CA Foie Gras Tumbles; ABA Against Breed Discrimination

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-56822/12-56822-2013-08-30.pdf  Foie Gras law challenge falls

*Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of Colorado Federal District Court was on this panel.

Judge Daniel also decided that a breed ban in Aurora CO was legal about 4-5yr ago, despite evidence that of all banned breeds listed, the totality of any bite incidents was not different than any other dogs. Several years later, Aurora voluntarily dropped all of the dog breeds on the banned list — except for the generic pitbulls.

The ABA believes that dog laws should not be based upon breed.

Opposition to laws banning dogs by breed grows

The Obama (cringe) administration recently came out against breed-specific legislation, and so far this year, three more states have joined the ranks of those that ban these laws, which restrict ownership of dogs by breed.  With the addition of Rhode Island, Connecticut and Nevada, 16 states now prohibit cities and counties from restricting dogs based on their breed.

Breed-discriminatory laws, such as the ones that ban, restrict and kill common short-haired muscular dogs,  can quickly become a serious burden on local governments and a waste of tax dollars. Furthermore, the enforcement of these laws drains needed resources from truly important and vital government services, such as fire protection, parks and road maintenance.
California’s government has a responsibility to make decisions based on facts, not reactively and  without considering the cost of its actions.

EXAMPLE: this is from best friends in Utah and we do not like best friends. however this just shows how much it  theoretically costs to try and enact BSL…….

http://bestfriends.guerrillaeconomics.net/public/best%20friends%20methodology%20and%20write%20up.pdf

If California were to enact a breed-discriminatory law, it can expect animal control services to need an additional

$34.17 million for enforcement,

$10.27
million for kenneling,

$5.30 million for DNA testing,

$15.65 million for legal services, and

$1.25
million for the cost of killing the pets that they confiscate. These are significant budgetary costs,
totaling $66.63 million.

Governments that codify canine profiling have the burden of proving the heritage of individual pets and providing constitutional due process protections before taking them away from their families. As a result, the costs for enforcement go well beyond the traditional role of animal control services that target the actual behavior of individual dogs, and into other more costly areas of local government, frequently involving expensive and lengthy litigation. During the court proceedings, the city is
responsible for picking up the tab for housing the dog until the trial and appeal is concluded.
*  What is not mentioned is that DNA testing for animals like generic type pitbulls is not going to meet with the scientific data required for court since the DNA testing is usually flawed for several reasons. Much of the DNA database was from the canines out of AKC and the APBT is not even recognized by AKC. correct us if we are wrong but it would seem to convict some dogs and not others.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s