| Home » |
 Dogs Bite Blog ::
browse:
animal groups,
comments and editorials,
criminal trials,
dogfighting,
dog law and bsl,
family dog attacks,
fatal dog attacks,
horse attacks,
pet attacks,
pit bull owners,
police shootings,
postal attacks,
senior attacks,
sticky stories,
victims of attacks
|
Councilwoman's Dogs Attacked; 1 Killed by Loose Pit Bulls
Pit Bull Ban is Suggested
Allen Park, MI - After two pit bull type dogs attacked and killed a councilwoman's two dogs, the councilwoman is suggesting a pit bull ban. Beverly Kelley's two Shih Tzus were the targets of a deadly attack July 12th by two pit bulls that broke through a gate to her yard. One of Kelley's dogs was killed in the attack and the other was severely wounded.
Several members of the council offered support for the resolution, including Mayor Gary Burtka. He said, "It is a very serious safety issue. I think the committee should move quickly on this matter." Kelley said her dogs were in her fenced back yard when the pit bulls approached. She said all four dogs were barking at each other and the pit bulls jumped on the fence until it gave way.
"They broke right through my fence, and I couldn't do anything to stop them because I was afraid for myself," Kelley said. Kelley said that the larger dogs (described as rottweiler pit bull-mix and a Labrador pit bull-mix) quickly had her Shih Tzus by their throats. Her husband, Byron, used a cane to force the release of their pet, Boss, from the bigger animal's jaws, but their other pet, Cujo, already was dead. Boss was taken to the veterinarian, where he has received about $1,000 in medical so far.
If the council adopts an ordinance banning pit bulls, Allen Park will not be the first city to do so. There are bans on pit bulls in Ecorse and Melvindale, and Southgate has restrictions.
Related articles:
07/23/08: 10-Year Old's Arm Amputated After Family Pit Bull Attack
05/20/08: Fatal Livingston Maulings Spawn Modest RulesLabels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Leflore County Passes Pit Bull Ordinance
New Pit Bull Law
Leflore County, MS - Leflore County, Mississippi (population about 38,000) contains the city of Itta Bena. Yesterday, the Board of Supervisors of Leflore County passed a pit bull ordinance, citing as motivation recent cases in which pit bulls mauled an Itta Bena woman and killed a 3-year-old boy in Jackson. The new law requires pit bull owners to:
- Secure dog in a four-sided pen, 6-feet high with a top and concrete floors
- Post a "Dangerous Dog" sign
- Muzzle and leash the dog when outside of the cage
- Spay or neuter the dog
- Be at least 21 years of age
- Register the dog with the Leflore County Humane Society
- Carry a $100,000 liability insurance policy or post a $100,000 cash surety
Penalties for failing to comply range from $100 to $500 and increase with each offense. Pit bulls will be confiscated until the conditions of the law are met. After three offenses, the dog is permanently confiscated. Reasons cited for the ordinance include: the pit bull's heritage as fighting dogs, a powerful set of jaws, their unique insensitivity to pain and their aggressive temperament.
Aubrey Whittington, president of the Leflore County Humane Society, praised the board for passing the ordinance. "You have shown that you care about the welfare and safety of the Leflore County citizens and their children," she said. "You have taken a giant step in the right direction, and I hope the other counties and the cities will follow your fine example."
Some animal advocacy groups agree with DogsBite.org. Whittington said the Humane Society will work with the county to enforce the ordinance. "This is unacceptable behavior with these pit bulls, and it has got to stop," she said. Last week the county built secure cages at the Humane Society that can hold vicious dogs. The pit bull that attacked the Itta Bena woman escaped from a non-secure pen and has still not been caught.
DogsBite.org applauds the Leflore County Board of Supervisors and Humane Society for creating an ordinance that protects its citizens and pets from pit bull dogs and forces pit bull owners to truly take responsibility for their animals.
Related articles:
07/28/08: 1,600 Stitches for Pit Bull Attack Victim, Dog Snaps Chain to Attack
07/25/08: Fatality 2008: Mississippi Boy's Mother Discusses Fatal Dog AttackLabels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
5 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
FAQ: What is a Breed-Specific Law (BSL)?
DogsBite.org - We've recently updated our FAQ sheet about breed-specific law, which is located in the Legislating Dogs section. The FAQ sheet can be read online and is also available as a downloadable PDF file. The document covers the nuts and bolts of breed-specific law, including: What is a breed-specific law and does my city need one? The document also covers the most common types of breed-specific law, as well as enforcement issues.
We encourage you to send the FAQ sheet to your city council, particularly if they are considering stonger dangerous dog laws.
Download the DogsBite.org BSL FAQ Sheet
The FAQ sheet answers the commonly asked question, "Why not just enforce the laws we already have?" The document states, "Most cities have laws that take effect after a person has been bitten, in some instances, only after a second person has been bitten. In these cities, a pit bull can attack two separate victims, leaving each with severe injury before substantial penalties are triggered. Such laws were designed for a 'common' dog bite, not a pit bull bite that often results in lifelong damage."
Regarding enforcement issues, the FAQ sheet uses examples found in the cities of San Francisco (pit bull sterilization), Council Bluffs (pit bull ban) and Aurora (fighting breed ban). Each city operates on the "enforce as you go" model. This means that authorities take action as they become aware of infractions. The paper discusses how higher registration fees for restricted breeds help pay for enforcement as do lower shelter occupancy rates that result after the restrictions are in place.
The document also addresses the question: "I own a German shepherd; will my dog be regulated next?" The FAQ sheet states that breed-specific laws were designed for pit bull type dogs. A tiny percentage of cities have expanded these laws to include "fighting breeds," but these instances are rare. The document adds, "The rational basis of regulating pit bulls, as opposed to any other breed, is that selective breeding has produced a dog with bite and attack traits unlike any other dog."
Lastly, the document addresses the constitutionality of breed-specific laws. It states that 11 U.S. State Supreme Courts have upheld the constitutionality of breed-specific law including: Washington, Colorado, Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Kentucky. The document adds that U.S. District Courts and the United States Supreme Court have also weighed in on breed-specific laws."In February of 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the Ohio State Supreme Court's decision in the Toledo vs. Tellings case. Pit bull advocates had argued that the law was unconstitutional on several grounds, all of which the Ohio State Supreme Court rejected. By refusing the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Toledo's breed-specific law constitutional, and the case cannot be appealed further." Download the DogsBite.org BSL FAQ Sheet
Related article:
06/23/08: Report: Dog Attacks on Livestock and Horses January - May 2008Labels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
In Parts of Pennsylvania, 3rd World Dog Licensing Fees
Whopping $6 Dollars
Pennsylvania - Back in May, DogsBite.org reported on the 3rd world dog fines being handed out in Scottsbro, Alabama. For instance, the fine for having an unleashed dog is $50, if the offense results in an off-property attack that leaves a person with severe injury. If the same dog attacks a person a 2nd and 3rd time, the fine is increased to $100 and $200 respectively.
