Category: Laws

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

Animal Law Lessons

4/12/2026

0 Comments

The Alabama 30-day legislative session ended on April 9, 2026. It was exhausting even though I never set foot inside the Montgomery State Capitol. As I process what happened in the last couple of weeks, I wanted to write about those events to help myself decompress and to also share for the benefit of others so they can consider state laws being promoted, modified or passed where they live. I am working on a local ordinance in the city where I live and will write about that process in a later blog.

The short story is that this session was filled with passion on the part of animal welfare advocates, much bad behavior toward people by those same advocates, lessons about the legislative process and lessons about unintended consequences when seeking new laws. Since my goal is to help others, I'll cover lessons learned first and will then share about what happened here. But a little background first.

Law Levels

There are three levels of animal laws, all of which are separate (much like other legal issues related to people).

The primary federal animal protection law is the Animal Welfare Act signed into law in 1966. The AWA relates mostly to animals kept in zoos and used in laboratories as well as animals who are bred and sold commercially like dogs from puppy mills. Other federal laws include the "28 Hour Law," the "Humane Methods of Slaughter Act," and the "Endangered Species Act":
Every state has animal laws that relate to both livestock and companion animals. The scope of these laws varies by state. In some states (but not all), the Department of Agriculture or some other organization exercises oversight regarding companion animals in shelters and regarding rescue groups and animal nonprofits. In some states, the state animal laws apply everywhere in the state. In other states, the laws apply in county areas and outside of city limits where laws are enacted just for that city. The easiest say to learn about animal laws in your state is to visit the website for the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The ALDF has a separate page established for every state that includes the animal laws for that state. For example, the landing page for the animal laws of Georgia is found here. You can also visit the website for your state legislature to learn about the laws in your state. Word of warning, however, that animal laws are not always organized neatly on state websites and they can be hard to find. Using the ALDF research is much easier.
Cities and towns have their own laws ordinarily enacted by ordinance. The general rule is that city laws can be more strict that state laws, but cannot conflict with state laws. The easiest way to learn about the laws in the city where you live is to visit the website for the city, which should have a link to the city code. Many, but not all, cities have their codes available in a library on Municode. For example, the laws in Cedar Hill, Texas, are found here.
To determine the relationship between state and local laws where you live, you can contact city or town officials to determine if they have adopted the state laws as offenses against the city. You can also contact the League of Municipalities for your state but they may tell you they only help cities and cannot help you.

How Laws Get Enacted

I feel pretty confident that a lot of people aren't familiar how most laws are enacted at state level, including laws that may be important to them on a variety of subjects: animals, children, voting, education, criminal laws, driving and transportation, business and commerce, public health and safety, etc. We all vote and we all see ballot measures when we vote, but the vast majority of laws are not put to a vote and are handled by those we elect to represent us. Many laws are enacted without people knowing about them at all and they may only learn about them if the see or read a story on the news or they end up on the wrong side of a new law they knew nothing about. The process by which a bill becomes law varies by state but is pretty similar for the most part: a bill is filed by a state elected official - a senator or a representative - and it is assigned to a committee for consideration. It can either die in committee (meaning no action is taken) or get a favorable vote (with or without changes being made) and then it is considered by the chamber in which it was introduced (house or senate). If it makes it through that chamber, the process repeats itself in the other chamber using a mirror image bill which must be the same. The bill then dies or advances. If the bill gets through the second chamber, it goes to the governor to sign or veto. The process is more detailed than that and involves more steps, but that’s the general sequence. Some bills seek creation of new laws. Many bills seek to amend - or change - existing laws.

Learning about the laws in your state can take time. Time many people lack. I have issues with the state rankings issued by the ALDF each year, but I applaud the research done by ALDF to make the laws readily available to anyone interested in reading them. When laws are handled by the state legislature and not put to a vote, it can be easy to go along with something you see on social media or are told by another person, even if that information is wrong. Our bonds with our animals are emotional. It stands to reason that the subject of laws about how animals are treated is equally emotional and it doesn't take much for people to lose sight of the goals of some laws. Most people with whom I interact believe that any law about animals must be a good law. As I wrote about last May, some bills are good and some bills are bad. Some bills have both good and bad and when that happens we have to weigh the risks of changing laws we have which is not always for the better.

Lessons Learned

If you are interested in new laws (or changes to existing laws) in your state related to companion animals, I encourage you to consider the following. No one expects you to be an attorney. I do hope you will learn and speak for yourself if you want to be taken seriously and you want to help companion animals in your state.

