We have the US Department of Justice on our side!

Earlier this week, the American's With Disabilities Act revised their definition of "service animal." This was long awaited news within the service dog community, but even more of a surprise to the anti-BSL community. The good news (no, the GREAT NEWS!) is that the DOJ has rejected the comments of some people who say that the ADA and DOJ should restrict the breeds that can be used for service dogs.

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/reg2_2010.html

Revised ADA Regulations Implementing Title II and Title III
(Updated July 29, 2010)
Title II: Final Rule amending 28 CFR Part 35: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services
Breed limitations. A few commenters suggested that certain breeds of dogs should not be allowed to be used as service animals. Some suggested that the Department should defer to local laws restricting the breeds of dogs that individuals who reside in a community may own. Other commenters opposed breed restrictions, stating that the breed of a dog does not determine its propensity for aggression and that aggressive and non-aggressive dogs exist in all breeds.

The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA who use certain service animals based on where they live rather than on whether the use of a particular animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Breed restrictions differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have no breed restrictions. Others have restrictions that, while well-meaning, have the unintended effect of screening out the very breeds of dogs that have successfully served as service animals for decades without a history of the type of unprovoked aggression or attacks that would pose a direct threat, e.g., German Shepherds. Other jurisdictions prohibit animals over a certain weight, thereby restricting breeds without invoking an express breed ban. In addition, deference to breed restrictions contained in local laws would have the unacceptable consequence of restricting travel by an individual with a disability who uses a breed that is acceptable and poses no safety hazards in the individual´s home jurisdiction but is nonetheless banned by other jurisdictions. State and local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that particular animal´s actual behavior or history–not based on fears or generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave. This ability to exclude an animal whose behavior or history evidences a direct threat is sufficient to protect health and safety.

This is a HUGE victory. Now, to start getting the word out to cities and states with BSL. Federal law trumps state law, folks.

HR 3501 - "Companion Bill"

Dear friends who have critters,

I was excited to learn this week of a new bill introduced in Congress that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow tax deductions of up to $3,500 annually for “qualified pet care expenses.” I know that many of you, like me, shell out thousands annually for food and vet bills for your adopted animals. If this bill passes, we can write off the first $3,500!

The bill is called H.R. 3501 -- please contact your U.S. Representative or Delegate and ask them to sign on as a sponsor, and ask your Senators to introduce a companion bill in the U.S. Senate. The bill has a somewhat silly acronym, but many bills do these days (it's called the Humanity and Pets Partnered through the Years (HAPPY) Act). It's a concise bill with no fine print and nothing sketchy. It simply defines “qualified pet care expenses” as “amounts paid in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a qualified pet other than any expense in connection with the acquisition of the qualified pet,” and creates a tax deduction for the first $3,500 of those expenses.

Note that you don't get to deduct acquisition costs, so it won't encourage people to run out and buy $3,500 puppy mill dogs. The bill may also help relieve the strain on animal shelters, because it removes the financial disincentive to spay and neuter pets, and helps people afford to get their pets vaccinated.

The bill also states that the deduction does not apply to animals “used for research or owned or utilized in conjunction with a trade or business.”

Thanks for reading this, and please feel free to pass it along.

http://fortheloveofthedogblog.com/PDF/HAPPY.pdf