State preemption map ::
State preemption laws that bar local governments from enacting breed-specific ordinances are far from universal or absolute. In this section we explain each state and its associated designation.
Learn about the history of these preemption laws and states that have rejected recent bills.
Non-preemption states respect local control and believe that local government officials are best suited to determine their own animal control and public safety policies. Municipal jurisdictions in these states are free to enact breed-specific ordinances for the purposes of public health and safety and animal welfare. Learn more about the different types of breed-specific ordinances that cities and counties adopt to protect public health in our Breed-Specific Legislation FAQ.
|Alabama||No state preemption||Missouri||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)|
|Arkansas||No state preemption||Montana||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)|
|Alaska||No state preemption||Nebraska||No state preemption|
|Georgia||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)||New Hampshire||No state preemption|
|Hawaii||No state preemption||New Mexico||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)|
|Idaho||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)||North Carolina||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)|
|Indiana||No state preemption||North Dakota||No state preemption|
|Iowa||No state preemption||Ohio||No state preemption|
|Kansas||No state preemption||Oregon||No state preemption|
|Kentucky||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)||Tennessee||No state preemption|
|Louisiana||No state preemption||Vermont||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)|
|Maryland||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)||Washington||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)|
|Michigan||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)||West Virginia||No state preemption; defeated recent preemption bill(s)|
|Mississippi||No state preemption||Wisconsin||No state preemption|
|Wyoming||No state preemption|
Mixed-preemption and home rule states
States governed by a mixed-preemption breed-specific law often allow city and county breed-specific spay and neuter ordinances. In states with strong home rule provisions, such as Colorado, home rule cities and counties can supersede and fully mute state-level laws prohibiting local breed-specific ordinances. This is why the City and County of Denver, the City of Aurora and other home rule jurisdictions in Colorado can enact and enforce breed-specific pit bull ordinances.
|Key||State||Adopted||Title and Section||Statute|
|South Carolina||1988||§ 47-3-710. Regulation of Dangerous Animals||"An animal is not a 'dangerous animal' solely by virtue of its breed or species."|
|Colorado||2004||§ 18-9-204.5. Unlawful Ownership of Dangerous Dog||Statute is completely void in home rule jurisdictions; statute is also specific only to the regulation of "dangerous dogs."|
|California||20051||§ 122331. Health and Safety Code||"(a) Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under those ordinances."|
“Likely” mixed-preemption states
The following states have a preemption law that prohibits local governments from declaring a specific dog breed "potentially dangerous" or "dangerous," but the state law does not appear to prohibit jurisdictions from adopting breed-specific spay and neuter ordinances. These state laws are currently untested in this area. We encourage jurisdictions to test them. The idea that these preemption laws are airtight, particularly in the area of pit bull sterilization ordinances, is a fallacy.
|Key||State||Adopted||Title and Section||Statute|
|Minnesota||1989||§ 347.51. Dangerous Dogs; Registration||"A statutory or home rule charter city, or a county, may not adopt an ordinance regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed of the dog. Ordinances inconsistent with this subdivision are void."
See recent "proposed" ordinance in Rochester by the city attorney.
