Breed Discriminatory Legislation (sometimes called BSL) has been proven to be ineffective.  It is a waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.  The cost of enforcing BDL takes away precious resources from other matters of concern to the community, including protecting the community from truly dangerous dogs not belonging to the targeted breeds. 

Every citizen deserves to be protected from ALL reckless dog owners, not just reckless owners with the targeted breeds of dogs.  Everyone needs to be held equally accountable.

BDL can be a disincentive to dog license compliance, so communities may lose licensing revenues that could have been used to fund important animal services.

BDL can drive business away.  Dog shows, sporting events, and other pet-related events are not likely to be held in areas where certain dogs may be confiscated for attending.  Tourists with targeted dogs will also choose not to visit.  Businesses will have trouble attracting new employees who will chose not to relocate because they own one of the targeted breeds.  Business owners who own targeted breeds will choose to either leave town or not establish a new business in town. Landlords who are not permitted to rent to targeted breeds will suffer a loss of income. 

BDL makes animal control officers,  police officers and the animal shelter, the enemies of the community by forcing them to seize and destroy well-behaved family pets. 

BDL results in costly lawsuits.  Citizens who feel their constitutional rights are being violated, their dogs were wrongly identified as a "dangerous breed", or residents of towns with local BDL that contracts state law, can and have brought lawsuits against their municipalities. 

BDL is costly to individual dog owners, who must relocate or surrender their family pet.  The emotional cost to pet owners cannot be measured.  When dogs are not banned, but are subject to restrictions, pet owners must bear ordinance-imposed financial costs as a result of the requirements that they maintain higher libability insurance limits or purchase expensive containment systems.  This financially penalizes responsible families. 

Read more here.....http://animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Breed-Specific-Legislation

Bill Bruce, Former Director of Animal and By-Law Services, Calgary: "BSL is intended to be the silver bullet that will end animal aggression, and it never has.  When we see it applied, it typically tends to see an escalation in animal aggression because it's attempting to deal with the dog, not the problem.  The problem is the owner.  The other problem with it is that when it's that broad-brushed, you catch the wrong fish in the net.  So when you propose BSL, what you do is you polarize the entire community.  Instead of drawing a community of responsible pet owners together, you polarize them by attacking people who are not part of your problem..." 

Read more here: http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/Community-Model-for-RPO_Calgary_2013.pdf

Breed discriminatory legislation (sometimes called BSL) discriminates against certain members of the community based on the pet they own.  BDL forces families to relocate to other areas in order to keep their pets, making it difficult for families to stay connected.  BDL discriminates against families on fixed-incomes, families with children or senior citizens, and people with disabilities: relocation may not be an option for these families.

BDL breaks up families by forcing law abiding citizens to give up their family pets.  They are forced to bring well-behaved family dogs to the shelter where they may be destroyed.

Read more here...http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/BSL-Talking-Points-ebook_2.pd

Breed Discriminatory Legislation (often called BSL) leads to increases in owner surrenders, creating more work for animal shelters, more shelter deaths, and more financial resources required to care for/euthanize surrendered dogs.  It puts all animals in the shelter at risk, because of the increased financial and staff burden.

Breed Discriminatory Legislation hinders adoptions and increases length of stay by restricting which dogs can be placed, limiting the potential pool of adopters, and generating fear of all shelter dogs.

Read more here...http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/BSL-Talking-Points-ebook_2.

Speak up against the proposed breed-discriminatory ordinance.

As you may be aware, the City of Watertown has been discussing the implementation
of a breed-discriminatory ordinance for some time. Although progress has been
made in educating alderpersons on why an ordinance targeting a particular breed
is bad policy, we haven’t swayed them entirely. At present, the proposed
ordinance still contains language mandating that any pit bull terrier dog be
deemed a “high risk dog,” which subjects the dog’s guardian to burdensome,
costly and exceedingly discriminatory regulations.

Please speak up to protect your companion animals, your property rights and your tax
dollars. Tell Watertown alderpersons that breed discrimination is wrong and
makes the community more vulnerable to truly dangerous dogs
while, at the same time, punishing responsible dog owners and innocent dogs.
Breed-discriminatory ordinances also waste taxpayer dollars and infringe on
constitutional property rights.

Take action by contacting the mayor and the alderpersons immediately using the email
letter we’ve provided. Personalizing your email will help its effectiveness but
is not necessary. Also, to be persuasive in getting your message across, please
be sure to use a polite tone in all communications.

If you live in the Watertown area, please attend the council meeting on Tuesday,
August 20, at 7 pm. The agenda may be viewed here.
Be sure to dress nicely and avoid emotional testimony. The facts speak best:
Breed discrimination makes communities less safe, costs taxpayers greatly,
infringes on property rights, and punishes responsible citizens.

Click here to access the Action Alert provided by Best Friends Animal Society:
http://www.capwiz.com/bestfriends/issues/alert/?alertid=62844796#.UhJm4D2NcJY.facebook

Steve Zgonc is running for 5th District alderman.  Zgonc previously served on the council from 2005 to 2011. Here are his comments on the proposed Breed Discriminatory Legislation in Watertown.

What is your position on the issue of controlling certain breeds of dogs in the community as a safety measure?

Safety is always a major concern for me.  Some breeds of dogs are proven to be more dangerous than others.   Owners of these breeds have to know this and take more precautions with their pets.  Still, the owner of any pet is still responsible for any actions of their pet.  There has to be strict penalties in place for the owner if there is any neglect to ensure the safety of other citizens.

(reprinted from the Watertown Daily Times, Saturday March 23, 2013)

Bob Mudler is running for the first time for the 1st District Council seat. Here are his comments on the proposed Breed Discriminatory Legislation in Watertown.

What is your position on the issue of controlling certain breeds of dogs in the community as a safety measure?

I have a problem with local government controlling which dogs a Watertown resident can and or can't buy, until it becomes a safety concern.   When resident safety is a t risk, we have to work together to ensure safety measures are taken.  Whatever the situation, a dog owner has to be accountable for their pet, and the responsibility has to fall directly on the owner.  Banning or controlling dog breeds in Watertown is not the answer.   Holding the owner accountable and providing the appropriate outlets for training is more productive.


(reprinted from the Watertown Daily Times, Saturday March 23, 2013)

James Romlein is running for his second term as the 9th District Alderman.  Here are his comments on proposed Breed Discriminatory Legislation in Watertown.  

What is your position on the issue of controlling certain breeds of dogs in the community as a safety measure?

This is an easy question for me.  I see dogs and all animals in the city like I see other possessions of city residents.  If we have a series of drunk driving fatalities, we don't legislate a ban on automobiles, and heaven forbid, if we have a stray Rhode Island Red loose on the streets we don't single out chickens for special action.  


I believe that the actions of dogs are the responsibility of their owners and we should hold the pet owners accountable for actions of their pets.   With liberties there are responsibilities.  Often there is an attempt to legislate the tool since it is easier than confronting the tool holder.  In the well known Commandment "Thou shall not kill," the responsibility rest with "Thou."  If the commandment were to read "Thou shall not kill with a chicken, pit bull dog, or gun" then we could have some reason to follow a different legislative course.  In short, make the pet holder responsible for the actions of their pets, then the legislation will be applicable for all pets, even those pesky Rhode Island Reds. 


(reprinted from the Watertown Daily Times, Saturday March 23, 2013)