STATE
|
LANGUAGE
|
COMMENT
|
HOME RULE ISSUES
|
CALIFORNIA
|
|
|
|
CALIFORNIA FOOD AND
AGRICULTURAL CODE
Section 31683
[Dangerous Dog Law
Sections 31601-31683]
|
Effective January, 2006, as
amended:
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.”
[Original provision:
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, provided that no
program shall regulate these dogs
in a manner that is specific as to
breed.]
|
In 2005, California SB 861
modified the
comprehensive breed
specific preemption
originally enacted in 1989
by SB 428. The remainder
of the state statute on
dangerous and vicious
dogs remains unchanged
but applies only to
individual dogs based on
specific criteria.
|
N/A
|
COLORADO
|
|
|
|
18-9-204.5. Unlawful
ownership of dangerous
dog.
|
(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.
|
Enacted 2004. Challenged
successfully by City and
County of Denver, a home
rule municipal corporation
of the State of Colorado.
|
YES, UPHELD BY COURT
Article XX, Section 6,
Colorado Constitution
|
FLORIDA
|
|
|
|
Florida Statutes
CHAPTER 767
DAMAGE BY DOGS
|
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.
History.--s. 5, ch. 90-180.
|
Langauge is limited to
"owners" and
implementation of
dangerous dog law
provisions.
Pre-10/1/90 ordinances are
not affected, including
those litigated.
2008 Pre-filed Florida bill,
H 101
would repeal preemption
|
|
ILLINOIS
|
|
|
|
(510 ILCS 5/15) (from
Ch. 8, par. 365)
(510 ILCS 5/24) (from
Ch. 8, par. 374)
|
Original, limited to vicious
determinations:
Sec. 15. (a) ... 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. ..
Comprehensive,, enacted 2003 by
H184:
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 or ordinance is specific to
breed.
(Source: P.A. 93-548, eff. 8-19-03.)
|
|
YES
Constitution of the State of
Illinois
ARTICLE VII
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
|
MAINE
|
|
|
|
Maine Legislature Title 7:
AGRICULTURE AND
ANIMALS
Part 9: ANIMAL WELFARE
Chapter 725: MUNICIPAL
DUTIES
|
§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. [1991, c. 779, §40
(amd).]
1. Certain agricultural working dogs
exempt from barking dog
ordinances. A municipal ordinance,
law or regulation that prohibits or
limits barking dogs does not apply to
dogs engaged in herding livestock or
to agricultural guard dogs engaged
in protecting livestock or warning the
owners of danger to the livestock.
For the purposes of this subsection,
the term "livestock" has the same
meaning as in section 3907,
subsection 18-A.[2005, c. 138, §1
(new).]
|
This provision is not limited
to dangerous/vicious laws
and appears to extend
beyond ordinances.
This agricultural barking
preemption is general and
an example of a state
preemption of a subject
other than related to
breeds.
|
|
MINNESOTA
|
|
|
|
Minnesota Statutes
347.51 Dangerous dogs;
registration.
|
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.
|
Language is limited to
dangerous dog subject
and ordinances.
|
NO, EXPRESSLY
STATED IN STATUTE
|
NEW JERSEY
|
|
|
|
N.J.S.A. 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 State
Consolidated Laws
Agriculture & Markets
ARTICLE 7- LICENSING,
IDENTIFICATION AND
CONTROL OF DOGS
S 107. Application.
|
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
section one hundred twenty-one of
this article shall apply to all
municipalities including cities of two
million or more.
|
Refers to "program" which
is broader than ordinance,
law or regulation.
|
|
OKLAHOMA
|
|
|
|
OKLAHOMA STATUTES
TITLE 4. ANIMALS
§4-46. Muzzle and restraint
of certain dogs required -
Local regulation of
dangerous dogs - Dogs not
to be declared dangerous.
|
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
|
|
|
|
PURDON'S
PENNSYLVANIA
STATUTES ANNOTATED.
TITLE 3. AGRICULTURE.
CHAPTER 8. DOGS. DOG
LAW. ARTICLE V-A.
DANGEROUS DOGS
PA ST 3 P.S. § 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.
|
|
|
TEXAS
|
|
|
|
Texas Health & Safety Code
CHAPTER 822.
REGULATION OF ANIMALS
SUBCHAPTER A. DOGS
THAT ARE A DANGER TO
PERSONS
|
§ 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.
|
Added by Acts 1991, 72nd
Leg., ch. 916, § 1, eff. Sept.
1, 1991.
|
Article II, Section 5 Texas
Constitution: home rule
city can not enact an
ordinance that "contains
any provision inconsistent
with the Constitution of
the State, or of the
general laws enacted by
the Legislature of this
State."
|
VIRGINIA
|
|
|
|
§ 3.1-796.93:1. Control of
dangerous or vicious dogs;
penalties.
|
C. No canine or canine crossbreed
shall be found to be a dangerous
dog or vicious 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 or vicious
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 or a vicious 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 or a vicious dog.
|
October 2006 Attorney
General Opinion
06-078 The Honorable
Kenneth Cooper
Alexander
Member, House of
Delegates Publicly
funded animal shelters
or “pounds” may not
euthanize dogs based
solely upon breed.
NEW 2/23/07
|
|
