The TIE Committee on Oct. 14 advanced CB 97‑20‑25, a wide‑ranging revision to Prince George’s County animal control code, by a 3‑0 vote with committee‑approved amendments. The committee also voted to advance the bill to the full council with no recommendation, giving council members more time to consider final action.

Sponsor Council member Burrows summarized the bill as strengthening animal control by expanding the definition of dangerous and potentially dangerous animals, increasing civil penalties for repeat violations, expanding the leash law, lifting the county’s longstanding pit‑bull terrier ban and establishing a pilot program to allow fostering and adoption of pit‑type dogs under specified conditions.

Key provisions in the draft advanced by the committee include:
- Expanding the definition of “animal at large” to include animals not leashed and clarifying exceptions such as defending itself or its litter.
- Raising civil penalties for dangerous animal violations (first violation $500; second $1,500; third $3,000 in the draft summary).
- Requiring leashes to be no longer than 10 feet, with exceptions for designated exercise areas and securely fenced areas with owner permission.
- Lifting the pit‑bull terrier ban for a pilot foster/adoption program: animals must be deemed adoptable by animal control, applicants must apply for a permit, provide a location, comply with county law, accept microchipping and spay/neuter requirements, and complete a pet‑parenting education module.

The county Department of the Environment (DOE) presented several recommendations and amendments: adding a service‑animal exception to the animal‑at‑large section to align with ADA rules; defining terms such as provocation and severe injury (used in dangerous dog standards); and clarifying that the pet parenting class may be offered as an online module. DOE staff said the animal services division is currently constrained by staffing: they estimate a very large number of pit‑type dogs in the county (20,000–25,000 estimated) and described the shelter’s historical facility design that allocated a large portion of kennel space to restricted/bully‑type animals. DOE said that enforcing broad changes without sufficient staffing would pose operational challenges.

Public testimony included veterinarians, shelter staff and advocates who urged a breed‑neutral, behavior‑based approach and cited evidence that visual breed identification is unreliable. Kate Conroy of the Prince George’s County Pet Unity Project and other witnesses described adverse impacts of breed‑specific rules for lower‑income residents and reentry populations who face housing loss because of their dogs’ appearances. Shelter placement staff described inconsistent visual breed determinations in facility records and urged behavior‑based determinations rather than breed labeling.

Committee members discussed a phased or pilot approach. Council member Harrison urged incorporating public education, a phased timeline and a registry for certain dogs; committee members accepted DOE amendments, increased a proposed administrative fine for failure to obtain a permit (from $50 to $150), and added a spay/neuter expectation. The committee voted to adopt the specified amendments and then moved the bill forward to the full council with no recommendation (3‑0).

Next steps: CB 97 will go to the full council with committee amendments. Committee members asked the sponsor and DOE to work on additional language to address service‑animal considerations, registration/registry timelines and public education as part of implementation details.