In parts of Pennsylvania, including Bellevue, Avalon and Ben Avon, officers with the state Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement will be canvassing the areas looking for dog law violations. Pennsylvania law requires that all dogs 3 months and older be licensed each year. The cost is $6 for dogs that are spayed or neutered, or $8 for those that are unaltered.
It's a third world price, yet approximately only 25% of pet owners pay. It's hard to imagine that this stunningly low price -- with a low ratio of people paying it -- could financially support the many animal shelters that these fees are designed to support. Furthermore, the cost differentiation between being unaltered or not is hardly an incentive to spay or neuter your dog. The primary message of all animal care groups is to alter your pet.
As authorities canvas, officers will also be checking for proof of rabies shots. State law requires the vaccination for dogs or cats three months and older. The approximate cost is $16. A commenter wrote (below) that the vaccination is boostered after one year, then typically every three years after. Failure to show proof of pet license or rabies vaccination can cost up to $300. That's more like it!
05/26/08: In Scottsbro, Alabama, 3rd World Dog Fines AboundLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Lakewood, Ohio Passes Pit Bull Ban
Hard Work Paid Off
Lakewood, OH - Lakewood City Council has passed an ordinance banning new pit bulls and canary dogs. Under the ordinance, pit bulls already owned by Lakewood residents can stay, but only if those dogs are registered and kept in compliance with existing vicious dog laws. DogsBite.org has tracked the twists and turns of Lakewood's process in passing this ban. Below are the stories:
Related articles:
07/18/08: Letter: Former Lakewood Prosecutor Supports Ban
07/16/08: Noncompliant Pit Bull Owners Cited After Lakewood Hearing
06/13/08: Standing Firm on Pit Bull Ban: Councilman Powers Responds...
06/13/08: Lakewood Debates Pit Bull Ban, Opponents Shed No New Light
06/01/08: Pit Bull Ban FAQ by Councilman Brian Powers
05/22/08: Ohio Cities Cracking Down on Pit Bulls (Big Time)Labels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
6 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Noncompliant Pit Bull Owners Cited After Lakewood Hearing
 MyFox Segment Tells Story
Lakewood, OH - At a recent public hearing about a proposed pit bull ban in the City of Lakewood, a group of pit bull owners spoke against it. These same pit bull owners, it turns out, were also lawbreakers. Ohio state law declares pit bulls as "vicious" and owners must comply with several rules including: registration, liability insurance and a special containment pen.
After the public hearing, Councilman Brian Powers asked the director of animal control to verify that the activists were compliant with current Ohio state law. Four of the pit bull owners who testified were not. Lakewood Animal Control agents then cited the pit bull owners, who then puckered up and said that their First Amendment rights had been violated. Powers had unjustly targeted them!
Pictured is noncompliant pit bull owner, Jason Brown.
Related articles:
06/13/08: Standing Firm: Councilman Powers Responds to Critics
06/01/08: Pit Bull Ban FAQ by Councilman Brian PowersLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
11 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Madisonville, Texas Scraps Pit Bull Ordinance
City Council Members Fold
Madisonville, TX - Madisonville City Council members voted to lift the 6-month old pit bull ordinance that prohibited new pit bulls and placed restrictions on current owners. Council members scrapped all of Article I and did so despite the fact that Texas is the pit bull killing capital of the nation. Town members are now left with a law that deems a pit bull vicious after a violent or deadly attack and after a new Tanner Monk or Pablo Lopez has been created.
In the instance of Madisonville, it's clear that pit bull advocates did their work well. The only response given about the repealed law was that "it penalized responsible dog owners," according to interim city manager Paul Feazelle.
Related articles:
05/19/08: Roll Call: Texans Killed by Pit Bulls in 2007
05/23/08: Roll Call: Texans Killed by Pit Bulls in 2006
03/13/08: Pro-Pit Bull Advocates Flock to Madisonville Meeting
02/21/08: Madisonville to Stand its Ground on Pit Bull Ordinance
02/17/08: Pit Bulls Banned in Madisonville, TexasLabels: dog law, pit bull ordinance, texas dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
6 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Man Attacked in Groin; Officials Still Determining if Dog is "Vicious"
Too Much Head Scratching
Hastings, NE - To point out how bizarre and unsafe most existing dog laws are, in addition to how these laws guarantee news victims and do not adequately penalize owners of dangerous dogs, we bring you to Hastings, Nebraska. Here a man named Michael Heuertz was recently bitten in the groin by a pit bull because he had the audacity to take his own dog for a walk.Michael Heuertz isn't asking the City of Hastings to ban Pit Bulls, but to consider that his experience could happen to children playing on the street. They're not old enough or big enough to fight back. Monday night, Heuertz showed the city council a picture of his groin after a Pit Bull attacked. He wants the image to stay with them. "I'm asking you to be proactive instead of reactive," he said. He was out with his mother's dog when a Pit Bull attacked the dog, then bit him
in the groin. His incident brings a reminder of the Kearney attack two years ago, that sent
two people to the hospital. Heuertz is concerned for future innocent victims, like his two
year-old niece and nephews. Laws that only substantially penalize a dog and its owner after a second bite, were written long before pit bulls became popular. Two attacks by a pit bull can leave two victims with lifelong injury. A realistic starting point in medical bill cost for each victim is $50,000. Currently, Hastings officials are scratching their heads and asking: Should Heuertz's injury qualify the dog being labeled "dangerous?"
Related articles:
07/11/08: New Hampshire Pit Bull Owner Faces Charges After Second Attack
04/05/08: Pit Bull Owner Arrested After Second Child and Animal AttackedLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Proactive Dog Policy: Why Seattle Needs It
Seattle, WA - On March 4th, 2008, the founder of DogsBite.org, Colleen Lynn, submitted a white paper to Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess. The paper examines the nationwide pit bull problem, Seattle's pit bull problem and the pit bull breed itself. It also offers solutions that other U.S. cities have found effective in preventing future victims, while simultaneously protecting pit bull dogs.
