Massachusetts H.B. 1997 and S.B. 406/2127 offer competing views on breed specific legislation.

H.B. 1997 would allow, even encourage local governments to ban dogs by breed, stating that "[n]othing ...shall prohibit a city or town or district from banning or further regulating a particular breed of dog."  The city of town could not require more than a majority vote to adopt BSL.  

In the event of a breed ban or regulation, the bill would also require the city or town to "establish a board consisting of 3 members to identify and determine the breed of dogs". The city manager or mayor would appoint the Board which would be made up of  animal control and 2 members of the public, "one of which must be considered an expert in field of animals". A 6 month phase in period would be required for any BSL.

This bill, H.B. 1997, is currently in the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government. Write or call members of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government and urge them to vote NO on H.B. 1997 and BSL.   

Find Massachusetts House members and write or call and urge them to vote NO on H.B. 1997.  Find State Senators here. If you live in Massachusetts, find your state legislators here. Let them know dogs don't bite because of breed. BSL won't make Massachusetts communities safe. It will only penalize responsible owners, result in the slaughter of family pets, and cost hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars each year to enforce.   

S.B. 406, (now S. 2172) on the other hand, is clear that a dog's breed could not be considered in determining if the dog is dangerous. Also, any program for dangerous dogs could not be based on breed. 

This bill is pending in the  House Committee On Ways and Means. Urge Committee members and Massachusetts legislators to support the part of S.B. 406/2172 that would ban BSL statewide. Find Massachusetts House members.  Find State Senators here. If you live in Massachusetts, find your state legislators here.

Both bills also contain proposed dangerous dog laws, neither of which Animal Law Coalition endorses. 

H.B. 1997 would have a dog declared dangerous after an unprovoked bite or "attack" of a person or domestic animal, regardless of the severity of injury. Animal control could immediately seize and impound the animal and give a warning, order a fine, neutering, banishment or destruction of the dog.

Appeals of these decisions would be discouraged: An unsuccessful owner would be responsible for paying the costs of care for the dog during an appeal, and to collect that amount, a lien could be placed on his or  her property or on a vehicle excise tax bill. Violations could mean a fine of $50 per day up to $1,000.

S.B. 406 which has been replaced by a more comprehensive bill, S.B. 2172 would also require a dog to be declared dangerous for unjustified "physical injury" to a person or domestic or "owned" animal, which could mean any level of bite. The dog would also be declared dangerous for behavior that would cause a reasonable person to believe there is an unjustified imminent threat of danger of physical injury to people or domestic or "owned" animals. That bill would make clear that barking and growling, separately or together, is not sufficient to have a dog declared dangerous.  

The dog could be seized and impounded and also ordered "humanely restrained", "confined", euthanized or subject to any number of conditions as described in the bill including:

(1) confinement to the owner's premises, and if outside, in a securely enclosed and locked pen or dog run with a secure top, and if the structure has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than 2 feet.  (2) "proper shelter from the elements", (3)  when the dog is off the owner's premises, securely and humanely muzzled and restrained with a chain or other tethering device having a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds and not exceeding 3 feet in length; (4) owners must maintain a policy of insurance in an amount not less than $100,000 to cover any injuries or damages caused by the dangerous dog; (5) a means of permanent identification such as microchipping or tattoos; (6) spay/neuter unless a veterinarian certifies the dog is unfit for alterations.

A minor could not have charge of a dangerous dog.

The bill would prohibit the transfer, sale, breeding, or buying, or attempt to buy, a dangerous dog. No dangerous dog could be ordered out of the state. That means the dog could not be sent to a sanctuary or other place outside of the state.

A violation could mean a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 60 days for the first offense and not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days for a second or subsequent offense, or both. The dog is, of course, subject to seizure in the event of violations.

The costs assessed in the event of appeals are the same as described for H.B. 1997.

Neither bill really requires owners to take action before there is an injury as a potentially dangerous dog law would. Also, S.B. 2172's onerous insurance requirement is sure to mean many dogs will be surrendered simply because it is unavailable or unaffordable.   

H.B. 913

Another Massachusetts bill, H.B. 913, would prohibit companies offering homeowner's insurance from discriminating against insureds based on the breeds of their dogs. The bill makes clear that insurers could cancel or refuse to renew policies or raise premiums for insureds whose dogs are declared "dangerous".

Also, under this bill, dog bites must be reported and statistics kept including the breed of the dog involved. Insurers would not be liable for any damages from a bite not reported. 

This bill has been stuck for over a year in the Joint Committee on Financial Services.     

If you live in Massachusetts, find your state legislators here. Urge your Massachusetts legislators to pass this bill but without the requirement of reporting "breed" of a dog involved in a bite. It is virtually impossible to determine the breed of a dog based on appearance and identifications like this are likely to lead to statistics based on incorrect information. What is important is not the dog's appearance or breed, but the circumstances of the bite. That way we will learn how best to address the reasons for bites and prevent them in the future.