Michigan House Bill HB5041

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/26/23
• Refer: 9/26/23

Caption

Animals: dogs; city or village enacting or enforcing an ordinance, policy, resolution, or rule that regulates a dog based upon breed or perceived breed; prohibit. Creates new act.

Impact

If enacted, HB5041 would significantly alter existing local regulations regarding dog ownership. It would prevent municipalities from creating ordinances that single out specific dog breeds as dangerous, effectively overriding local discretion in matters of animal control. This could prevent the legal ramifications faced by responsible dog owners of breeds often deemed undesirable, promoting a more equitable treatment of all breeds under state law. However, the legislation allows cities and villages to impose additional requirements or restrictions unrelated to breed, preserving some level of local control around dog ownership.

Summary

House Bill 5041 is a legislative proposal that seeks to prohibit cities and villages in Michigan from enacting or enforcing any ordinances, policies, resolutions, or rules that regulate dogs based on breed or perceived breed. This bill aims to standardize regulations concerning canines across the state and ensure that no municipality enforces breed-specific legislation that may limit or restrict ownership of certain dog breeds. The bill's supporters argue that regulating dogs based on breed can lead to discriminatory practices and that it does not effectively address issues of public safety or animal behavior.

Contention

Throughout discussions surrounding HB5041, there are points of contention among various stakeholders. Proponents of the bill contend that breed-based regulations do not solve the issues they aim to address, such as dog bites or attacks. They also highlight that dogs' behavior is more influenced by training and environment than by their breed. Conversely, some opponents express concerns that the bill could diminish the ability of local governments to respond to specific public safety needs or pet welfare issues. Critics argue that local authorities are better positioned to regulate licenses and manage issues within their communities, which could be compromised by the state-level restrictions proposed by this legislation.