View full paper:
Proactive Dog Policy: Why Seattle Needs It
Highlights of the document include recognizing that the pit bull problem is over 20 years old. In this time, many policymakers have failed to take action. As a result, the pit bull population has exploded; euthanization rates have soared; dog fighting has escalated; animal shelter insurance has spiked and victim medical costs have flown out the window.
The document reveals Seattle's pit bull problem. Between 2002 and mid-September 2007, city shelters had to euthanize 3,407 dogs, 48% percent were pit bulls. Though 128 different biting breeds were recorded in Seattle, pit bulls were responsible for 24% and only make up 2.6% of the registered dogs. Before diving deeper into Seattle bite statistics, the document discusses, What constitutes a bite?
In the national section of the document, the paper shows the results of two widely known studies regarding breeds of dogs and fatal attacks. It reminds readers that in 2007, 35 fatal dog attacks occurred. Pit bull type dogs were responsible for 60%. A third study mentions the frequency of dog bite injury in U.S. emergency care centers. On a daily bases, about 1,000 Americans require emergency care treatment due to serious dog bites.
On several occasions, the paper asks a pointed question, "The argument that lies before the City of Seattle is not the "demonization" of pit bulls, it is instead: What steps can we take to prevent future attacks? And who pays when they do attack?" The question is underscored by the fact that many pit bull owners in Seattle are renters and cannot provide medical payment after an attack.
The paper also explores the genetic history of the pit bull and the opinions of leading researchers. Experts agree that pit bulls display unique traits when they attack. In a police officer training video, Randall Lockwood, the Senior Vice President to the ASPCA, specifies the unique dangers posed by pit bulls that non-fighting breeds do not pose:
"The main impediment to reading a dog's communication is when the dog is a fighting breed. The best strategy for a fighting breed is to not communicate your intention. This is why we hear about so many fighting breeds attacking without warning. Meaning there was no growl, there was no bark, there was no direct stare, the dog just went from point a to point b and did what he wanted to do. Likewise, they are disrespectful of the traditional signs of submission and appeasement." Alan Beck, a world-renowned dog ecologist, educator and author, was also quoted in the paper. In written testimony to the Province of Ontario -- a Canadian province that was in the stages of enacting a pit bull ban -- Mr. Beck writes:
"While all breeds of dogs can and do bite on occasion, pit bulls (due to their inherent fighting nature, strength and high pain threshold) have a much higher potential of being involved in a serious attack than most, if not all, breeds. There is no doubt that the fear of pit bull dogs is reasonable and social tension about them should also be considered when a community is developing policy." Three pages of the report are dedicated to the physical and psychological injury that victims suffer after an attack. Incorporated were topics such as, "sustained attacks," which is an attack that lasts 15 minutes or longer, and "massive soft tissue lost," both of which are unique to the pit bull breed. The paper also discussed the rising number of victims that require one million dollars in medical care after a pit bull attack.
The last portion of the paper provides recommendations to the City of Seattle to help prevent future victims and protect pit bull dogs. The items include: mandatory microchipping for identification purposes; liability insurance of $250,000 for victim medical recourse; and mandatory spay/neuter to reduce pit bull bites and euthanizations. The paper adds that under Washington state law, such policies are constitutionally sound.
View full paper:
Proactive Dog Policy: Why Seattle Needs It Labels: dog law, seattle
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
San Jacinto Man Hospitalized After Pit Bull Attack
Pit Bull to Be Euthanized
Amarillo, TX - A San Jacinto man is recovering at a local hospital after being attacked by a pit bull over the holiday weekend. Animal control officers say a man was walking his dog Sunday morning when a loose pit attacked him and his dog. Officers say both victims suffered severe injuries. Shannon Barlow with Amarillo Animal Control says they are prepared to deal with the problem.They will "deal" with the problem with laws that punish the owner after the attack, after two victims have been seriously injured. Barlow said, "We've had a significant increase with that particular breed attacking people and other animals but fortunately we've increased the strength of our local laws and our state laws so we're able to more readily deal with those particular situations." The generic dangerous dog laws that she refers to only take effect after an attack has been inflicted. Laws that directly target pit bulls -- breed-specific laws -- are designed to prevent future attacks.
Regulate the breed, prevent the deed.
Related articles:
06/15/08: Duncanville: Breed Ban Backed In Second Texas Town
02/17/08: Pit Bulls Banned in Madisonville, TexasLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Provo Getting Closer to Dangerous Dog Ordinance
Some Dogs Classified as "At Risk"
Provo, UT - Discussion of a Dangerous Dog ordinance began back in April in Provo. City officials may be getting closer to a solution. The Municipal Council is considering an ordinance that would classify some dogs as "at risk" or "dangerous" and require their owners to take steps to protect the public. The article does not say that the ordinance is breed-specific, but it certainly appears this way.
Like many U.S. cities, and the whole state of Ohio, Provo is considering a regulation that would label specific breeds as "potentially dangerous" or "dangerous" and require owners to muzzle the animals in public and provide photos for police files. Owners may also be required to carry at least $100,000 in liability insurance in case someone is attacked. The council is expected to discuss the proposal at tomorrow's meeting.
Related articles:
06/08/08: Little Rock Pit Bull Ordinance: Possibly a Very Effective Blend
04/18/08: Utah Valley Considers Pit Bull BanLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
0 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Dallas Passes New Animal Ordinance
Mandatory Spay/Neuter For All (With Many Exceptions)
Dallas, TX - Another major US city passed a mandatory sterilization law for all pets, albeit with many exceptions. The ordinance also forbids long-term tethering -- no more "chaining up the pit." The anti-tethering component alone ought to fill up Dallas Animal Shelters with pit bull type dogs. Then officials will have to figure out what to do with them.
The vote passed with a swift 10-3. The bulk of the ordinance takes effect next week. Provisions addressing outdoor dog confinements go into effect Sept. 25, while the spay/neuter provisions and breeder permit regulations take effect Oct. 25. Other parts of the watered down ordinance that hardly addresses the dangerous dog problem include:
- A whopping $70 bucks per animal for breeders to obtain permits. Previously, the city planned to charge $500 per animal -- quite the reduction in cost.
- A single house to be limited to six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city for grandfathering, allowing them to keep their animals without penalty.