Read your current laws so you understand them for yourself and not based on something you are told or read on social media. Most laws are pretty straightforward because they are intended to be understood the same way by everyone who reads them. That may not be the case for complex subjects like tax law, but when it comes to laws about companion animals, the wording is pretty direct on purpose. When laws are written each word included in the law is supposed to be there. If words are not included, that is with intent.
Determine who your elected officials are and how to contact them. You should be able to do this using the Secretary of State website for your state. Many of these websites let you search by address to make the process simple. You can also perform a search on Ballotpedia and get results that include images.
Learn when your state legislature is in session and how many days that session lasts. In my state, the session is 30 days long. There are typically two legislative days a week but sometimes there are three legislative days a week. The California Legislature operates on a two-year session, known as a biennial session, which begins on the first Monday in December of even-numbered years and ends on November 30 of the following even-numbered year. The session is broken into two yearly parts, with the Legislature typically meeting from January to late summer. The Texas Legislature meets in a regular session for 140 calendar days every two years (odd-numbered years), starting on the second Tuesday in January and lasting about five months.
Learn about animal bills pending in your state. You can do this using the website for your state legislature or by using a tracker like Fast Democracy. Read the bills yourself to understand if they establish new laws or change existing laws. There are times when a bill is filed that should change existing laws but is treated as if the law is new. You will know when that happens by learning the animal laws in your state to begin with. The state pdfs prepared by ALDF are searchable so that makes it easy to compare the bill you are reading to existing laws.
Learn about organizations that have historically opposed new or changed animal laws in your state. In Alabama, there has historically been opposition from the Alabama Farmers Federation (ALFA) and the Alabama Cattleman's Association related to control of dogs used in farming. Claims have been made using the "slippery slope" argument that laws specific to dogs and cats may be applied to livestock. There has also been opposition in the past from the American Kennel Club related to legislation it believes unfairly restricts the rights of owners and breeders. You can learn about opposition using standard internet searches.
If you have an opinion about an animal bill, contact the sponsor(s) of the bill and your own state legislators to share your thoughts. If you have questions about a bill you have read, ask the sponsor(s) to help you understand what they want to accomplish through the bill. Always be respectful in your communication; do not let emotions control your tone or choice of words. Diplomacy goes a long way in communicating with any elected official about any subject that is important to you.
Take what you hear from others and read on social media with a grain of salt. It's no secret that social media can be a toxic place full of misinformation and people who hide behind fake accounts and act with impunity. Much of what you hear or read may come from people who have not read the proposed law and who presume the law is good because it is about animals. I know people who have rallied in support of an animal bill without having read the bill first. I know people who have read a bill about animals but who have not read the existing laws so they don't understand the bill may weaken existing laws that were hard won. I also know people who don't ask themselves the very basic question of how the law would be enforced and it is likely it would be enforced equitably to apply to all people or if it could unfairly target people who are poor, marginalized or part of the BIPOC community (Black, Indigenous, People of Color). As easy as it may be to presume that all laws are applied to all people evenly, we know that is just not the case when it comes to laws about people, let alone laws about animals owned by people.
Do not allow your emotions get the best of you and engage in any form of disrespectful behavior or defamation. You are entitled to your opinion about proposed laws and the people or organizations who may support or oppose them. You are entitled to your opinion about the people elected to serve in your state government. You are not allowed, however, to make defamatory comments about others who do not agree with you by engaging in name calling, making accusations about them, lashing out at them on social media or in a public place in ways that may harm that person's reputation or make them fear for their personal safety.

My Issues with Beau's Law (SB 361)

Alabama enacted a law called Beau's Law which was named after a dog named Beau who was found outside in the snow in Jefferson County, Alabama, with only cardboard for shelter. The law sets standards of care for dogs who are outside, conditions for tethering dogs, provides exemptions to the law and provides punishments. The process that led to this new law was complicated and I won't try to explain the whole thing here because it's not important for the sake of trying to help others. The following summary may be of some value to you.

Through the end of 2025, Alabama had criminal laws regarding livestock, regarding cockfighting, regarding animals generally and regarding dogs and cats specifically. Crimes against dogs and cats were punishable by a Class A Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in county jail [or hard labor] and a maximum fine of $6,000) at least and Class C Felony (punishable by 1 year and 1 day to 10 years in prison and fines up to $15,000) at worst. The Pet Protection Act (PPA) which is specific to dogs and cats was enacted in 2000. It took 12 years to get the PPA passed. The law regarding cruelty to “animals” which is not specific to dogs and cats was first enacted in 1977 and was later amended in 2013 to bring the penalty level in line with the PPA.

Representatives Phil Ensler and Neil Rafferty brought House Bill 446 that set certain standards of care for dogs outside, required certain methods be used when confining or tethering a dog and would require criminal penalties for violations. The bill did not seek to amend the PPA. Senator Garlan Gudger brought Senate Bill 361 almost 20 days later. It covered the same subjects but still not seek to amend the PPA. The Senate bill made it through committee and the Senate in 3 days, crossed over to the house and became the leading bill. The bill was amended in the House committee before being brought to the House floor on the 29th day of the session. Eleven amendment to the bill were proposed, 6 were adopted, the bill crossed back over to the Senate and was signed by Governor Ivey as Beau's Law. People were told this was the first time an animal law had made it through the legislative gauntlet in 26 years (which is not accurate) and began making plans for it to be enforced when it goes into effect on October 1, 2026. People celebrated. People cheered. I was not one of those people.

