By: Paul Barnes
One bill that has drawn particular interest in Michigan recently is HB4035 from the 2019-2020 session. The bill was aimed at ending dog breed discrimination but ultimately failed to pass.
What is Breed Discrimination?
Breed discrimination are laws and regulations that are aimed at regulating dogs based on their breed rather then their behavior. Essentially, breeds like pit bulls (which according to Animal Legal Defense Fund are not even a real breed) are considered dangerous and are often targeted by these laws. For instance, one could have the sweetest pit bull of all time, but, it would be considered dangerous simply because it is a pit bull, meanwhile a golden retriever that has a tendency to growl and nip at people might be considered perfectly safe, since it is not seen as a dangerous breed. According to Animal Legal Defense Fund, 22 other states have already ended breed discrimination.
According to Animal Legal and Historical Center the following states have banned Municipal regulation of dogs by breed
- Arizona
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Illinois
- Maine
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Utah
- Washington
Additionally, these states have a ban that is similar to the one that Michigan is currently being proposed in Michigan (They banned Municipal declarations of dangerous/potentially dangerous dog breeds)
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Illinois
- Massachusetts
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- Oklahoma
- Pennsylvania
- Texas
- Virginia
- Washington
Who Sponsored the Bill?
The bill was sponsored by ten Senators, eight of which are Democrats, the other two are Republicans. These include Julie Brixie (D), Sara Cambensy (D), Kathy Crawford (R), Jim Ellison (D), Ben Frederick (R), Sherry Gay-Dagnogo (D), Kevin Hertel (D), Sheryl Kennedy (D), Padma Kuppa (D), and Tim Sneller (D).
About the Bill
As stated previously, the bill’s main purpose was to end breed discrimination by preventing local units of government, which the bill defined as counties, cities, villages or townships, from enacting or enforcing any ordinance, policy, resolution, or rule that regulates a dog based upon its breed or perceived breed. It is a key point that law also included dogs that simply appear to be a particular breed. This point increased the which dogs would be protected and protected dogs from being discriminated against for something they might not even be.
The bill did note what type of regulations are allowed. These included ordinances, policies, resolutions, or rules that;
- Put greater restrictions and/or additional requirements on dogs/dog owners,
- Regulate specific dogs that are determined to be dangerous or potentially dangerous by a local government.
The bill then went into further detail about what sort of language/policy wound be allowed in ordinances, policies, resolutions, or rules that impact regulation of dogs. On this, the following was written;
- Definition of a dangerous dog or terms that are used to determine if a dog is dangerous/potentially dangerous.
- Rules and procedures for determining if a do is dangerous or potentially dangerous.
- Requirements for ownership of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog
- Penalties for the owner of a dangerous dog/potentially dangerous dog, if found in violation of ordinances, policies, resolutions, or rules relating to dangerous dogs.
What Happened
This bill was introduced in 2019 and taken up by the Michigan House in early 2020, having it’s first hearing in mid February. Unfortunately, as happened with most legislation last year, the events of 2020 intervened and the legislature was forced to turn it’s attention to other matters. The bill did not reach the House floor until October, 2020, where it passed 88 to 13. The bill had a hearing Dec 1st in the Senate Local Government Committee was was reported out of committee favorably without amendment on a unanimous vote. Unfortunately the Senate never had time to bring the bill to a vote on the floor so the bill died at the end of the year with the end of the 2019-2020 legislative session.
Opinion
This section is merely the authors opinion and does not necessarily reflect the stance of Billtrack50.
Personally, I have always loved dogs so seeing bills like this is a breath of fresh air. I have heard many stories, mainly on the news of dogs being shot for simply appearing dangerous and it is quite harrowing. To me a bill like this is a great step in the direction of protecting our fluffy pals. While the protections might be small and seemingly without teeth, at the very least it is a step in the right direction, which is worth something at the end of the day. Clearly the bill was popular with Michigan legislators and I believe it would have passed in a “normal” year; hopefully a similar bill can pass this session.