- Dogs and cats must be spayed or neutered. But the ordinance would provide numerous exceptions to a previously proposed mandatory spay-neuter provision. Dogs and cats younger than 6 months old, a service animal, or the property of a licensed breeder -- which costs the whopping the $70 bucks -- would be exempt from spaying or neutering regulations. A veterinarian may also certify that an animal shouldn't be spayed or neutered for health reasons, the briefing document states.
- The city could seize, and then impound, a dog suspected of causing bodily injury to a person until after a hearing to determine the dog's fate. Now, such dogs are quarantined for 10 days and then returned to their owners in many cases.
- Tethering unsupervised dogs to trees or poles be prohibited except "for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary task."
- Owners must provide at least 150 square feet of space and a "building or properly designed dog house" for a dog confined outdoors.
DogsBite.org praises the City of Dallas of taking these new steps, such actions are far better than none. Hopefully within 12-18 months, the number of stray pets citywide will be down.
Related articles:
05/07/08: Pit Bulls Terrorizing Dallas Neighborhood
04/08/08: Dallas City Council Proposes Interesting New OrdinanceLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Bill Stops Convicted Drug Dealers from Owning Dogs Over 20lbs
The "Over 20lb" Rational
New York - The State of New York has passed a bill that prohibits anyone convicted of selling or possessing a controlled substance within the past five years from having a dog that is trained to attack or be vicious. The bill broadly defines this type of dog as weighing over 20lbs and has either been trained to attack other people or has exhibited a vicious disposition or propensity.New York State does not allow "breed-specific" law.
So after police have entered a home to serve a warrant and witnessed the dog acting "vicious," the dog owner (assuming he or she already has a drug conviction) will be penalized. The law is designed to help protect police officers from "repeat" drug offenders. Casting such a wide net -- any dog over 20lbs -- is the best authorities can do given the state's prohibition to breed-specific law.
The pit bull-criminality link is mighty and substantial. It's too bad, due to "breed-specific prohibition" laws, that all dogs over 20lbs are getting lobbed into the "dangerous" category.
Labels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
6 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Lower Valley Town of Wapato Adopts Pit Bull Ban
Small Town Suffering Big Price
Wapato, WA - In a region known as the Lower Valley -- which has experienced multiple violent attacks by loose pit bulls -- the town of Wapato recently adopted a pit bull ban, as well as a few other dangerous breeds: pit bull-mixes, mastiffs and American bulldogs. Violation of the new ordinance subjects dog owners to a $250 fine and subsequent violations of a $500 fine.
In the past 5 months, police have destroyed 6 of these dogs. In January, a 55-year old man was savagely attacked by loose pit bulls and flown to Harborview Medical in Seattle. Last year a 4-year old girl was seriously mauled in an alley behind her home. In 2004, 4-year old Jose Basillo's arms were nearly torn off by loose pit bulls. He too was transported by air to Harborview.
The ordinance will not have any authority in two nearby Yakima tribal housing projects because they fall under tribal jurisdiction. Part of the issue with dangerous dogs in the Lower Valley area is due to tribal jurisdiction. After an attack, the dogs sometimes run back onto tribal lands making identification and, or impoundment of the animals impossible.To make matters worse, Wapato and other like-towns in the area, do not have a budget that allows for animal control. DogsBite.org applauds the mayor and city council of Wapato for taking a stand for citizen safety. The situation Wapato faces is indeed complex, but one that is mirrored throughout the county: violent pit bull attacks, tribal land jurisdiction issues and lack of animal control resources.
Related articles:
05/22/08: Flashback: Jose Basilio Attacked by a Pack of Pit Bulls
01/29/08: Savage Dog Attack in Lower Valley Injures ManLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Pit Bulls Bring Terror; Must be Removed from Society
Whitehall Councilwoman Speaks Out
Columbus, OH - After attempting to pass a pit bull ban in the city of Whitehall, Ohio, councilwoman Jacquelyn K. Thompson writes an editorial piece in the Columbus Dispatch. Currently the city of Columbus, Ohio bans pit bulls. Thompson encourages the city to continue it's tough work of standing up to the pit bull lobby and their intimidating tactics.After World War II, there was a yearning in this country to improve upon our living conditions, to seek greater knowledge, to end the inequities that were subjugating so many of our citizens. In other words, to take civilization to a higher level of existence. That was our desire.
The United States led the way to the formation of the United Nations as a means to settle differences diplomatically, to end violence and to take actions that would improve the lives of all people.
That changed for us with the onset of the Vietnam War and the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. Once again, we immersed ourselves in violence.
Since then, we have been on a downhill race to the bottom, determined to reduce this country to the lowest common denominator. One only needs to turn on the television to see how we have fallen. We are in the midst of the latest manifestation of the age-old battle between civilization and the barbarian.
People keep asking me: "Why ban pit bulls in Whitehall? Why this issue?" Well, because pit bulls are representative of the new order. Bred to kill, they bring terror into the hearts of those who must live among them. Abused, a twisted status symbol, killer, maimer. That, too often, is the reality of the pit-bull breeds. They are to be pitied, but we are left with no alternative but to remove them from society.
Would it have been my first choice of issues to address legislatively since taking office as a Whitehall City Council member in January? If not for Whitehall residents who are living in fear, probably not. But circumstances sometimes dictate how we shall act, and I felt compelled to make a pit-bull ban the first legislation that I presented. It's just too bad that the majority of members do not see the danger coming and chose to come down on the side of darkness when they voted no on the ban.
I urge the city of Columbus to lead the way on this issue. It has the resources to stand up to the pit-bull lobby that typically shows up at council meetings en masse, threatening and bullying communities to bend to its will. Meanwhile, we hear of more and more pit-bull attacks. Recently, two 6-year old children were maimed and a 77-year-old woman was viciously attacked. How much more must we bear?
-Jacquelyn K. Thompson DogsBite.org calls to mind Robert F. Kennedy's speech after the death of Martin Luther King: "Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world." Due to the hand of man, pit bulls represent the savageness of man and have for over 20 years. It is time to put this symbol away for good.
