Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Beffort

DATE TYPED 2/1/05

HB

SHORT TITLE Pit Bull Breeding Act

SB 188

ANALYST Wilson

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

See Narrative

REVENUE

Estimated Revenue

Subsequent

Years Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

See Narrative

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)

Public Defender Department (PDD)

Attorney General’s Office (AGO)

Corrections Department (CD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 188 defines “dangerous dog” as Akitas, Alaskan malamutes, bulldogs, boxers, Ca-

nary Island dogs, Chows, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Great Danes, Rottweilers, Siberian

Huskies, and wolf hybrids.

SB 188 would restrict ownership of a pit bull dog, would ban breeding of pit bulls, and would

require sterilization of such dogs by July, 2006. It would require owners of pit bulls to keep their

dogs either indoors or in covered, steel-fenced enclosures at least 6’ in height. Owners would be

Senate Bill 188. -- Page 2

required to carry a $100 thousand insurance policy on the dog.

SB 188 provides authority and a procedure by which pit bulls accused of biting can be evaluated

as to public safety thread and destroyed, and requires a $250.00 annual licensing fee for owner-

ship.

SB 188 provides for fines for the owners of dogs that bite (the fines are higher if the dog is a

“dangerous dog”), and for dog owners who fight their dogs or fail to neuter their pit bulls. SB188

provides that the owner of a pit bull that bites (defined as requiring a breaking of the skin) a per-

son is guilty of a fourth degree felony, and if a pit bull bites a person twice or seriously injures a

person, the owner is guilty of a third degree felony.

SB 188 makes it unlawful to chain a dog.

Significant Issues

The PDD claims that this sort of breed-specific legislation has been criticized as difficult to en-

force. An internet search reveals claims that many “pit bulls” are in fact cross-breeds, and that

some American and Canadian kennel associations refuse to recognize them as an individual

breed. Some communities in Ontario that have enacted such a ban experienced an increase in

abandoned pit bulls left to run wild on the streets.

Animal rights people believe a bill addressing the problem of dangerous and vicious dogs should

be behavior specific, not breed-specific.

Animal rights people strongly support making it unlawful to chain a dog. Please see attachment

for significant issues.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The AODA cannot determine the cost at this time. However, as various laws have been passed

either creating new offenses or enhancing penalties district attorneys caseloads have increased.

District attorneys have had minimal budget and FTE increases to deal with the increased work-

load adequately. This bill will certainly prompt litigation as it has in other places.

The Albuquerque Animal Care Center (AACC) provided the following:

The first problem associated with the assessment is that it is difficult to actually identify the

breed. Despite conclusions to the contrary in Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, we have found that

identification of the breed is anything but scientifically objective. Experts will disagree in many

cases. Our experience dictates that the designation is almost entirely subjective. Shelters have

learned that animals identified as pit bulls are less likely to be adopted and probably err toward

labeling the dog as any breed other than pit bull. As a result, our estimate of the number of pit

bulls arriving at AACC is probably low. Nevertheless, we know that 14% of the animals we im-

pound are identified as pure pit bull. The cost of impounding an animal at AACC is roughly

$179 per animal based on the AACC budget divided by the total number of animals impounded

per year. Because part of this budget is used for other purposes, we will use an amount of $150

per animal to address your inquiry.

Senate Bill 188. -- Page 3

The population of the State of New Mexico is 1,874,614. The Humane Society of the United

States has compiled data concerning the relationship between the population of humans in a

community and the number of animals that will be impounded at shelters in that community.

HSUS predicts that the number of animals impounded will be 7% of the human population per

year. Following this formula, the state will impound 131,223 animals a year. Again using the

low estimate that 14 % of these animals will be pure pit bull, we estimate that the state impounds

roughly 18,371 pure pit bulls per year. We have no way of estimating how many pit bulls would

be surrendered to shelters in response to a pit bull ban.

Smaller municipalities and counties may not have an infrastructure in place to enforce the re-

quirements in this bill.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

This bill places heavy enforcement responsibilities on the cities and counties

This bill will result in more cases referred to district attorneys for prosecution thus increasing

current workloads.

CD notes in both the short term and the long term, this bill will somewhat increase the adminis-

trative prison staff and probation staff because of the increasing prison population and probation

caseloads. The CD will be able to absorb the additional burden due to the fact that the numbers

of persons convicted would be minimal.

There is a $250 license fee for a pit bull and the fines will bring in some revenue, but is not likely

to be enough to offset the enforcement costs.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The Cincinnati, Ohio City Council has overturned the city’s 13-year-old ban on American Staf-

fordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and their mixes in favor of a generic dog control

ordinance that tightens restrictions on the ownership of all dangerous and vicious dogs.

The new law is backed by the city administration, the law and safety committee, and area dog

fanciers, dog owners, and dog rescues.

