Breed Specific Legislation
Indiana updated 7/17/09
* * * * * * * * *

• Show Low ~ After a public study session, city councilmembers have decided against any breed specific legislation. Any changes that might be made to their current dangerous dog laws would be to stiffen penalties and tighten existing regulations.

• Bentonville ~ Has currently tabled their BSL bill and are researching other options.
• McGehee ~ Has outright BANNED pit bulls, Staffordshires, American Bulldogs and dogs recognizable as pit bulls from their city limits. Dogs already living in the city can be grandfathered in, provided owners follow these rules; Be at least 21 years old. Provide proof of rabies vaccination. Spay or neuter the dog. Have a registration number tattooed on the dog’s abdomen. The dog must be kept in a secure house or kennel. Be securely controlled by a leash no longer than 6 feet. Signs must be placed on the house which states “Beware of Dog”. And the dogs cannot be kept on a porch or patio.
• Hot Springs ~ Ordinance has passed which prohibits the adoption of pit bulls and pit bull mixes from shelters, as well as preventing the purchase of pit bulls or pit bull mixes from breeders or pet stores.
• North Little Rock ~ Approved new dangerous dog legislation, which includes "pit bulls". Current owners of these breeds must register them with the city and obtain $100,000 liability insurance.

• Sonoma County ~ Amendments to local ordinances were approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 18th. The amendments require mandatory spaying and neutering of all dogs caught running at large and any pit bull over 4 months old. Further amendments prohibit the chaining or tethering of any dog for more than 12 hours, along with shelter requirements. The current law has been changed to a one bite law, with injury or death to another animal being grounds for declaring a dog potentially dangerous.
• Ukiah ~ It was the consensus of the City Council to have a general discussion in March 2006 concerning the matter of banning dogs from public events.
• San Francisco – Passed a mandatory spay and neuter law for “pit bulls”. The only way to avoid spaying or neutering your dog is to obtain a $100 breeders permit. To apply for the permit owners must prove their dog(s) is registered with the UKC, AKC or ADBA. They must also prove that their dog has competed in a licensed conformation show within a 1 year period.

• Lakewood ~ Has passed a dangerous dog ordinance with NO breed specific wording. Thanks so much to everyone who worked so hard for this!
• Senate bill 54, which would have overturned the current anti-BSL legislation has been defeated! Thanks to everyone who worked against this bill and congratulations!
• Commerce City & Aurora ~ have passed a ban against pit bulls (defined as American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers and any mix thereof.) Dogs currently owned will be grandfathered in, and owners must obtain licenses for their dogs, must carry $100,000 liability insurance and must spay or neuter their dogs.
• Aurora ~ BSL ordinance which covers “pit bulls”, American Bulldogs, Dogo Argentinos, Canary dogs, Ca De Bous, Tosa Inus and Cane Corsos, has passed. Current owners could be grandfathered in if they register their animals within 60 days, obtain liability insurance and spay/neuter. • Denver ~ Has repealed the statewide law banning BSL on "homerule" grounds. The ban on pit bulls is now legal again and will be enforced.

• H6543, a bill which prohibits insurance agencies from altering insurance coverage based on breed of dog owned, failed to pass prior to adjournment of legislature.
• Sponsored by Rep. Nafis, Bill H5709 prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage based on breed. Seems to have died in committee. No actions have been taken since 3/24/2005.

• Newcastle ~ Councilman Street is pushing for BSL which would force muzzling of any pit bull or pit bull mix when off of their owner's property, confinement requirements, gate signs and $100,000 liability insurance. The ordinance was introduced on Feb 28th, 2006.

Florida currently has a statute that bans BSL, but that was passed after Miami Dade county already had enacted BSL. There are two new bills in the Florida House and Senate that intend to overturn BSL – they are HB 543 and SB 1276. More info on those bills at
• Deltona ~ Passed generic non-breed specific dangerous dog law as opposed to BSL.
• Ocala ~ Considering dangerous dog legislation that will probably be breed specific.
• Village of Tequesta ~ Proposed a city council study session concerning dangerous dogs, but so far no study session has been held.
• Pembroke Pines ~ Approved an ordinance that classifies dogs as vicious after one bite and requires owners of dangerous dog to hold $300,000 in liability insurance. The legislation does not differentiate between an animal bite or human bite, nor aggressive bites versus accidental bites.