|Oklahoma||1991||§ 46. Local Regulation of Dangerous Dogs||"Potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs may be regulated through local, municipal and county authorities, provided the regulations are not Breed-specific. Nothing in this act shall prohibit such local governments from enforcing penalties for violation of such local laws."|
|Texas||1991||§ 822.047. Local Regulation of Dangerous Dogs||"A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if the requirements or restrictions: (1) are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs; and (2) are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter."|
|Virginia||19932||§ 3.2-6540. Control of Dangerous Dogs||"No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited."|
|Nevada||2013||§ 202.500. Dangerous or Vicious Dogs||"A local authority shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that deems a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on the breed of the dog."|
|Delaware||2017||§ 1327. Maintaining a dangerous animal||"No dog shall be considered dangerous or potentially dangerous solely because of the dog's breed or perceived breed."|
Grandfather law states
Currently, only Florida has a state preemption law prohibiting local governments from enacting breed-specific laws that also grandfathered in pre-existing ordinances, mainly the Miami-Dade County pit bull ban that was enacted in 1989. No other municipal jurisdictions in Florida are allowed to enact or enforce breed-specific laws. In August 2012, during a Miami-Dade County primary vote, citizens voted to keep their longstanding pit bull ban by a 63% to 37% margin.3
|Key||State||Adopted||Title and Section||Statute|
|Florida||1990||767.14. Additional local restrictions authorized.||"provided that no such regulation is specific to breed and that the provisions of this act are not lessened by such additional regulations or requirements. This section does not apply to any local ordinance adopted prior to October 1, 1990."|
Preemption states have laws barring local governments from enacting breed-specific laws. Notably, both Illinois and Rhode Island are untested home rule states. In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court confirmed the authoritative power of home rule ordinances. In Pennsylvania, the preemption statute specifically excludes county governments. Again, even in preemption states, these laws are not always absolute, especially in states with strong home rule provisions.
|Key||State||Adopted||Title and Section|
|New Jersey||1989||4:19-36. Supersedure of local law, ordinance or regulation.|
|Pennsylvania4||1990||1982 Act 225. Section 507-A. Local ordinances.|
|Maine||1991||§ 3950. Local regulations.|
|New York||1997||§ 107 : NY Code. Section 107: Application.|
|Illinois5||2003||510 ILCS 5/24. Chapter 8, paragraph 374.|
|Massachusetts||2012||Section 157. Nuisance or dangerous dogs.|
|Connecticut||2013||Section 7-148. Scope of municipal powers.|
|Rhode Island6||2013||§ 4-13.1-16. Prohibition of Breed-specific regulation.|
|South Dakota||2014||40-34-16. Ordinance specific as to breed of dog prohibited.|
|Utah||2014||Title 18 Chapter 2. Regulation of dogs by a municipality.|
|Arizona7||2016||§ 9-499.04. Animal control officers; appointment; authority; regulation of dogs; powers and duties. § 11-1005. Powers and duties of board of supervisors.|
There is a range of conflicting state preemption maps on the Internet showing which states do and do not allow local governments to enact breed-specific laws. As illustrated above, however, there are often serious variations in these state preemption laws and very few are airtight. Furthermore, none of these maps show the upwards of a million private rental properties governed by breed-specific leases across all 50 states that are entirely unaffected by these state preemption laws.8
- A Primer on State Preemption Laws: Wave I and Wave II Explained - DogsBite.org
- 2016 Legislative Highlights: Six States Reject Preemption Bills Barring Pit Bull Laws
- 2015 First Quarter Legislative Highlights: Local Control Dominates, We Salute...
- California enacted a full state preemption law in 1989. In 2005, part of it was repealed to allow for breed-specific sterilization ordinances. San Francisco enacted the country's first mandatory pit bull sterilization ordinance in 2005.
- The state preemption law in Virginia was enacted between 1990 and 1993. Not all states have complete legislative archival histories online. Even when they do, the adoption dates can be difficult to determine.
- Miami-Dade County Elections, 2012 Election Results (www.miamidade.gov) and Final Election Results Miami-Dade County August 14, 2012 (results.enr.clarityelections.com)
- The Pennsylvania state preemption law excludes counties.
- Illinois is an untested home rule state.
- Rhode Island is an untested home rule state. Learn more: Haas, Terrance P. (2006) "Constitutional Home Rule in Rhode Island," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 11: Iss. 3, Article 3.
- The anti-BSL preemption in Arizona Senate Bill 1248, drafted by Best Friends Animal Society, was hidden in this anti-animal welfare bill that banned local puppy mill ordinances. In a statewide preemption strike on local control, cities saw their puppy mill ordinances stripped away, while Best Friends celebrated a "pit bull" victory at the cost of animal welfare protections across the entire state.
- Multifamily Rental Properties: Would You Believe 2.25 Million?, by Paul Emrath, Eye On Housing, March 29, 2013 (www.eyeonhousing.org)