Drafted by a task force of administration staff, the Hamilton County dog warden, a veterinarian,

Ohio Valley Dog Owners Inc., Cincinnati Kennel Club, and members of the general public, the

new law requires registration and identification of all dangerous and vicious dogs, including all

pit bulls, and will go into effect after a 90-day grace period for owners to register their pets. Be-

cause of Ohio law, only dogs identified as pit bull dogs must be registered before they commit an

infraction of the law. Other dogs must violate the law before being required to comply with the

restrictions.

The breed-specific ban was passed in the late 1980s following several attacks on children by

dogs identified as pit bull dogs. During hearings on the proposal to ban pit bulls, owners told city

council that their dogs are descended from the purebred American Staffordshire Terriers and

Staffordshire Bull Terriers registered by the American Kennel Club, so council specifically

banned these breeds and their mixes. However, because the city lacked storage space for im-

Senate Bill 188. -- Page 4

pounded dogs, the ordinance was not enforced for nearly 10 years. In 1996, the city contracted

with the Hamilton County SPCA to house dogs confiscated as vicious and as members of the

banned breeds. Since then, the city has paid the SPCA to house hundreds of the dogs taken from

families, breeders, dog fighters, and drug dealers and held during the disposition of their cases.

Interpretation of law has been liberal; some dogs that resemble the proscribed breeds have been

impounded even though there is no genetic test that identifies breeds or mixes. In early 1998, the

chief deputy dog warden identified eight American Bulldogs as American Staffordshire Terrier

mixes and took the dogs to the SPCA. Unlike many other owners whose dogs have been taken

under the breed ban, owner Eric Rowe refused to plead guilty to a lesser charge and send his

dogs out of the city. Instead, he hired a lawyer, fought the charges, and won.

Although it resembles the pit bull type, the American Bulldog is not a pit bull breed. It is related

to the Old English Bulldog, a breed developed in England to herd cattle in the butcher’s yard and

then used as a bull-baiting dog. After bull-baiting was outlawed in England, the English Bulldog

apparently took three paths: some remained as all-around farm dogs, and these continued their

careers in the US and became the American Bulldog; some morphed into the short, squat English

Bulldog of today; and some were used to create the bull-and-terrier breeds that include the

breeds and mixes banned in Cincinnati.

The American Bulldog trial cost the city thousands of dollars in impoundment fees, pre-trial

preparation, and trial time, none of which it could recoup because it lost the case. But collection

is hit and miss even when the case is won, for owners seldom pay the bill. Where multiple dogs

have been removed from a single address and held for months, the costs mount up. One dog

owner told the law and safety committee that he had a bill for more than $11,000 for incarcera-

tion of his dogs that he could not afford to pay.

Pit bulls (not specific breeds, but dogs identified as the type used in dog fighting) are described

as vicious to comply with the Ohio Revised Code, Section 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii), which states:

“‘Vicious dog’ means a dog that … belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull

dog.” Therefore, all dogs of this description must be registered, identified, and confined as re-

quired in the ordinance even if they are gentle family pets. State law and the new Cincinnati law

give the dog wardens and veterinarians the authority to identify the breed of dog.

DW/yr

Attachment, pages 5-7

Senate Bill 188. -- Page 5

The Facts About Chaining or Tethering Dogs

©2002

Whim Whams Illustration Studio

1. What is meant by "chaining" or "tethering" dogs.

These terms refer to the practice of fastening a dog to a stationary object or stake, usu-

ally in the owner's backyard, as a means of keeping the animal under control. These

terms do not refer to the periods when an animal is walked on a leash.

2. Is there a problem with continuous chaining or tethering.

Yes, the practice is both inhumane and a threat to the safety of the confined dog, other

animals, and humans.

3. Why is tethering dogs inhumane.

Dogs are naturally social beings who thrive on interaction with human beings and other

animals. A dog kept chained in one spot for hours, days, months, or even years suffers

immense psychological damage. An otherwise friendly and docile dog, when kept con-

tinuously chained, becomes neurotic, unhappy, anxious, and often aggressive.

In many cases, the necks of chained dogs become raw and covered with sores, the

result of improperly fitted collars and the dogs' constant yanking and straining to escape

confinement. Dogs have even been found with collars embedded in their necks, the

result of years of neglect at the end of a chain. In one case, a veterinarian had to

euthanize a dog whose collar, an electrical cord, was so embedded in the animal's neck

that it was difficult to see the plug.

4. Who says tethering dogs is inhumane.

In addition to The Humane Society of the United States and numerous animal experts,

the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a statement in the July 2, 1996,

Federal Register against tethering:

"Our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us to conclude that con-

tinuous confinement of dogs by a tether is inhumane. A tether significantly restricts a

dog's movement. A tether can also become tangled around or hooked on the dog's

shelter structure or other objects, further restricting the dog's movement and potentially

causing injury."