• H78 (This bill prohibits the ownership of “pit bulls”...) Rep. Williams has decided not to pursue BSL
• Catoosa County ~ Has passed a law which labels pit bulls, Rottweilers and Chow Chows as “vicious dogs”. Dogs must be kept in locked enclosures, restrained and muzzled when off the owner’s property and be insured for any damages which the dog may inflict.

• Sponsored by Rep. Sonson, Bill HB870 holds the owners of “pit bulls” strictly liable for any injuries or damages if their dog bites or attacks without provocation. Pit bulls are defined as Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers. Passed first reading, referred to the JUD (1-31) Carried over to 2006 legislative session.

• Hoffman Estates ~ The city's dangerous dog law, which deemed "pit bulls" vicious, has been repealed.
• North Chicago ~ Has passed BSL which forces provisions such as: a kennel license, restricts the ownership of more than two pit bulls, $100,000 liability insurance, secure enclosure on the property and leashed and muzzled dogs when off of their property. This legislation is effective May 1, 2006.
• Chicago ~ Alderman Rugai is proposing an ordinance which would ban ownership of “pit bulls” within city limits. Even temporary housing of a “pit bull” could result in fines of $100 - $1000 and/or up to six months in jail. Non-residents would be given an hour to transport a pit bull through city limits (how would this be determined?) or be fined and/or incarcerated. If passed, current owners of pit bulls would have to remove their dogs within 30 days.
• SB1790 deems “pit bulls”, Rottweilers, German Shepherd dogs, Siberian Husky, Alaskan Malamute, Doberman Pinscher, Chow Chow, Great Dane, St. Bernard and Akitas dangerous dogs. Owners must obtain liability insurance, register with the state, spay or neuter, microchip and muzzle when on public property. Referred to Rules Committee
• HB2946 Has passed the house and is now going to the Senate. Referred to Rules Committee
• HB4212 - Amends the Animal Control Act. Authorizes municipalities and other political subdivisions to ban specified dog breeds and to regulate dogs by breed. Would be effective immediately. Referred to Rules Committee
• Tryon has dropped his sponsorship of H4213 to focus on HR866, which is a resolution to establish a taskforce to study the issue of dangerous dogs and recommend laws to protect the public. HJ101 is a joint resolution supported by Rep. Boland.
• HB4213 - Amends the Animal Control Act. Requires owners of dangerous and vicious dogs to maintain liability insurance for damage, injury, and death caused by the dog. Requires that a dog's breed be considered in the determination of the dog as dangerous or vicious if the dog is of a breed presumed to be a dangerous or vicious breed. Authorizes municipalities and other political subdivisions to ban those breeds and to regulate dogs by breed. Changes the physical requirements for keeping dangerous and vicious dogs. Beginning January 1, 2007, creates, and changes the penalties for existing, offenses with respect to dangerous and vicious dogs. Would be effective immediately. Assigned to Agriculture and Conservation Committee
• HB4761 – Allows Animal Control warden to find a dog vicious under certain circumstances. Sets forth certain factors that must be considered in determining whether the dog is an undue danger, factors include breed. Would be effective immediately. This bill has been referred to the Rules Committee.
• Alderwoman Rugai has introduced a bill which would ban “pit bulls”. Currently owned dogs could be grandfathered in, provided their owners microchip, spay or neuter and keep their dogs in enclosures when outside. Owners would be allowed a maximum of 2 dangerous dogs. She is hoping to pass this law by using home rule, which is how Denver passed their ban recently.