Related articles:
06/13/08: Standing Firm on Pit Bull Ban: Councilman Powers Responds to Critics
06/01/08: Pit Bull Ban FAQ by Councilman Brian PowersLabels: council member editorial, dog law, letter to the editor
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
South American Country of Guyana Bans Importation of Pit Bulls
Pit Bull Attacks Are a Worldwide Problem
Georgetown, Guyana - After a spate of violent human maulings by pit bulls, Guyanese authorities have responded to the public outcry and opted to ban future imports of the breed into the South American nation. Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud told reporters the import ban would last until Guyana’s lawmakers review the matter in coming weeks.At least eight countries worldwide ban the importation of pit bulls. Public debate about the breed erupted when a pit bull escaped from a yard and severely mauled a jogger in the capital. The victim had to be flown to the U.S. for reconstructive surgery to his hands, legs and upper body. In May, a 58-year-old security guard died after he was attacked by a pack of pit bulls.
Pit bulls are often kept as pets in Guyana’s residential areas or for commercial breeding purposes. Current owners of pit bulls will be allowed to keep their dogs only if the animals are registered. Those who don’t comply could have their dogs seized and can be fined.
Related articles:
U.S States and Foreign Countries that Regulate Pit Bull DogsLabels: dog law, guyana
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Osceola, Nebraska Passes Pit Bull Ban
Ban Wins Unanimous Approval
Osceola, NE - City Council unanimously passed its proposed ban on dog breeds designated as vicious. The breeds include: Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, chows, Dobermans, rottweilers, American bandogge mastiffs and neopolitan mastiffs. The policy change came after the third official reading of the proposed ordinance.
Ban at a glance:
City Attorney Brian Beckner said the city’s breed ban ordinance is effective immediately upon publication in the newspaper of record in Polk county. At that time the city’s animal control officer will submit an affidavit to the police department who will in turn serve notice to the owner of any dog listed as a vicious dog in the ordinance.
- Once notice is received the dog owner will have 10 days to inform the police department in writing whether they believe their dog falls under the provisions of the ordinance.
- If the owner fails to respond within the 10 day period the dog will be presumed to be a vicious dog as defined and the owner will be cited.
- If the owner claims the dog does not fall under the provisions of the ordinance they will be ordered to bring the dog to a veterinarian who has the option to draw blood for the DNA test.
- If the veterinarian determines the dog to be a vicious dog, the owner will be cited, ordered to pay for the cost of veterinarian services and any DNA test performed.
- The police department will issue a 48 hour notice to remove the dog from the city limits.
- If the owner fails to remove the dog, the police department will impound the dog until trial on the citation is held.
- If the owner, convicted of the ordinance, continues to keep the animal in the city limits they will be subject to charges of contempt of court.
- Each day the dog is kept within the city limits will be deemed a separate offense.
Related articles:
05/11/08: Osceola Being Proactive; Ban Before a BiteLabels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
0 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Duncanville: Breed Ban Backed In Second Texas Town
Nominated: Rock Star Municipality
Duncanville, TX - The second Texas City is putting forth a proposal to ban pit bull type dogs. Due to ten pit bull attacks in 2007 and seven pit bull attacks in the first five months of 2008, Duncanville City Council approved a resolution June 3rd, 2008 stating that an attempt will be made to get legislation passed banning pit bull type dogs for local municipalities.
The City of Duncanville (population 38,000) lies in Dallas County and is a suburb of Dallas, which is also debating changes to its dangerous dog laws. Duncanville resident Kevalyn Townsend voiced at a recent public forum, "Because of a rising number of pit bull attacks I support (this ban). I'd also like to thank the council for taking the initiative to champion this issue and further protect the citizens of Duncanville."
Texas State law prohibits breed-specific ordinances, but some cities have enacted such laws successfully anyway. "I've done a lot of research and if other cities can do it, I believe Duncanville can do it," Mary Ellen Miles said, citing Madisonville, Texas, as one city with a successful breed ban. Madisonville laid the groundwork for other Texas cities that are up to their ears in pit bull attacks.
Supporters of the Duncanville ban will appeal to the state for lenience toward the ban. Officials understand that taking on state law that prohibits breed-specific measures may prove difficult, but they say, "We've had too many people injured so it's worth it." (Too bad the mayor of Lubbock, after 23 animal deaths and 2 human attacks by pit bulls in 5 months, failed to respond similarly.)
Duncanville City Secretary Dara Crabtree said they hope to find strength in numbers when it comes to the ban. She adds that Duncanville will be sending a letter to other area cities requesting them to adopt a similar resolution and ask them to send it to their representatives requesting their support. Duncanville will also be working with the Texas Municipal League on this matter.
It's clear some Texas cities are becoming more aware of a deadly reality. In 2007, Texas led the nation with 7 dog bite fatalities; pit bull type dogs caused 6 of these deaths. On, May 18, 2008, a new Texan became a fatal victim of pit bulls: Tanner Joshua Monk, 7-years old.
Related articles:
05/23/08: Roll Call: Texans Killed by Pit Bulls in 2006
05/19/08: Roll Call: Texans Killed by Pit Bulls in 2007
03/21/08: Pit Bull Epidemic in Lubbock, Texas (Jan-Mar 2008)
02/17/08: Pit Bulls Banned in Madisonville, TexasLabels: dog law, texas dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
8 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Human Legal Issues Overlap with Animal Legal Issues
The Long Leash of the Law
Seattle, WA - We recently came across a law article that stretched across both human and animal law. Domestic violence, custody, and wrongful death are shared by each and hold similar challenges too. The concept can be summed up quickly by asking: Why do people have to hit people (or animals)? The writer of the article, Daniel Jack Chasen, discusses a recent meeting he attended on the subject of human and animal law hosted by the Washington State Bar Association.
As you might imagine, all kinds of painful stories emerged. Not only is domestic violence and animal abuse often practiced by the same offender, sometimes the offender abuses the pet in front of their partner, possibly to "get even" or to demonstrate power. Victims of domestic abuse also may stay longer with the abuser if they are unsure where to place their pets when they go to a shelter. For many reasons, prosecuting offenders of these crimes is difficult.
Other parts of the program dealt with less emotional issues. One speaker talked about zoning doggie daycare centers. Another discussed how to establish a trust to support a pet after its owner dies. In Washington State, "a trust for one or more animals is valid." Since pets are considered property -- and because a trust beneficiary doesn't legally own assets -- allowing a pet trust means that some property can own other property.
Another area of the meeting dealt with service animals. In Washington State, landlords are required to accommodate service animals in rental housing. A "no pet policy" is irrelevant because service animals are not considered pets in Washington State. Chasen points out that the qualifications to become a service pet are marginal:"It qualifies as a service animal if some professional -- an aroma therapist might do -- says that the services it performs, for which it needn't have been specially trained, are linked to the owner's disability. You can't demand a special damage deposit. The owner is liable for any damage, but good luck collecting.
