Have you heard the term "breed ban" before? It is defined as "municipalities and other political subdivisions
to ban specified dog breeds (American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, pit bull, pit bull terrier,
rottweiler, and Staffordshire terrier) and to regulate dogs by breed" by The United States Humane Society on their
Web site, www.hsus.org
Has it come to pass that our society is actually holding dogs accountable for their behavior?
Whatever happened to enforcing the laws that are already on the books concerning individual dogs that are vicious and holding
their owners accountable? Are other areas of the country just not as progressive as Nevada?
If you read our vicious dog statutes NRS 202.500, you get a clear understanding of what the law is, how a vicious dog is defined,
how the law is to be enforced and the penalties associated with owning and keeping a vicious dog.
Some insurance companies have decided to jump on the bandwagon and will either not insure folks with certain breeds of
dogs or simply charge a person an exorbitant amount for their policy if they choose to have a certain breed of dog.
This puts a lot of families in the predicament of having to choose between their dog and their home, even if the dog
has never bitten or shown aggression toward anyone.
For many people, their dog is another member of the family. The breeds that insurance companies seem partial to
include rottweilers, German shepherds, Doberman pinschers, Akitas, pit bulls, and chows.
The dogs potentially displaced because a family has no choice wind up at a shelter or are simply euthanized, again
through no fault of their own (seems like I am chanting this these days). What a waste. The insurance situation has
arisen because of the number of cases of dog bites that have gone to trial; this equates directly into dollars for them.
Monticello, Iowa, along with Ontario, Canada, have successfully passed breed ban legislation. Here is a list of other
areas that are considering such measures: Los Angeles; Arkadelphia and Shannon Hills, Arkansas; Lancaster, Ohio;
North Chicago; and Fall River, Missouri. Parts of Colorado are considering bans: Lafayette (considering 26 breeds of dogs
to be banned), Colorado Springs, Arvada, La Junta, Longmont, North Glenn, Estes Park, Thorton, Federal Heights, and Rocky Ford.
The wording in some of the legislation goes so far as to say if the dog has the physical traits or distinguishing
characteristics of a breed in question it could be up for enforcement of the law. So now does Mr. Animal Control have
to decide if the dog looks enough like a pit bull to consider him a vicious dog and impose the regulations appropriate?
The best quote I read when researching this article was "punish the deed not the breed." It seems that sweeping laws
aimed at fixing a symptom do nothing to solve the problem. As soon as these supposed "vicious" breeds are eliminated,
the people who seek that type of dog will find a replacement. Maybe we could just give them vicious goldfish.
To see what CAPS is up to, visit our Website at www.capsnv.org
Jennifer Williamson is president of CAPS.
The Media On Our Side
