The Michigan legislature is once again considering whether to prevent local governments from banning pit bulls or other specific dog breeds.

House Bill 4035, sponsored by Rep. Jim Ellison, D-Royal Oak, would prevent Michigan communities from enacting breed-specific legislation, or any policy that singles out a specific breed of dog as a dangerous animal. The House Local Government and Municipal Finance Committee heard comments on the legislation this week.

If passed, the bill would not prevent communities from enacting other restrictions or requirements on dogs or dog owners, including regulating dogs determined to be dangerous or potentially dangerous based on factors other than the dog’s breed.

A handful of Michigan communities currently have breed-specific laws on the books, and the issue of whether to nullify those policies or let them stand has sparked passionate debate over the years.

Proponents of a ban on breed bans argue there are more effective ways for local governments to deal with dangerous dogs, and that dogs of any breed can be a danger to the public. But breed ban supporters say communities should have the right to ban pit bulls and similar breeds, citing recent pit bull attacks and fatalities.

At least one community in Michigan, Hazel Park, previously had a breed-specific ban and ultimately opted to reverse it. The city’s mayor pro tem, Alissa Sullivan, told lawmakers the policy created “a false sense of safety” and had no significant impact on the number or severity of dog bites, adding that costs to enforce the ban were prohibitive.

Vaughn Wagner of Waterford Township presented a different perspective, sharing that the ban went into effect in his community after two pit bulls attacked people in his neighborhood decades ago, and has helped keep the public safe since: “It has protected my community for over 30 years,” he said.

According to the nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency, eight states prohibit any local breed-specific regulations, and 13 others prohibit breed-specific classification of dogs as dangerous.

Richard Angelo, an attorney with Best Friends Animal Society, said the best ordinances focus on the behavior of dogs and holding reckless owners accountable. Policies based on identifying an animal’s breed are unreliable, expensive and infringe on a responsible owner’s right to own the breed of dog they choose, he said.

“Bad owners lead to bad dogs and put everyone in our communities at risk,” he said, adding when it comes to preventing dog attack tragedies, “breed discriminatory laws aren’t the laws to help meet that goal.”

Rochester resident Ann Marie Rogers, representing the group Responsible Citizens for Public Safety, said the safety of Michigan residents and their pets should be prioritized, highlighting recent cases of pit bull attacks and deaths.

“How many more deaths and serious injuries will it take to put the safety of human beings first and foremost?" she asked lawmakers.

The legislation remains before the House Local Government and Municipal Finance Committee. It would need to pass the House and Senate and be signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to become law.

During the last legislative session, a similar bill passed the state Senate but was not taken up in the House.

Related coverage:

Pit bulls versus everybody. Should they be banned?

Local bans on specific dog breeds would be blocked by proposed law

Diggy the smiley dog classified as American Bulldog, but police say pet violates pit bull ban

Saginaw City Council passes ‘Dangerous dogs’ ordinance 5-3