On the issue of collecting, attorney Adam Karp spoke of a client that got a $75,000 judgment after a pit bull, trained for fighting and allowed to roam free, killed a person's cat. Six years ago, such a high number was unheard of, but a 2006 court of appeals ruling changed this. State courts now recognize that harm may be caused to a person's "emotional well-being" by malicious injury to a person's pet (a pet being a form of personal property).
Collecting judgment in the pit bull case was a separate matter. In response to the lawsuit, the pit bull owners declared bankruptcy. The case is still pending in bankruptcy court. Karp said that there are ways of insulating a judgment from discharge in bankruptcy, but it's not a slam dunk. What does seem to be a slam dunk is that even when courts do recognize victim suffering, pit bull owners continue to evade accountability.
Related articles:
02/19/08: Dogs May Lose Right to "One-Free" Bite in New York
03/29/08: Texas Supreme Court: Dog Owner Can't "Watch" Attack and Do NothingLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
0 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Victimized Pet Owners Learn Arcane Dog Law the Hard Way
Where's the Logic in Three Chances?
Cambridge, MA - In what DogsBite.org calls a "classic discovery" story, the owners of a dog recently attacked by two pit bulls comes face-to-face with a harsh reality. Many cities allow "three chances" for all dogs -- including pit bulls -- to bite before serious steps are taken against the dog owner and the dog. Only after a pit bull mauls 2 human beings or family pets do authorities kick into action.Pit bulls do not bite like other dogs. Why are they afforded the same "three chance" privilege? A Cambridge family is still in shock after their dog was viciously attacked by two pit bulls. Starr Tyler and her mother Nancy went for a stroll with their lab named Ziggy. As they reached the corner of the street, they stopped dead in their tracks. Starr said she saw the two dogs, unleashed and raring to go. As they turned to walk in another direction, the pit bulls bolted toward them and attacked.
Nancy Tyler said everybody started screaming. The pit bulls drug Ziggy down the street and in to another yard. After about five or six minutes the owners finally came out.
Ziggy had to get ten stitches and suffered multiple puncture wounds. It wasn't the first time the pit bulls and their owners have gotten in to trouble either. Like many victims, Ziggy's owners had to learn arcane dog law the hard way.Ziggy's owners were shocked by the absurdity of the "three chances" rule. Animal control had previously cited the pit bull owners for letting the dogs run loose. Bill Tyler was stunned after the Humane Society told him that Dorchester County basically has a three-bite rule. "This is this dog's second offense!" he said. "If it hadn't of been for the good Samaritan that came by, those dogs would have mauled my daughter or my wife. Gee would that apply to the three-bite rule too?"
The logic of Bill Tyler is lost to many policymakers and animal advocacy groups. Three bites for a pit bull equals three chances for serious injury and death to both people and pets. Dorchester County animal control declined to comment on the incident. Bill Tyler says he plans to sue the owner of the home who rents to the owners of the pit bulls (smart move). As for the pit bull owners, they simply received a civil citation.
Related articles:
06/06/08: Cincinnati Police Kill Two Pit Bulls in Separate Shootings in Same Day
02/24/08: Law a 'Little Bit Skewed' on Dog AttacksLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Vicious Dogs and Their Owners Have More Rights Than Our Children
The Question is Why?
Boca Raton, FL - In a story that points out the ridiculousness of existing dogs laws -- laws that do not address the rise in dangerous dog ownership -- Nicholas Lopes was attacked by a leashed pit bull moments after the dog nipped his sister. The 5-year old boy now has 40 stitches to the face. Instead of being automatically euthanized, the dog will receive a statewide "dangerous" classification.Labeling this dog as "dangerous" will not prevent a future victim from being created. The pit bull was leashed during the attack. The attack came as Lopes' neighbor Henk Schiffer was walking Jobie, whom he was dog sitting, along with his own dog. The 3-year-old girl, Mia, ran up to Jobie, who snipped at her. She escaped with a slight injury. Her father, Nelson Lopes, was with Nicholas and ran up to Schiffer, asking him if the dog had its shots. That's when Jobie struck again, this time taking Nicholas to the ground.
Animal control said neither Schiffer nor the pit bull owner, Howard Visnick, faced criminal charges. The dangerous classification would mean Jobie would have to be sterilized, implanted with a microchip and walked with a muzzle. Visnick would also have to put up warnings about his dog around his home. If Jobie attacks again, then it is euthanized and the owner is charged with a misdemeanor.Why do vicious dogs and their owners have more rights than our children? Why do these dogs get second and third chances to attack? Pit bulls and pit bull mixes account for nearly a third of reported dog bites in both Broward and Palm Beach counties.
Related articles:
05/08/08: Florida State Proposal to Allow Dangerous Dog Ban Stirs Debate
04/16/08: Pit Bull Attacks 75-Year Old Woman Retrieving Mail
04/15/08: 9-Year Old Palm Beach Girl Speaks Out About Pit Bull Attack
04/13/08: Orlando Mayor Receives Award and Praise for Stopping Pit Bull AttackLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
5 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Ohio Dog Wardens Chime in on Proposed Statewide Pit Bull Ban
In Ohio, Pit Bulls Are Wrapped into Crime
Toledo, OH - Ohio House Bill 568 has been introduced by Representative Tryone Yates of Cincinnati. He wants to ban pit bulls statewide. He and many other people feel that the existing state law -- which deems pit bulls as "vicious" -- isn't doing the trick when it comes to reducing attacks and criminal operations that go hand-in-hand with the breed.
Lucas County Dog Warden, Tom Skeldon, has pushed for restrictions on pit bulls, but stops short of supporting a statewide ban. "I, at this point, am not in favor of a statewide ban," he says. Skeldon does acknowledge that pit bulls are a problem. "When we go into a drug house, as we do regularly, I do not run into Lassie and Rin Tin Tin. We run into pit bulls."
DogsBite.org loves the quotes we read from Ohio Dog Wardens. No other state can match the Rin Tin Tin quality. A separate Ohio Dog Warden left a comment at DogsBite.org (an anonymous poster). He thinks there should be a statewide ban. He writes:I am a dog warden here in Ohio. The amount of pit bulls and like dogs in the local pounds and shelters have increase by 10-fold in the past 5 years. Many of these dogs are being inbred with littermates and are mentally unstable. Pit bull bites are way up and responsible taxpayers are not usually the ones who own such dogs.