• South Bend ~ Within the city limits the following are required: dangerous dog license for a pit bull (cost $75). The dog must be microchipped. Dog must have registered pictures from the front and side Owner must carry personal injury insurance for $300,000. Dog must always be on a leash outside or in a "kennel", (6 x 6 enclosure of chain link fence or chicken wire). South Bend's Animal Care and Control ph# 574.235.9303. website
• Indianapolis ~ Currently, the city council has decided to pursue a dangerous dog law with no breed specific wording in it.
• Crown Point ~ In November a new ordinance was passed that defined dangerous dogs as all American Pit bull Terriers and dogs with a history of attack. The ordinance was not enforced, so the city council has begun working on new legislation, which does not include breed. Latest news was that the city council was to vote on December 6th. Please show your support by praising the Crown Point City Council for eliminating breed from their legislation.

• Davenport ~ A committee is considering a ban on pit bulls within the city. A meeting was planned and many fanciers, veterinarians, animal control officers and dog trainers attended. So far, it seems that there will not be a ban, but keep an eye on this area. Thanks so much for everyone who attended and spoke up!
• Carter Lake ~ BSL has been passed with no opposition. The ordinance allows current pit bulls to be kept as long as regulations are followed. $100,000 in liability insurance must be obtained; the dog must be spayed or neutered and kept in specific enclosures. When your pit bull dies, you are prohibited from getting another one.

• Overland Park ~ As of July 26th, all currently owned pit bulls must be registered with the city. Animal control will then decide whether the dog is a dangerous animal or not, and issue a permit accordingly. Any puppies born within city limits must be removed within six weeks. There are also containment restrictions, muzzle requirements and signs declaring "Beware of Dog" must be posted on your property.
• Hesston ~ Has enacted BSL which bans ownership of "pit bulls" (Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers) and Rottweilers. Currently owned dogs of these breeds may be grandfathered in, but must follow the standard restrictions (secure confinement, muzzled and leashed, liability insurance.)
• Mission Hills ~ Defined their classification of dangerous dogs as one who inflicts severe injury on a person or kills another domestic animal without provocation. “Pit bulls” have now been reclassified as “potentially dangerous dogs”. The standard requirement of muzzling and a 4-foot leash have been instilled.

• Louisville ~ Lawmakers have proposed an ordinance which, if passed, places restrictions on the ownership of pit bulls, including but not limited to: locked enclosures, no pit bulls to reside on the same premises as a minor, five foot leashes, registration with the city and licensing. The proposal is currently in committee. **The pit bull ban has been passed and is effective June 1st, 2006. The ordinance is being opposed by residents.
• Taylor Mill ~ Considering a full ban or tough restrictions on pit bulls and other "vicious dogs".
• Ludlow ~ Banned pit bulls within the city limits. I have no information as to whether dogs already owned will be grandfathered in.

Sponsored by Senator Mitchell, Bill S169 prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage based on breed of dog owned. Passed the House, and is now sitting in the Senate waiting to be heard.

• Prince George County ~ Are considering revising their current dangerous dog legislation. The potential revisions consist of removing the Breed Specific wording of the law, and adding a "dangerous dog" definition, which would cover all breeds. Next week (Sept 13th) the Health, Education and Public Services committee will hold a meeting to hear the revision proposal.

• Fall River – The city is considering restricting the ownership of Rottweilers and "pit bulls". The Mayor has indicated that he opposes BSL.
• HB 3563 by Rep Brad Hill ~ A dangerous dog bill which prohibits BSL at the state level and defines dangerous dogs on their actions. Anyone living in Massachusetts is encouraged to support this bill. No activity
• Spencer ~ An ordinance will be voted on which defines a “vicious” dog as any wolf hybrid. While this isn’t pit bull specific, it IS breed specific and should be fought just the same. The typical restrictions apply, register with the county, muzzled when off the owner’s property, locked enclosures and liability insurance. No updated information available
• S169, which would have prohibited insurance companies from denying or canceling insurance based on breed of dog, died in session.

• Commerce Township ~ Considering a ban on “pit bulls”. Still in the planning stages, so letters of opposition to the city council are strongly encouraged. No furter action found
• Battle Creek ~ Adopted a non-breed specific dangerous dog law. Congratulations to everyone to worked so hard on this legislation!

