Anti-Dog Breed-Specific Legislation by State
The following is a list of states that prohibit dog breed-specific legislation (BSL), including the provision wording. Note: These aren’t necessarily bans against all forms of breed-specific legislation.
Table of Contents
1. Arizona
2. California
3. Colorado
4. Connecticut
5. Delaware
6. Florida
7. Illinois
8. Maine
9. Massachusetts
10. Minnesota
11. Nevada
12. New Jersey
13. New York
14. Oklahoma
15. Pennsylvania
16. Rhode Island
17. South Carolina
18. South Dakota
19. Texas
20. Utah
21. Virginia
22. Washington
Arizona
Section 1. Section 9-499.04, Arizona Revised Statutes
C. A city or town may regulate the control of dogs if the regulation is not specific to any breed.
11-1005. Powers and duties of board of supervisors
A. Each county board of supervisors may:
3. Contract with any city or town to enforce the provisions of any ordinance enacted by such city or town for the control of dogs if the provisions are not specific to any breed
California
Agric.Code Section 31683
31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no program regulating any dog shall be specific as to breed.
CA Health & Safety Code § 122330 (through 2012 Leg Sess)
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals contributes to pet overpopulation, inhumane treatment of animals, mass euthanasia at local shelters, and escalating costs for animal care and control; this irresponsible breeding also contributes to the production of defective animals that present a public safety risk.
(b) Though no specific breed of dog is inherently dangerous or vicious, the growing pet overpopulation and lack of regulation of animal breeding practices necessitates a repeal of the ban on breed-specific solutions and a more immediate alternative to existing laws.
(c) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to permit cities and counties to take appropriate action aimed at eliminating uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals
Colorado
COLO.REV.. STAT. ANN. §18-9-204.5(5)(a)
(5) (a) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a municipality from adopting any rule or law for the control of dangerous dogs; except that any such rule or law shall not regulate dangerous dogs in a manner that is specific to breed.
Connecticut
Chapter 98 Section 7-148(D)(i)
(D) (i) Regulate and prohibit the going at large of dogs and other animals in the streets and public places of the municipality and prevent cruelty to animals and all inhuman sports, except that no municipality shall adopt breed-specific dog ordinances;
Delaware
Delaware Code Title 11, § 1327
(c): "No dog shall be considered dangerous or potentially dangerous solely because of the dog’s breed or perceived breed.
Delaware Code Title 16, § 3077F
Section 2, (b): "(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous based solely on the dog’s breed or perceived breed"
Delaware Code Title 22, § 116
"The municipal governments shall enact no law, ordinance, or regulation relating to dogs, or restrictions on dogs, based on a dog’s breed or perceived breed."
Florida
Fla. Stat. Ann. 767.14
Additional local restrictions authorized. — Nothing in this act shall limit any local government from placing further restrictions or additional requirements on owners of dangerous dogs or developing procedures and criteria for the implementation of this act, provided that no such regulation is specific to breed and that the provisions of this act are not lessened by such additional regulations or requirements. This section shall not apply to any local ordinance adopted prior to October 1, 1990
Home starts with you
Illinois
(510 ILCS 5/15)
No dog shall be deemed "vicious" if it is a professionally trained dog for law enforcement or guard duties. Vicious dogs shall not be classified in a manner that is specific as to breed.
510 ILCS 5/24
Sec. 24. Nothing in this Act shall be held to limit in any manner the power of any municipality or other political subdivision to prohibit animals from running at large, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to, in any manner, limit the power of any municipality or other political subdivision to further control and regulate dogs, cats or other animals in such municipality or other political subdivision provided that no regulation, policy or ordinance is specific to breed.
Maine
725 Section 3950
§3950. Local regulations
Each municipality is empowered to adopt or retain more stringent ordinances, laws or regulations dealing with the subject matter of this chapter, except that municipalities may not adopt breed-specific ordinances, laws or regulations. Any less restrictive municipal ordinances, laws or regulations are invalid and of no force and effect.
Massachusetts
Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 157
Section 157. (a) Any person may file a complaint in writing to the hearing authority that a dog owned or kept in the city or town is a nuisance dog or a dangerous dog; provided, however, that no dog shall be deemed dangerous: (i) solely based upon growling or barking or solely growling and barking; (ii) based upon the breed of the dog; or (iii) if the dog was reacting to another animal or to a person and the dog’s reaction was not grossly disproportionate to any of the following circumstances. (vii) No order shall be issued directing that a dog deemed dangerous shall be removed from the town or city in which the owner of the dog resides. No city or town shall regulate dogs in a manner that is specific to breed.