Why should your local police man get his arm mauled by a dog who's owner removed the voice box* so when they kick the drug dealers door down they don't even know there was a dog on the other side? Why do meter readers, postmen, electric workers, landscapers and others have to worry about getting attacked by these kind of dogs just because they're doing their jobs?
Are breed specific laws fair? No. But people should be able to do their jobs as well without getting mangled. Sometimes fair isn't what's in the best interest of the common public. I say yes to the ban and have handled thousands of pit bulls, and not all of them are mean. But pit bulls are game and bred to finish what they start. They were bred to kill -- dog, person, child -- yes to the BAN in Ohio. DogsBite.org most definitely just fell in love.
Labels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Leola Bans Variety of Potentially Dangerous Dogs
Council Votes to Keep Citizens Safe
Leola, SD - In a city called Leola (population 462), voters approved the city council's decision to prohibit possessing: pit bulls, bull mastiffs, rottweilers, doberman pinchers and German shepherds. The new ordinance includes mixes of these dogs as well. The ordinance limits to two the number of any breed of dogs anyone can possess.The vote this past week was 103-27 to endorse the council's action. The new law has an exception for people who raise and sell dogs. Also, the banned breeds are allowed if they help or are being trained to help people with disabilities. Mayor Dean Schock says the ordinance was passed due to concerns about people and children who walk and bike around town. The city sends a clear message to owners of these dogs. We take public safety seriously!
Related articles:
05/29/08: Kenmare, North Dakota Bans New Pits, Rotties and PinschersLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Representative Wants to Lift Breed-Specific Prohibition
Bill Would Allow Cities a Choice
Pennsylvania - State Rep. John Galloway (D., Bucks) will announce legislation today that would allow municipalities to pass laws restricting dangerous dogs. Galloway said he was inspired to draft the bill after experiencing a pit bull attack first hand. A 5-year old girl and her uncle were walking the family dog when the pit bull attacked. The little girl and her dog Luna will attend the event.
A recent attempt by the City of Reading to enact its own local dog ordinance was overturned by Commonwealth Court, which ruled that state dog law supersedes local laws. In February, the court threw out an ordinance that placed restrictions on owners of "aggressive" dog breeds, which were defined as those responsible for 40% percent of dog bites in a year.
Owners of aggressive breeds had to pay $500 a year for permits for unsterilized dogs and use muzzles and heavy leashes on dogs in public. According to the Reading Eagle, the law is credited with helping to reduce dog bites from 130 in 1999 to 33 in 2006. We hope Galloway's legislation makes it to the House floor. We understand this may not be too easy in the state of Pennsylvania.
Related article:
03/14/08: Anti-Tethering Group Pushes for Law in PennsylvaniaLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Ohio Cities Cracking Down on Pit Bulls (Big Time)
Ohio - There is so much news coming from the state of Ohio about new pit bull regulations that DogsBite.org cannot keep track. We wish every state reflected a similar cacophony and commitment toward the safety of its children, senior citizens and pets. Trail blazers these Ohioans are -- DogsBite.org nominates them as a Hero State. We promise to do our best to keep up!
Cincinnati - The City of Cincinnati may be about to unleash "Pit Bull Police" on the streets. A new ordinance city council's voting on will make the existing pit bull ban more enforceable by putting two trained police officers on the street in each police district. These officers will be trained by the SPCA to identify pit bull type dogs. That way, if the dog is a pit bull, the dog can be seized immediately.
Lakewood - Just outside of Cleveland, the town of Lakewood is determining whether or not a pit bull ban is needed. Ohio state law already requires pit bull owners to have $100,000 worth of liability insurance, six-foot fences and muzzles on the dogs. But these measures have not proven to be enough in Lakewood. The increased measure will go to the Public Safety Committee and several public hearings before a decision is made.
Racine - Police Marshal Curtis Jones brought the idea of a vicious dog ban to council after a recent incident. Jones had restrained a loose pit bull on a cable and chain until the dog warden could arrive, but the dog broke both tethers and jumped into another fenced-in yard with dogs. After jumping two more fences, Jones caught up to it. The dog then charged Jones, so he fired one shot into it, but the dog "kept on going." The dog was shot three times before it expired.
Other Ohio cities considering stronger pit bull measures include: Whitehall, Sylvania, Lorain and likely a handful of others. A state-wide pit bull ban is also being considered. Given the obvious trend in the state, toward stricter regulation, the latter makes the most sense of all.
Related articles:
05/21/08: HB 568: Ohio State Wants to Ban All Pit Bulls
04/08/08: Ohio City May Prohibit Convicted Felons from Owning Pit Bulls
03/25/08: Lorain, Ohio Still Ironing Out Pit Bull OrdinanceLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
HB 568: Ohio State Wants to Ban All Pit Bulls
Pit Nutters in Meltdown Mode
ALERT: Pit Spamming | Ohio - In a state that has suffered significant damage for twenty years due to the pit bull problem -- and decades of legal battles -- Ohio House Bill 568 has been introduced by Representative Tryone Yates of Cincinnati. It makes sense that the bill stems from a Cincinnati congressman. The city knows all too well the problems that come with these dogs and their owners.
On a state level, Ohio law deems all pit bulls as "vicious." The law, known as the Ohio Revised Code, has taken many twists and turns. After being shot down by an appeals court several years ago, it was reactivated by the Ohio State Supreme Court in 2007. The law requires "vicious" dogs to be securely confined on property, muzzled when off property and $100,000 in liability insurance.
Various Ohio cities add measures to the law to regulate pit bulls further. For instance, Cincinnati and other cities ban new pit bulls. Each time a city proposes a new measure, the pit nutters come out in full protest and the age-old controversy boils again. With multiple cities, ordinances and lawsuits, the pit bull problem only grows more complex and expensive.
Having a single state law that bans pit bulls is a much simpler solution. Furthermore, it ensures that pit bull owners can't simply "move outside" of a city and displace the pit bull problem to a new region. It is said that due to Denver's pit bull ban, Colorado Springs (70 miles away) has become a dumping ground for pit bulls.
The only aspect of House Bill 568 that is surprising is its rigidity. It's quite clear that defining the dog as "vicious" did not accomplish enough. The Ohio Revised Code, for example, did nothing to reduce the overall population of pit bulls, such as mandatory spay/neuter. It seems now, Ohioans are sick to death of the pit bull problem and all the crime that goes with it.