• St. Charles ~ Rewording their dangerous dog law draft which included labeling pit bulls and Rottweilers as “vicious” dogs. Great job to everyone who worked to oppose this legislation!

• Clinton ~ Has banned the ownership of pit bulls and Rottweilers within city limits. Currently owned dogs must be removed by the end of August.
• Brandon ~ As of August 17th, "pit bulls" are banned within city limits. Currently owned dogs must be removed immediately.
• Richland ~ The Aldermen of the city have adopted an ordinance that bans pit bulls, Staffordshire bull terrier and American Staffordshire terriers with the city limits. Current owners of such breeds have until June 1st, to place their dogs or move with their dogs, there seems to be no grandfather clause for residents
• Starkville ~ Officials are considering a breed-specific ordinance to regulate “pit bulls”. As of March 11th, a committee (including the Oktibbeha Humane Society, the Golden Triangle KC and the city attorney) has been collected to draft a new ordinance. No word on whether it will omit any breed specific wording.

• Kansas City ~ Considering two ordinances regarding dangerous dogs. One would require mandatory spay and neutering of all "pit bulls" within the city limits. The other would label "pit bulls" dangerous dogs, and would place current dangerous dog restrictions upon the breed.
• Independance ~ Please see: for more information.
• Springfield ~ In summary, the bill states that pit bulls are banned within city limits unless the owner registers the dog with the city. The registration requirements are:
1. the owner must have proof of rabies vaccination
2. the owner must pay an annual fee of $50
3. the owner must be at least 21 years old
4. the dog must be spayed or neutered
5. the dog must be microchipped
6. the dog must be muzzled on public property
7. the owner must notify the city within 5 days if the dog is stolen, lost, or sold
8. the owner must display pit bull signs at all entrances to the dog's residence
To read the entire bill, go to
• H1686 has been introduced by Rep. Chappelle-Nadal. This bill requires that the owners of "pit bulls" purchase a $500 permit for each pit bull owned and no person may own more than 2 pit bulls. Dogs must have proof of spay or neuter, and must be muzzled when off of their owner's property.
• Jennings – Considering a ban on pit bulls.
• Springfield ~ Considering new dangerous dog legislation per their Animal Control Advisory Review Committee. Apparently, their goal is not a breed ban, but increased enforcement of their existing laws. Hopefully, this can be accomplished with any breed specific wording.
• Shrewsbury ~ All “pit bulls” and Rottweilers have been banned from the city limit. “Pit bulls” are defined as APBTs, Staffordshire bull terriers, American bulldogs, any mix thereof or any dog that resembles these breeds.
• Florissant ~Recently passed a pit bull ban. Currently owned dogs will be grandfathered in, but a one strike policy has been adopted.

• Darby ~ Have indefinitely tabled their ordinance which would ban pit bulls within city limits.

• Ceresco ~ Has banned the future ownership of pit bulls, but currently owned dogs will be grandfathered in if certain conditions are met. These conditions are $300,000 liability insurance, dogs must be spayed/neutered, the dog must be licensed and any pit bull on public property must be leashed and handled by an adult (19 or older.)
• Seward ~ Voted 8-0 against a breed specific law. Are currently working towards stronger dangerous dog laws. Keep an eye out and locals support the city council and the writing of non-breed specific laws. Might be looking to Council Bluffs to determine if/how effective BSL is. Reworded their city code to clearly indicate the manner in which dangerous dogs must be leashed when not confined, and increased the amount of liability insurance for dangerous dogs.

New Jersey
• Senator Sharpe James has pre-filed to introduce the "Responsible Pit bull Ownership Licensing Act" into this year's legislation session. Ordinance would allow a municipality to require pit bull owners to license with the state. No one under 18 would be allowed a license, and the ordinance would also allow for restrictions such as warning signs posted on the property where dog would be kept, secure enclosure when dog is outside, liability insurance, and limited allowed movement outside of property.
• Bill A3578 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Law and Public Safety. It requires the confiscation of any animal that has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited or encouraged to attack people or domestic animals from it’s owner or trainer. The owner or trainer of such an animal cannot own, harbor, adopt or reside with an animal for a period of two years without posting a $550,000 bond. Violating this act is subject to a $2,000 fine. No new activity

New Mexico
• SB 188 (Sen. Beffort) – This bill died in session
• Edgewood ~ No further actions to ban or restrict pit bulls.