Minnesota
MINN. STAT. ANN. §347.51
Subd. 8. Local ordinances.
A statutory or home rule charter city, or a county, may not adopt an ordinance regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed of the dog. Ordinances inconsistent with this subdivision are void.
Nevada
N.R.S. 202.500
3. A dog may not be found dangerous or vicious:
(a) Based solely on the breed of the dog; or
(b) Because of a defensive act against a person who was committing or attempting to commit a crime or who provoked the dog.
New Jersey
N.J. STAT. ANN. § 4:19-36
The provisions of this act shall supersede any law, ordinance, or regulation concerning vicious or potentially dangerous dogs, any specific breed of dog, or any other type of dog inconsistent with this act enacted by any municipality, county, or county or local board of health.
New York
New York Ag & Markets S. 107.5
(5.) Nothing contained in this article shall prevent a municipality from adopting its own program for the control of dangerous dogs; provided, however, that no such program shall be less stringent than this article, and no such program shall regulate such dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision one of this section, this subdivision and sections one hundred twenty-three, one hundred twenty-three-a and one hundred twenty-three-b of this article shall apply to all municipalities including cities of two million or more.
Oklahoma
OKLA.STAT.ANN. tit.4, §46(B)
B. Potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs may be regulated through local, municipal and county authorities, provided the regulations are not breed specific. Nothing in this act shall prohibit such local governments from enforcing penalties for violation of such local laws.
Pennsylvania
PA.CONS. STAT. ANN. § 459-507-A
(c) Local ordinances. Those provisions of local ordinances relating to dangerous dogs are hereby abrogated. A local ordinance otherwise dealing with dogs may not prohibit or otherwise limit a specific breed of dog.
(d) Insurance coverage discrimination. No liability policy or surety bond issued pursuant to this act or any other act may prohibit coverage from any specific breed of dog.
Rhode Island
§4-13-43 and §4-13.1-16
§ 4-13-43. Prohibition of breed specific regulation
No city or town may enact any rule, regulation or ordinance specific to any breed of dog or cat in the exercise of its power to further control and regulate dogs, cats or other animals as authorized by this chapter. Section 4-13.1-16. Prohibition of breed specific regulation. No city or town may enact any rule, regulation or ordinance specific to any breed of dog or cat in the exercise of its power to further control or regulate dogs, cats or other animals as authorized by this chapter.
South Carolina
47-3-710(C)
(C) An animal is not a "dangerous animal" solely by virtue of its breed or species.
South Dakota
Chapter 40-34-16 Ordinance specific to breed of dog prohibited
No local government, as defined in § 6-1-12, may enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance, policy, resolution, or other enactment that is specific as to the breed or perceived breed of a dog. This section does not impair the right of any local government unit to enact, maintain, or enforce any form of regulation that applies to all dogs.
Texas
TEX.HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §822.047
Sec. 822.047. LOCAL REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS. A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if the requirements or restrictions:
(1) are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs; and
(2) are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter.
Utah
18-2-1, Utah Code Annotated
18-2-1. Regulation of dogs by a municipality.
(1) A municipality may not adopt or enforce a breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs.
(2) Any breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs is void.
Virginia
VA.CODE ANN. §3.2-6540.1 C. and Section 3.2-6540 K 1
C. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous dog. No animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog.VA Code A. Section 3.2-6540 K (1) K. No animal shall be found by the court to be a dangerous dog:1. Solely because it is a particular breed.
Washington
Chapter 16.08,110 RCW
(1) A city or county may not prohibit the possession of a dog based upon its breed, impose requirements specific to possession of a dog based upon its breed, or declare a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous based on its breed unless all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The city or county has established and maintains a reasonable process for exempting any dog from breed-based regulations or a breed ban if the dog passes the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test as determined by the city or county;
(b) Dogs that pass the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test are exempt from breed-based regulations for a period of at least two years;
(c) Dogs that pass the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test are given the opportunity to retest to maintain their exemption from breed-based regulations; and
(d) Dogs that fail the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test are given the opportunity to retest within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the city or county.
