California Breed-Specific Law Targets Pit Bulls After Fatal Mauling

A series of pit bull attacks in the San Francisco Bay Area, including the death of a 12-year-old boy, drove California lawmakers and local officials to enact new breed-specific regulations in November 2005. Multiple high-profile pit bull maulings in the San Francisco Bay Area prompted county officials to call for mandatory spaying and neutering of the breed and tight restrictions on pit bull breeders. The legislative response unfolded at two levels, state and municipal, and produced enforceable obligations that animal advocates said raised significant legal questions.

The proximate cause of the San Francisco action was a fatal attack that occurred the prior summer. San Francisco County Supervisor Bevan Dufty's proposal was prompted by the mauling death of 12-year-old Nicholas Fabish, a San Francisco boy who was killed by his family's two pit bulls. According to NPR, Dufty's measure required pit bull owners to spay or neuter their animals and required breeders to obtain a city permit ^[1]. The mother of Nicholas Fabish, Maureen Faibish, later pleaded not guilty to a charge of felony child endangerment and, upon arraignment, faced up to 10 years in prison. She was scheduled to reappear in San Francisco Superior Court.

The state legislature moved in parallel. Reacting to a number of attacks, the California legislature passed a bill, Senate Bill 861, introduced by State Sen. Jackie Speier, that gave local governments the power to dictate spaying and neutering policies for specific breeds. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 861, which took effect January 1, 2006. The law stopped short of permitting outright breed bans. SB 861 allows local governments to pass breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter requirements, provided no breed is declared dangerous or vicious.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a breed-specific ordinance requiring pit bull owners in the city and county to spay or neuter their dogs unless they obtained a $100 breeding permit. The legislation defines pit bulls as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and any dog displaying the physical traits of those breeds. Fines for noncompliance range from $100 to $1,000 and, on a second offense, can include six months in county jail. Data cited by NPR illustrated the scale of the underlying problem: approximately 7,000 pit bulls lived in San Francisco, representing about 6 percent of the city's dog population, yet they accounted for more than half of all canines picked up after biting someone. ^[1]

The ordinance drew opposition from breed advocates and triggered legal debate. Attorney Dawn Capp was among those planning to challenge the state crackdown, arguing it effectively gives cities the power to ban any breed by making the pet owner a potential target through insurance and housing requirements. San Francisco officials stated they were prepared for a legal battle but intended to approve the new dog law regardless. The American Kennel Club also formally opposed the measure. Whether similar ordinances would survive legal challenge in other jurisdictions remained an open question as California municipalities monitored the San Francisco outcome.

References

[1] NPR. (2005, November 14). Targeting Aggressive Dog Breeds in California. https://www.npr.org/2005/11/14/5012365/targeting-aggressive-dog-breeds-in-california

[2] Snopes. (2026, February 7). Pit Bull Euthanasia Bill. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pit-bull-euthanasia-bill/

[3] San Francisco Examiner. (2006, May 31). Faibish Pleads Not Guilty in Dog Attack. https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/faibish-pleads-not-guilty-in-dog-attack/article_afaab282-b63a-5d1f-8dfa-b484172b761a.html

[4] American Kennel Club. (2005, November 16). San Francisco Passes Breed-Specific Mandatory Spay/Neuter. https://www.akc.org/legislative-alerts/san-francisco-passes-breed-specific-mandatory-spay-neuter/