New York
• Common City Council ~ Considering liability insurance legislation for "pit bulls" and Rottweilers.
• Asm. Glick’s A1824 prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage based on breed.
• A4858 All breed specific references has been removed from the legislation wording, and the bill remains in the Assembly Committee on Codes.
• S4770 by Sen. Sampson has been referred to the Senate Insurance Committee.

North Carolina
• Edenton ~ The city passed BSL two years ago with intentions on reducing dog fighting with the city limits. This legislation hasn't worked as planned so the legislators are looking to potentially revise the law. All dog fanciers are encouraged to contact the city officials, gently and in an educating way, to change this useless and unfair law.
Jerry Parks, Mayor Pro Tem, Edenton NC
Ann-Marie Knighton, Town Clerk, Edenton NC
Mary Bass, Chief ACO, Chowan County NC
• Madison ~ Chief of police is proposing a breed-specific ordinance. Several dog fanciers and dog owners spoke against BSL at the initial meeting. The issue will be considered again in August.
• Charlotte ~ City council recently voted to strengthen the city’s dangerous dog law. Animal control officers may now spay or neuter any dog that is deemed dangerous. Animal related fines more than 30 days overdue may now be doubled.

• The Supreme Court has found Ohio's statewide BSL to be unconstitutional and found that regulating the ownership of a particular breed is "arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory." This is an incredible victory in the fight against BSL and I would like to thank everyone who has fought so hard for this win.
• H189 by Rep. Walcher would repeal Ohio’s current BSL as well as expanding hearing rights for the owners of dogs which have been declared vicious or dangerous. Amended and referred.
• Middleton ~ Looking at a REPEAL of their pit bull ordinance. We definitely need to encourage and support the city council on this!

• State Rep. Paul Wesselhoft has indicated he will introduce a bill that would ban "pit bulls" next session. This legislation would allow cities to ban the breed, as opposed to an outright statewide ban.
• S1569 has been proposed by Sen. Alderidge. It would repeal the existing legislation which prohibits BSL.
• Moore ~ Considering stronger dangerous dog legislation, and would consider a ban on pit bulls if Wesselhoff’s bill is passed.
• Rep. Wesselhoff is trying to overturn the present dangerous dog legislation which prohibits BSL. He plans to file a bill in 2006.
• Newkirk ~ Officials have currently tabled their BSL in order to research the decision further. They are looking for your input NOW, please contact them and share your opinion with factual information in a positive way.
• Bartlesville ~ Is also considering stronger dangerous dog laws. Unclear whether they would propose BSL if the state allowed it.

HB 844 puts stricter fines on the owners of dangerous dogs. It also requires the breeders of  pit bulls or pit bull mixes to register with the state. Draft has been amended to remove all breed specific wording.

• Wilkes-Barre ~ Considered a ban on pit bulls, but the Mayor pulled the bill on the grounds that Pennsylvania prohibits BSL.
• Hazelton ~ Officials are considering an ordinance which would label “pit bulls”, Rottweilers, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terriers, Akitas, Chow Chows or any mixed breed which resembles any of the aforementioned breeds, as dangerous dogs. Owners would have to pay $10 annually for registration and post signs, which declare the presence of a dangerous dog on their property. The dog must be housed in a fully secure structure when outside, and kept on a 6-foot (or less) leash and muzzled when off the owner’s property.
• Tarentum Borough and West Chester ~ May consider drafting a dangerous dog law that would target specific breeds. The state’s current dangerous dog legislation prohibits against breed specific legislation.
• Rep. Daley is sponsoring HB2951. This is a bill that forces stiffer penalties for the owners of dangerous dogs who don't properly restrain their dogs. It also provides for increases in penalties for the owners of dogs who injure or kill humans. There are also provisions for individuals who injure or kill companion animals, making them liable for damages as well as allowing owners to sue if their dog is injured or killed willfully, recklessly or negligently. Referred to Judiciary.
• City of New Castle is revising their dangerous dog ordinance and may include BSL. The city is potentially looking for ways to circumvent the state’s law which prohibits BSL

