but are not: Boxers, Boxer mixes, Bulldogs, American Bulldogs, Bull Terriers and Labrador Retriever mixes. How will the city handle cases in which the owner of a dog disputes his or her dog is one of the restricted breeds?
If a dog owner provides the city with the results of a DNA test for the dog, what percentage of the dog’s DNA consisting of a restricted breed triggers the city’s restrictions?
Under state law know of as the Pet Protection Act even dog owners criminally charged with animal cruelty are afforded due process to determine disposition of animals seized from them. Will some form of due process be afforded owners of dogs restricted by your ordinance and in order to avoid litigation for lack of due process?
The ordinance allows the city to impound and destroy dogs “found within the corporate city limits” not registered within the 30-day time period [required by the ordinance]. Does this mean dogs found running at large or will this be enforced through some other means for dogs under the control of their owners?
If the dogs involved in the recent attack that led you to enact this ordinance had been Siberian Huskies or German Shepherds, would the city seek to regulate those breeds of dogs?

Like I said, I don't expect to hear back from the City of Geneva even though I was told I could submit questions about the ordinance. I do expect the city to be sued and I expect people's dogs to be killed because they don't register them or they can't afford reclaim fees that amount to ransom.

Back to the second city I was told was considering banning or restricting pit-bull type dogs following a dog bite related fatality in which a teenager was attacked and killed by dogs owned by his neighbor who were reportedly pit-bull type dog mixes. I spoke with City of Daleville Mayor Jayme Stayton yesterday after I heard his city was considering following in the steps of the City of Geneva to ban or restrict breeds of dogs. He confirmed his city is not considering laws that target dogs by breed. He also confirmed that a recent dog bit related fatality took place not in his city but in the county, adding "all kinds of dogs can bite." He was open to revision of his city code regarding vicious and dangerous animals which was last updated almost 20 years ago and open to contacting the Dale County elected officials to encourage them to adopt the state's dog confinement law. I shared some information to help him with that subject and others related to the animal code he and the city council can consider. It was refreshing to have a conversation with someone focused not on breed but on behavior and how to keep his constituents safe.

(presentation images and flashcards courtesy of Animal Farm Foundation; yard sign image courtesy of City of Geneva resident Donna Antolic)

0 Comments

Saving Thunder: An Open Letter to the Leaders of the City of Denver

7/4/2026

3 Comments

Honorable Mayor Mike Johnston
City Council Member Amanda P. Sandoval
City Council Member Kevin Flynn
City Council Member Jamie Torres
City Council Member Diana Romero Campbell
City Council Member Amanda Sawyer
City Council Member Paul Kashmann
City Council Member Flor Alvidrez
City Council Member Shontel M. Lewis
City Council Member Darrell Watson
City Council Member Chris Hinds
City Council Member Stacie Gilmore
City Council Member Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez
City Council Member Sarah Parody
City of Denver

Honorable Mayor and Council Members of the City of Denver:

Cities sometimes get an opportunity to do the right thing, for the right reason, to help keep the public safe while also saving the life of an animal in keeping with the values of the constituents they serve. You are currently presented with such an opportunity. I write today to implore you to use your influence to spare the life of a dog named "Thunder" currently housed in your animal shelter.

The facts of this case are vast and no doubt known to you, but appear to be summarized as follows from my perspective:

a family dog named Thunder who had 7 years of good behavior around people, children and other animals
a circumstantial incident where Thunder's owner was not home and he got out of a gate, leading to an incident that resulted in charges
Thunder was taken from his owner and impounded in a shelter kennel for 9 months in an environment not at all like the one he had always known
where his initial social behavior degraded over time, as shelter employees tossed treats into his kennel in a failed attempt to bond with him, causing shelter employees to fear him
resulting in Thunder not being allowed out of the building to breathe fresh air and exercise
leading a previously well behaved dog to display fear-based behaviors not exhibited prior to his entry into the shelter (and which likely would have abated outside the building)
about which national subject matter expert Jim Crosby opined the dog does not create a public safety risk
and for which placement of the dog is available at Base Camp Eden
so the city can fulfill its public safety goals to ensure people are kept safe (even though this dog may have injured no one).