Each time a bill was filed or substituted, I read it thoroughly, compared it to existing state laws and communicated my concerns about each bill (both HB 446 and SB 361) to bill sponsors and my own legislators based on my knowledge of statutory law from more than 30 years in the legal field. I felt the bills could weaken existing laws, may have provisions that were unenforceable, may be confusing and may be ignored in some places. To be clear, I fully support adequate care of dogs. That should go without saying. I wrote and promoted an ordinance in the city where I live about a decade ago that covers many of the same topics as these bills which has been in effect a long time and is working well. There is, however, a world of difference between a state law and a local law that has been considered by the city council and adopted as setting forth the standards inside the city that will be enforced by the police department.
I expressed concerns about the following topics in the bills:

the bill would reduce the penalty from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C misdemeanor for a first offense; because the bill did not amend the PPA, a defense attorney could argue the different penalties are confusing and the legislature intended for all crimes to start as a Class C misdemeanor;

the bill would give authority to civilians who are not certified as law enforcement officers to go on private property to seize a dog without a certified officer being present which I thought may be dangerous; seizing animals is a "taking" under the 4th Amendment and should only be done by officers who are armed, trained on de-escalation techniques, trained on the U.S. Constitution and trained on making cases to be prosecuted (including report writing and evidence collection);
the bill required dogs to have "continuous" access to food which I don't believe is healthy for any dog and may cause serious health issues;
enclosures used to confine dogs had to be large enough for the dog to run; most commercially sold kennels are 10 x 10 which may be large enough for a Yorkie to run, but not a Labrador; I suggested this should be changed to "walk and move about freely";
the bill included repeated references to “species requirements” which do not exist and can vary based on age, weight and health status; there were also references to “as directed by a veterinarian” when most veterinarians do not make recommendations regarding food and water;
the bill included phrases that were not defined in the bill or in any other place in existing state law: public animal shelter, private animal shelter and logging chain;
the possibility that the law may be inequitably enforced in poor, marginalized or BIPOC communities;
people "in the industry" who enforce laws, build cases and prosecute laws were not consulted in creation of the bill;
people were told the law would apply everywhere in the state and I'm not sure that is correct; it will apply in county areas but the Alabama League of Municipalities may have to weigh in on application at municipal level in places that have not adopted state offenses by ordinance as offenses against the municipality.
supporters of the bill were sharing images on social media of obviously abused dogs on heavy chains, with no shelter, confined to small crates or so emaciated as to be near death while claiming all those things are legal when they are not. All are actionable using laws that have existed for many years.

Many of my concerns about the bill language were addressed in the amendments to SB 361 that were approved on the House floor (11 amendments were proposed and 6 were approved). The final bill which is now Beau's Law kept the reduced penalties: a first offense is a Class C misdemeanor (punishable by punishable by up to three months in jail and a fine of up to $500), a second offense is a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by punishable by up to six months in county jail and a fine of up to $3,000) and third and subsequent offenses are a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in county jail (or hard labor) and a maximum fine of $6,000). Beau's Law still includes references to continuous access to food, does not define phrases and takes away the authority of animal control officers to issue orders to animal owners to comply with the law, making that the strict purview of certified officers. The final vote in the House was 63 ayes, 23 nays and 9 representatives abstained from voting. It was hardly a landslide. Based on the number of amendments and the opposition in the House, I thought the bill may return to a Senate committee for consideration but it did not. One of the state Representatives who voted no, told me this about his decision:

Simply put - my concerns with the legislation outweighed even the love I have for dogs. I’m worried most issues with animal cruelty is lack of enforcement of current laws. That’s not a criticism of law enforcement, it’s just the reality. Most law enforcement agencies prioritize human crime that they deem is the most important to address with their limited resources. Most counties and cities cannot afford to increase their animal control staff. I was worried this bill could be an unfunded mandate on cities and counties. I also feel like some of the awful stories I heard about dogs not having proper shelter and tethering should fall under our existing cruelty laws. I’m not sure adding more regulations would fix the issue. In fact I was worried about people just abandoning their dogs to avoid dealing with the new laws. And animal abandonment is an issue you and I communicated about before and tried to solve because we both know it’s an issue. Like with the animal abandonment bill, I noticed animal rights advocates not fully agreeing if SB 361 was good or bad. I also just had practical application concerns about private property, probable cause, etc that lead me to eventually vote no. "

