MiamiBSL

To the Honorable Mayor Mr. Manuel A. Diaz,

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens from throughout the United States. While recognizing the concerns of Miami-Dade residents, we are extremely concerned regarding Ordinance #89-22/Chapter 5/Article 2/ Section 5.17 which has a negative impact on responsible, law-abiding dog owners . This ordinance has an impact on not only Miami-Dade citizens, but also those who choose to visit Miami-Dade to show their dogs in legal events, to do business in the community, or to visit family and friends. Following are listed our specific concerns.

(1) The ordinance places restrictions on specific breeds referred to as pit bull type dogs and states Because of the danger posed to humans.... Available data indicates that a dog of ANY breed can bite. Studies published in JAVMA conclude that there is NO reliable data identifying biting dogs by breed.
As well, the American Temperament Test Society has available results of dogs tested by them. As of December 2000, the following results were found:

(Number of dogs tested) [Percent of dogs passed]

American Pit Bull Terrier (327) [82.3\%]
American Staffordshire Terrier (397) [81.6\%]
Golden Retriever (576) [81.9\%]
Labrador Retriever (561) [90.4\%]
Shetland Sheepdog (411) [66.9\%]
Collie (666) [78.2\%]

This can be verified with the A.T.T.S. by calling them at (314)869-6103 or on the web at www.atts.org.

(2) Cities that have tried to solve their dangerous dog problem by restricting or banning breeds have discovered that such laws do not work. Recently, Cincinnati, OH has repealed its ban on specific breeds and Baltimore, MD has removed all breed specific references from its ordinance.

(3) There is no reliable method by which to scientifically determine the breed of a dog. It is impossible to determine whether a mixed breed dog is 50\% of any particular breed. To require the owner of a mixed breed dog to prove that the dog is NOT 50\% of a targeted breed places an impossible burden on that citizen. The question of constitutionality comes into play here.

(4) The majority of the owners of targeted breeds are responsible, law-abiding citizens. The ordinance unfairly brands these people as unreliable and irresponsible, solely because they own a targeted breed. Again, there is a question regarding the rights of citizens in regard to personal property.

(5) These restrictions make it difficult, if not impossible, for owners of the targeted breeds to participate in most dog events, especially events which require off-leash exercises to be completed. Examples of these events include obedience, agility, flyball and many others. Dog clubs and dog show participants have become increasingly unwilling to sponsor and enter events in communities with breed specific ordinances.

(6) It is the consensus of knowledgeable dog experts (as reported in the JAVMA article, "A Community Solution to the Dog Bite Problem") that targeting the owners and the specific dangerous dog, not breeds of dogs, is the key to addressing the dog bite and "dangerous dog" problems.

(7) It takes a large amount of funding for these ordinance provisions requiring the training, testing, and property examination. Passing laws that cannot be enforced increases citizen cynicism regarding effective government.

(8) Finally and most compelling, Miami-Dade already has a dangerous dog ordinance that law enforcement can use to deal with dangerous dogs of any breed and their irresponsible owners.

In summary, this law is unfair, costly to taxpayers to enforce, time consuming to enforcement agents, and unnecessary. We urge you to veto Ordinance # 89-22.