My name is Aubrie Kavanaugh. I am an Army veteran and a retired defense litigation paralegal/investigator. I spent more than 30 years of my life defending cities like yours in addition to decades of animal welfare/animal shelter reform advocacy. I am surprised the City of Denver code does not contain provisions like those in the city where I worked to prevent dogs like Thunder from being kenneled for months through use of due process and a disposition hearing. I would argue that housing a dog in these conditions constitutes a form of cruelty - regardless of good intent - because it is entirely preventable through a process in which the dog's disposition can and should be determined not within months but within 30 days. I was not surprised to learn that shelter staff previously gave testimony in an adjacent case (People v. Monica R. Lopez) that the shelter is a "stressful environment for any dog. . .[and is] not a normal environment. That's not a healthy, you know, dogs did not evolve to live in a box and be secluded from, you know, other animals and people." The National Canine Research Council would agree:

Shelters are noisy, alien environments [for dogs], filled with strange smells, unfamiliar people, and dogs they may hear, but not see. We should not be surprised that some dogs may. . . behave differently when confined in a shelter, with its barrage of stressors that the dog cannot control, than they will in the safe, secure, predictable environment of a home, cared for by people with whom they are able to form positive attachments.
Blanket assumptions about the future behavior of dogs. . .in a shelter, as well as about the suitability of such dogs for adoption, are unfounded. Rather than rely on blanket assumptions, shelters should trust to compassion, critical thinking, and common sense."

I fully understand that you have a public safety mandate to keep people safe and that the safety of humans will always take priority over saving the lives of animals. One of the worst cases I ever worked related to dog bite related fatality of WWII Veteran Donald Thomas in the City of Leeds, Alabama, when Mr. Thomas went to check his mail and was attacked and killed by two dogs inside city limits. The law firm from which I retired defended the city in a wrongful death case based on negligence; it was essentially a failure to protect case. Jim Crosby, who has offered his expert opinion here, worked with the prosecution in examination of what led to the attack. The dogs in our case were shot and killed on site, having killed a man. Your case involves not a death, but an encounter in which Thunder may have caused minor injuries.

I simply do not see any risk at all to public safety by allowing Thunder to be spared and sent to Basecamp Eden where he can live out the rest of his days in Calhan, Colorado, while not living in a small kennel inside a closed building. The mission of Basecamp Eden is perfectly suited to dogs like Thunder: to save animals from high risk situations and provide them with a safe, structured environment. The fact that Base Camp works with veterans suffering from PTSD to help them create meaningful connections with animals is an absolute plus. Should Basecamp Eden be allowed to take ownership of Thunder (following execution of a hold harmless contract), I would not be surprised to learn at some point in the future that Thunder has not only returned to his happy, balanced behavior, but that he has also helped a veteran (to whom we owe a debt of gratitude) find some peace in an otherwise very challenging world.

We hear all the time from people in the animal shelter industry that "nobody wants to kill animals." After a couple of decades of advocacy for shelter animals generally, and for dogs unfairly labeled as "aggressive" or a risk to public safety and then destroyed, I'm not so sure I believe those claims. Actions speak louder than words. Denver is seen as one of the most progressive cities in the country. It seems wholly antithetical for the City of Denver to end the life of a dog against advice of an expert and when there is placement available that will help you fulfill your public safety goals.

Please take action to safe the life of this dog while also reconsidering your city code. The dog whose life is at risk today is Thunder. But tomorrow it could be a dog who is a beloved member of your family or the family of someone you know.

Thank you for your time and your compassion towards animals.

Aubrie E. Kavanaugh, Paws4Change