House passes bill limiting local breed-specific dog ordinances after extended debate
Loading...
Summary
After a long floor debate over local control, public safety and property rights, the House passed HB97 to prohibit local breed-specific bans; supporters said breed bans are unworkable and arbitrary, while opponents urged local discretion and better statewide policies for post-attack responses.
The Utah House on Feb. 20 passed House Bill 97, a measure that limits local governments— authority to enact breed-specific bans on dogs.
Representative King, sponsor of the bill, said breed-specific ordinances are poor public policy: they target classes of animals rather than individual dangerous animals, require costly enforcement (including DNA testing), and can unfairly deprive property owners of rights. "The effectiveness of trying to get rid of aggressive dogs has to be done on a dog-by-dog basis," King said on the floor.
Opponents, including former municipal officials and several representatives who spoke in opposition, warned the measure undercuts local control and questioned whether the Legislature should preempt municipal ordinances. Representative Lifferth, a former mayor, said local governments exist to tailor rules to voters in each community. Representative Mathis, a veterinarian, and others described the practical difficulty of visually identifying a pit-bull type dog and emphasized that many dog-bite incidents involve familiar animals of varied breeds.
Some supporters argued uniformity was necessary so a person walking from town to town would not unknowingly violate another jurisdiction—s law. Representative King said the bill protects property rights and public safety by preventing a patchwork of breed-based rules.
After extensive debate and numerous floor questions, HB97 passed the House on a recorded vote, 43 yes to 28 no, and will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.