5. How does tethering or chaining dogs pose a danger to humans.

Dogs tethered for long periods can become highly aggressive. Dogs feel naturally pro-

tective of their territory; when confronted with a perceived threat, they respond accord-

Senate Bill 188. -- Page 6

her territory.

Numerous attacks on people by tethered dogs have been documented. For example, a

study published in the September 15, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Vet-

erinary Medical Association reported that 17% of dogs involved in fatal attacks on hu-

mans between 1979 and 1998 were restrained on their owners' property at the time of

the attack. Tragically, the victims of such attacks are often children who are unaware of

the chained dog's presence until it is too late. Furthermore, a tethered dog who finally

does get loose from his chains may remain aggressive, and is likely to chase and attack

unsuspecting passersby and pets.

6. Why is tethering dangerous to dogs.

In addition to the psychological damage wrought by continuous chaining, dogs forced to

live on a chain make easy targets for other animals, humans, and biting insects. A

chained animal may suffer harassment and teasing from insensitive humans, stinging

bites from insects, and, in the worst cases, attacks by other animals. Chained dogs are

also easy targets for thieves looking to steal animals for sale to research institutions or

to be used as training fodder for organized animal fights. Finally, dogs' tethers can be-

come entangled with other objects, which can choke or strangle the dogs to death.

7. Are these dogs dangerous to other animals.

In some instances, yes. Any other animal that comes into their area of confinement is in

jeopardy. Cats, rabbits, smaller dogs, and others may enter the area when the tethered

dog is asleep and then be fiercely attacked when the dog awakens.

8. Are tethered dogs otherwise treated well.

Rarely does a chained or tethered dog receive sufficient care. Tethered dogs suffer

from sporadic feedings, overturned water bowls, inadequate veterinary care, and ex-

treme temperatures. During snow storms, these dogs often have no access to shelter.

During periods of extreme heat, they may not receive adequate water or protection from

the sun. What's more, because their often neurotic behavior makes them difficult to ap-

proach, chained dogs are rarely given even minimal affection. Tethered dogs may be-

come "part of the scenery" and can be easily ignored by their owners.

9. Are the areas in which tethered dogs are confined usually comfortable.

No, because the dogs have to eat, sleep, urinate, and defecate in a single confined

area. Owners who chains their dogs are also less likely to clean the area. Although

there may have once been grass in an area of confinement, it is usually so beaten down

by the dog's pacing that the ground consists of nothing but dirt or mud.

10. But how else can people confine dogs.

The HSUS recommends that all dogs be kept indoors at night, taken on regular walks,

and otherwise provided with adequate attention, food, water, and veterinary care. If an

animal must be housed outside at certain times, he should be placed in a suitable pen

with adequate square footage and shelter from the elements.

11. Should chaining or tethering ever be allowed.

To become well-adjusted companion animals, dogs should interact regularly with peo-

ple and other animals, and should receive regular exercise. It is an owner's responsibil-

ity to properly restrain her dog, just as it is the owner's responsibility to provide ade-

Senate Bill 188. -- Page 7

periods is never acceptable.

12. If a dog is chained or tethered for a period of time, can it be done humanely.

Animals who must be kept on a tether should be secured in such a way that the tether

cannot become entangled with other objects. Collars used to attach an animal should

be comfortable and properly fitted; choke chains should never be used. Restraints

should allow the animal to move about and lie down comfortably. Animals should never

be tethered during natural disasters such as floods, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, or bliz-

zards.

13. What about attaching a dog's leash to a "pulley run".

Attaching a dog's leash to a long line—such as a clothesline or a manufactured device

known as a pulley run—and letting the animal have a larger area in which to explore is

preferable to tethering the dog to a stationary object. However, many of the same prob-

lems associated with tethering still apply, including attacks on or by other animals, lack

of socialization, and safety.

14. What can be done to correct the problem of tethering dogs.

At least 25 communities have passed laws that regulate the practice of tethering ani-

mals. Maumelle, Arkansas; Tucson, Arizona; and New Hanover, North Carolina, are a

few communities that prohibit the chaining or tethering of dogs as a means of continu-

ous confinement. Many other communities allow tethering only under certain conditions;

Jefferson County, Kentucky, for example, prohibits dogs from being tethered for more

than eight hours in any 24-hour period.

15. Why should a community outlaw the continuous chaining or tethering of

dogs.

Animal control and humane agencies receive countless calls every day from citizens

concerned about animals in these cruel situations. Animal control officers, paid at tax-

payer expense, spend many hours trying to educate pet owners about the dangers and

cruelty involved in this practice.

A chained animal is caught in a vicious cycle; frustrated by long periods of boredom and

social isolation, he becomes a neurotic shell of his former self—further deterring human

interaction and kindness. In the end, the helpless dog can only suffer the frustration of

watching the world go by in isolation—a cruel fate for what is by nature a highly social

animal. Any city, county, or state that bans this practice is a safer, more humane com-

munity.

Copyright © 2004 The Humane Society of the United States. All rights reserved.