Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| When Fido is Family: How Landlord-Imposed Pet Bans Restrict Access to Housing | Kate O'Reilly-Jones | 52 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 427 (Spring, 2019) | Renters today face widespread landlord-imposed pet restrictions. At the same time, Americans increasingly view their pets as family members, and many do not see giving up their animals as an option when looking for housing. Consequently, pet-owning renters often struggle to find suitable places to live and end up compromising on quality, location, and safety. As homeownership drops and renting becomes more prevalent across the United States, landlord-imposed pet restrictions increasingly constrain choices, effectively reducing access to housing for many Americans. These policies particularly impact low-income families and those with socially-maligned dog breeds. This Note analyzes how landlord-imposed pet restrictions burden renters with dogs, with a particular focus on renters in the Los Angeles area. Parts II and III explain how legal and cultural attitudes toward pets are evolving, and how public and private restrictions constrain pet ownership. Part IV discusses the impact of landlord-imposed pet restrictions on renters and compares the situation to non-rental contexts in which people have sacrificed their own well-being to protect their pets. Part V asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the penumbral right to privacy can be interpreted to protect pet-owning families from government-imposed pet restrictions. It argues that while these constitutional protections do not apply in the private rental context, they do suggest that landlords unreasonably infringe on renters' privacy interests and that legislators should act to constrain landlord control. |
| The Post-Conviction Remedy for Pit Bulls: What Today’s Science Tells Us About Breed-Specific Legislation | Katie Barnett | 67 Syracuse L. Rev. 241 (2017) | This Article examines the pseudo-science used in the past, the science we have today, and how “pit bulls” are among the more popular breeds adopted from animal shelters safely living in communities nationwide, yet are targeted with specific legislation in many municipalities. Distinguished from criminal eyewitness identification cases, this Article looks at the breed-specific legislation issue in terms of the entire breed being convicted on eyewitness testimony, not on a case-by-case basis like we see in criminal cases. Because breed-specific legislation targets an entire population of family pets based on breed, this Article argues for a better examination of the reliability of breed identification and the science used to uphold the constitutionality of the legislation. |
| The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination by Homeowners' Insurance Companies | Larry Cunningham | 11 Conn. Ins. L.J. 1 (2004) |
Part I of this article gives an overview of the problem: dog breed discrimination by insurers, as well as a related problem of breed-specific legislation by some states. Part II analyzes the major scientific studies on dog bites, showing that no one has adequately proven that some breeds are more inherently dangerous than others. Part III shows that breed discrimination and breed-specific legislation are opposed by most veterinary and animal groups. Part IV demonstrates that insurers have been ignoring the unique and special role that pets play in millions of American homes. Part V shows how the insurance industry is a highly regulated industry which subjects itself to legislative control where, as here, the public is being harmed by underwriting decisions not driven by actuarial justification. |
| Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior | Jamey Medlin | 56 DePaul L. Rev. 1285 (2007) |
This Comment examines the reasons for breed-specific legislation and looks at some of the human factors behind the “breed” problem. It argues that instead of targeting specific breeds, municipalities should enforce existing animal control laws and punish the human behavior that leads to dog attacks. This Comment concludes that laws addressing human behavior, rather than breed bans, are a better long-term solution to further public safety and animal welfare. |
| Overview of the Laws Regulating Rescue and Foster Care Programs for Companion Animals | Kristen Pariser | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This overview examines how states deal with foster care and other non-profit rescue organizations. It details how states define such organizations and what laws may affect their operations. The paper also discusses potential legal issues that arise with pet rescue and fostering. |
| Overview of States that Prohibit BSL | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This document lists the states that prohibit the regulation of dogs by local governments based on breed, commonly known as breed-specific legislation. The laws are divided into two general categories: (1) states that prohibit breed-specific legislation (BSL) in all animal regulation (10 states); and (2) states that prohibit BSL in dangerous/vicious dog laws (16 states). In total, there are approximately 22 states with some sort of anti-BSL legislation (combining both (1) and (2) together, and not counting DE, IL, and VA twice because they have both such laws). The pertinent part of the legislation is included in this list as well as a link to the actual laws. A further distinction has to be made in the application of some of these laws in the dangerous dog category. Some laws state that municipalities may not regulate dangerous dogs based solely on breed while other laws simply say that breed cannot be used to prove a dangerous dog declaration. |
| Overview of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) Ordinances | Charlotte A. Walden | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is created when a municipality or a county believes a certain breed of dog poses a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare. While this website does not contain every ordinance relating to BSL, it does contain many samples of how BSL can be constructed. For more information on your city's or county's ordinances, please contact the city or county of interest. |
| Overview of Breed Specific Legislation | Anna Jones | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
A breed ban, also known as breed specific legislation or “BSL” are all names for an ordinance that restricts ownership or possession of certain identified breeds of dogs. |
| Investigation of Maquoketa's Pit Bull Ban Ordinance and Enforcement | William P. Angrick II, Iowa Ombudsman | When a citizen's dog was considered to be a pit bull mix, she was ordered to remove the animal from the city. She filed a complaint to the Iowa Ombudman.The Iowa Ombudsman investigates complaints against Iowa state and local government agencies.The Iowa Ombudsman can investigate agency action and publish a report of findings and make recommendations. This is one of the publications regarding Maquoketa's Pit Bull Ban Ordinance. | |
| Dog-Focused Law's Impact on Disability Rights: Ontario's Pit Bull Legislation as a Case in Point | Barbara Hanson | 12 Animal L. 217 (2005) |
Legislation that affects dogs also affects persons with disabilities to some extent. This link shows up in statutory definitions, is justified by social construction theory, and has been reified in case law. Thus, it is important to examine statutes like Ontario’s pit bull legislation (OPBL) in terms of their potential impact on persons with disabilities. Upon close examination, it appears that the legislation suffers from vague definitions, conflicting onus of proof, absence of fair process, and severe penalties, including imprisonment. Further, it contains no reference to dogs used by persons with disabilities. This means that there is potential for persons with disabilities to suffer negative consequences and a need to consider disability rights in dog-focused legislation. |