Despite rumors to the contrary, I never tried to "kill" a bill. The fact that people accused me of that, as if I have that type of influence, is comical. I communicated with elected officials about bills (which is an exercise of my Free Speech under the First Amendment) just as I have in past years. Sometimes I received responses, sometimes I did not. The officials to whom I wrote no doubt shared my messages with primary supporters of the bill. I would expect no less. What I did not expect was to be subject to cyber libel on social media. Allison Black Cornelius (the CEO of the Greater Birmingham Humane Society, an organization that does not have a good track record keeping dogs alive) accused me of being a negative, ignorant, jealous, bitter extremist, causing our state to be stuck and helping special interest groups in their opposition to new animal laws. Wendy Michelle Montealegre (a rescuer who does tremendous work saving animals in Blount County) accused me of going on a secret campaign to kill and sabotage the bill by calling shelters (which I did not). Chapel King (who was recently elected to the City of Florence City Council) wrote that if I was not willing to support the bill that I should not take actions to harm the bill. My requests to her to remove defamatory comments about me on a social media page she admins have gone unanswered. A woman who goes by Patricia N TheMutts wrote that I was creating dissension, chaos and bad feelings, defeating the cause of helping animals. Deanna Nicholas (who works with Rock Creek Rescue in Madison County) called me selfish, saying I was upset because I did not get anything done when I was in animal rights advocacy so I was standing in the way of forward momentum. When I reached out to Ms. Nicholas to ask her to remove her social media comment about me, she went further, calling me an attention seeking, washed up, non-effective person who was blocking a bill that could save lives and accusing me of wanting dogs to die on chains. She also claimed that because this is America, she can say anything she wants about me. Uh, wrong. I have long believed that personal attacks are desperate attempts by people who would rather result to defamation than to address the actual issues at hand. I really am allowed to have my own opinions about proposed laws that are not in lockstep with the opinions of others and as they misrepresent - intentional or not - existing laws.

Enforcement Issues With Beau's Law

The laws in Alabama regarding companion animals are quite strong no matter how the state is ranked compared to other states. Our dog fighting law is considered the third most strict law in the country. What is lacking is enforcement of existing laws. There are different cultures in Alabama regarding dogs as pets compared to dogs who perform a service function or protect livestock. One state representative who spoke on the House floor about the bill said, "no one should go to jail for a damn dog." I was hopeful the bill sponsor would point out that people already go to jail for animal crimes that have been punishable as a Class A Misdemeanor for not less than a quarter of a century. He did not. In areas of Alabama where existing laws are not enforced, it seems illogical that more or newer laws would be enforced more. Certified officers currently receive no mandatory training on the state's animal laws (even though they are part of the criminal code) and most animal control officers receive no training at all. It is typical for an ACO to only be required to have a driver's license and a high school diploma or GED before being handed a catch pole and told to go to work. There are certainly certified officers and ACOs who have sought out training for themselves but there is no standard training curriculum for either position.

As is the case in every state, every law enforcement agency has a finite number of certified personnel on duty at any given time and calls are prioritized. Responses to crimes against people will always be handled before crimes against animals and laws viewed as "lesser" laws will always receive less attention than crimes considered more serious. The same goes for prosecution. There are finite resources to make and bring cases before courts and decisions on those cases are prioritized based on the culture in the jurisdiction. A former city fire captain is facing trial in Madison County for killing a puppy and was charged with a Class C felony under 13A-11-14.1 which applies to animals generally. The ADA told me he used that statute because the dog was dead and he wanted to be able to use the Habitual Felony Offender Act. Would the same crime be charged at all in Washington County? Perhaps not. Add to all of this that of the 67 counties in Alabama, 39 counties have not adopted the state dog confinement law. This means dogs essentially run loose, even in counties where there have been human deaths in dog attacks. Of the 67 counties in Alabama, 29 counties have no animal control services and no pound as required by state law. A 30th county has animal control services but no pound. Where do dogs seized under the new law in those places go and what happens to them?

I have long believed a bad bill is worse than no bill. If we can all agree that animal problems are people problems and that we want the best possible care for animals, it is worth our time to develop laws that do not compromise those we already have, that are enforceable and that actually help animals. Beau's Law already reduced the criminal penalty. Will it prove to be enforceable and help animals not just in some counties but across the state without leading to the death of more dogs in animal shelters? Time will tell.

(image courtesy of Kristin Yarbrough of Alabama Animal Advocates)

0 Comments

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

Animal Law Lessons

Law Levels

How Laws Get Enacted

Lessons Learned

My Issues with Beau's Law (SB 361)

Enforcement Issues With Beau's Law

Author

Archives

Categories

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

Animal Law Lessons

Law Levels

How Laws Get Enacted

Lessons Learned

My Issues with Beau's Law (SB 361)

Enforcement Issues With Beau's Law

Author

Subscribe to the Paws4Change E-list

Archives

Categories