Breed-specific state legislation is a bad idea, resident says

In most states, the sponsors of breed-specific laws are legislators of districts with high crime rates and they introduce these bills due to pressure. The sponsor of our most recent breed-specific law (S.801) is Sen. Sharpe James of the Newark district.

Newark is a city of very high crime where an element of the population is notorious for owning pit bulls for a macho appearance and as a status symbol.

Most of these pit bulls are mixed breeds with no recorded lineage or documentation of pedigree to determine what breed it really is. Some just want a dog that looks like a pit bull for the status.

It is better to crack down on the true source of the problem (the bad owners) than to punish the dogs and burden responsible owners.

The newly introduced N.J. law, S.801, states, "This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Responsible Pit Bull Act." It does not indicate a particular breed or a particular type of dog. The wording in this law can be interpreted to mean any dog. It is only known or cited as a pit bull law.

This law also provides the authority for a municipality to make its own regulations so at a local level the restrictions can be more severe.

They can prohibit walking a dog farther than your residence, and ban ownership by a person living in a residence where someone of that household has been convicted of any criminal offense.

A dog can be bound by this law if an animal control officer, chief law enforcement officer, or that officer's designee deems it to be a pit bull, or pit bull-type dog. Many control officers have absolutely no idea what some breeds look like, so how can we rely on the average policeman or their designee to make a fair determination? Many breeders have made mistakes trying to determine which dogs are of particular breeds.

Too many officers, including animal control officers, have mislabeled breeds.

When I went to a shelter in my area, I wondered what dogs the supervisor was looking at when describing the dog I was looking at. The dogs had no appearance whatsoever of the breed they claimed them to be. Some confessed that they were told that was the breed so they pass that information along.

My point is, how can we rely on officers to make accurate decisions on breeds where the law allows them to confiscate dogs and arrest the owners? These dogs are being classified vicious solely on the basis of the dog's presumed breed.

Everyone must understand that if any of these breed-specific laws are enacted into law, the restrictions that will be imposed on responsible owners virtually eliminates the possibility of normal day-to-day interactions that characterize the bond between dog and owner, such as taking a walk without a muzzle, or without a leash so short that the dog can't move, or even playing in a fenced yard with the owner.

These laws will not affect the criminals, who are actually the people causing our legislators to consider these laws in the first place.

These laws will, however, punish and burden responsible dog owners who have lived peacefully in their neighborhood for years, with their dogs and no incidents.

Legislation should promote public safety. It should not sacrifice the simple day-to-day lives of law-abiding citizens in the process.

We count on our lawmakers to protect us from unreasonable and intrusive legislation that disrupts our lives. Breed-specific legislation is both unreasonable and disruptive to responsible law-abiding citizens.

Alex Wisienski

Lakewood