South Carolina
• Rock Hill ~ Legislators are trying to pass a law which would declare Rottweilers and Pit Bulls "dangerous". They would require a 10 x 10 secure enclosure, muzzled and leashed when off of property, liability insurance and would prohibit such a breed from being kept in a house. Voting is scheduled for April 10th at 6:00pm.

• City of Woodbury ~ Considering BSL for pit bulls. Standard restrictions are being proposed, $100k insurance policy, registration with the city, locked in a secure kennel and muzzled when off of owner's property. No further information available
• Sumner County ~ Did not pass BSL, strengthened dangerous dog laws.

• HB1096 – Texas currently has legislation which prohibits BSL statewide. This bill would allow cities with a population of other 1.9 million to enact breed bans or restrict certain breeds. It passed the House vote with NO OPPOSITION. It is in the Senate and needs to be stopped. Please contact the Senate Criminal Justice Committee members and state your opposition to this bill.
• HB1096 by Rep. Edwards is dead. Congratulations and thank you to everyone who worked so hard to amend this bill!
• HB326/S172 would criminalize the act of “training or conditioning” one animal to fight with another. Potentially, the mere ownership of a treadmill, flirtpole, etc. would provide officials with the evidence that the owners are training dogs to fight.
• Rep. Edwards plans to draft a dangerous dog legislation which regulates "vicious" breeds of dogs (including Rottweilers and "pit bulls".) The bill would be introduced in 2005. Texas's currently dangerous dog law precludes labeling a dog vicious based on breed.

• Federal Way ~ Was considering BSL to address their dog control issues, but after a city council meeting the officials have decided to increase fees and fines and work on enforcing existing laws. Huge congratulations to everyone who worked towards this goal!
• H1150 – Prohibits municipalities from enacting breed-specific dangerous dog legislation. The bill would also exempt liability in the event that a dog attacks out of provocation, torment or defense of it’s owner and/or property. Jan 9 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status. Rules Committee relieved of further consideration. Referred to Judiciary.
• Pasco ~ Passed a breed specific ordinance, requiring the owners of “pit bulls”, Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers to purchase an annual $250 permit and $250,000 liability insurance. Exemption for dogs who pass the CGC test. Nighboring city Kennewick already has some breed-specific regulations against pit bulls

West Virginia
• Wheeling ~ City council voted for an ordinance that places restrictions on specific breeds. The law goes into effect on April 1st, at which time anyone owning a pit bull or "vicious dog" must register with the city.

New BSL 2009
BSL passed in West Allis, WI. This was proposed and passed in the same night...
West Allis Revised Municipal Code Relating to Pit Bulls
Ordinance (PDF)
• Madison ~ Passed generic non-breed specific dangerous dog law as opposed to BSL.
• Trempealeau County ~ Passed BSL against Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American Pit bull Terriers, Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers and any mix thereof. Unable to find the specific wording at this time.
• Cudahy ~ Ordinance No. 2021 ‘An Ordinance to Regulate Vicious Dogs’ has been changed to specifically include pit bulls.
• A363 by Asm. Lehman would prohibit insurance companies from denying or canceling coverage based on breed of dog owned.
• Eau Claire ~ Has not made a decision on their potential BSL, will address concerns in early 2006

Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Are now focusing on a "Dog Owner Responsibility Act", and not working towards BSL. The new ordinance will hold owners of dogs who attack liable, and will force tough penalties for negligent owners. The new bill will likely be introduced this month, during the next session of legislature.


This site is designed and maintained by Mike Davis
Copyright 2011, National American Pit Bull Terrier Association