Aspects of House Bill 568:
- No person shall own, keep, or harbor a dog that belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.
- No later than 90 days after the effective date of this bill, a person who owns, keeps, or harbor a pit bull dog will be forced to surrender the dog to a dog warden.
- Within ten days of surrender, the dog warden shall euthanize the dog.
- If an officer has probable cause to believe that a dog is a pit bull, the officer may apply for a search warrant. After obtaining a search warrant, an officer shall seize the dog and transfer the dog to the dog warden, who shall euthanize the dog within 10 days.
Related articles:
04/08/08: Ohio City May Prohibit Convicted Felons from Owning Pit Bulls
10/28/07: Ohio State Supreme Court Reactivates LegislationLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
11 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Great Idea: "Collective" Dog Bite Penalties
 Cordovas Off the Hook Again
UPDATE 05/14/08: The latest dog attack was dismissed against the Cordovas. Four dog bites have now been attributed to this family; no charges ever delivered. There is no law for cumulative dog bites, meaning you need to have one dog -- the same dog -- bite twice before criminal charges can be pursued.
This brings to mind a recent quote from Kenneth Phillips when discussing Virginia State law. When commenting on the "one bite free" component to the law (which also applies to not tracking cumulative dog bites), he says: "If you own three dogs, all three of them can bite somebody. Then you can buy three more dogs, and all three of them can bite three people, and this can go on and on."
05/09/08: Four Dogs from One Family -- Three Bites
Buffalo, NY - Robert and Ashley Gerrish watched in horror as a pit bull pounced their 2-year-old beagle, clamped its jaws into her neck and violently shook her. Their dog, a female named Magoo, fortunately survived. After the shock wore off, the Gerrishes got angry when they learned that the owners of the pit bull have had incidents in the past.The pit bull is the fourth dog owned by the Cordova's that has attacked in the past three years. And the years before that? Robert Gerrish is concerned. He said if this was the first time, you could understand, accidents happen, but dogs owned by this family have "attacked so many people." He wants the Cordovas to be prevented from owning any more dogs. Kelly McCartney, director of Buffalo’s animal shelter, agrees that the property owners should be restricted from owning dogs.
In response, Brenda Cordova, whipped out the pit bull owner's Conduct Unbecoming Guide. She denies that the dogs inside her household are dangerous. "You’re making it seem like my dogs are killer dogs and we’re just siccing them on people," she said. "My dogs are family-owned and they love people ... It’s not like it was done intentionally ... Things happen. It happens by mistake."
The most serious injuries caused by one of their dogs was on May 5, 2005, when a 33-year-old woman was walking along the street. Two of their mastiffs mauled the woman, biting into both her forearms and upper arms. The injured woman was sent to Erie County Medical Center, and the two dogs were destroyed, but no summonses and no charges were filed against the family.
In another case, a woman was walking out of the Cordova home when one of their dogs attacked her, biting her right arm and right leg. However, the dog was not euthanized, and no summonses were issued. This most recent case involving the unleashed pit bull left the Gerrishes’ pet beagle with a puncture wound and cuts on her neck that required two staples.
Counsel woman Alisa A. Lukasiewicz would like to see the existing law changed, which fails to penalize dog owners for collective dog-biting offenses. In another hook, Robert Gerrish believes the Cordova family is being given preferential treatment because it has connections to a city employee. Reports show that Dog Control Officer Timothy Dyte wrote on his official animal bite report that the Cordova family is related to Michael Murphy, who is a city exterminator. Gerrish is disappointed such a statement appeared on a city report.
McCartney said no preferential treatment was given to the family, adding that it was "unprofessional" for the dog control officer to refer to the family’s relationship to a city employee. Christopher Cordova, the son of Brenda and the owner of the offending dog, was issued two city summonses for having an unlicensed dog and failure to restrain a dog on premises five days after the incident.
Three years ago, Gerrish and his wife decided to move to Buffalo because of its highly acclaimed and well-funded science research (both are in academia). He said that he loves the city and feels lucky to be surrounded by great neighbors on both sides. He added that "It’s a shame that people could be assaulted in broad daylight ... I just want to make this neighborhood safer."Labels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
4 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Reading Ohio Considers Pit Bull Ban
Teenager Attack Sparks New Law
Reading, OH - Following an incident in which a teen was bitten by an unleashed pit bull, City Council is considering a law that would ban all vicious dogs -- including pit bulls. Ohio's definition of a vicious dog is one that, without provocation, has killed or injured a person or another dog, and/or a dog that belongs to a breed that is commonly known as pit bull.
The new ordinance was given its first reading last week. A majority vote by the council on the third reading is needed for it to become law. Councilman Kenneth Nordin prepared the new law. He's a dog owner himself, but also believes the pit bull should be singled out."Pit bulls away from their masters can't be trusted. They don't bite like a regular dog. They are a vicious animal. This is a suburban community. There just isn't room in a small community for vicious animals." Mayor Robert "Bo" Bemmes said he and several council members hadn't been able to review the ordinance in detail. He said the details could change. "What we want to do is to give police a better ability to remove a dog that is believed to be vicious," Bemmes said. Early indications suggest that council members may be divided on the issue; it could go either way.
Related articles:
04/08/08: Ohio City May Prohibit Convicted Felons from Owning Pit Bulls
02/22/08: Whitehall Ohio Talks Pit Bull BanLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Mosinee City Council Votes on Pit Bull Ban
 Ban Inspired by a Law Breakin' Pit Bull Owner
Mosinee, WI - Pit bulls and any mixed breed dog that contains a portion of pit bull could be banned by the City Council tonight (May 12). City staff members have revised the city's animal ordinance to include the prohibition of any pit bull terrier, including American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier or pit bull mix.
In recent months, the city has received complaints about pit bulls being kept at a single family home. Complaints included unlicensed dogs, too many dogs on the property, loose dogs, barking dogs and personal safety concerns of pit bulls.Good catch Mosinee; stop this future pit bull breeder and send a message to others: No pit bull farms wanted in town. Last month, Mosinee police were called to the house three times for a report of three pit bull-type dogs being kept at the residence, according to a police report. The current city ordinances allow no more than two dogs at a home. The resident was warned. Since the last police visit, the pit bull owner's phone number has been disconnected.
The proposed ordinance allows existing pit bulls to remain in the city as long as they are licensed and the owners follow specific conditions that include providing a color photograph of the dog to the city clerk and providing proof of liability insurance of at least $100,000. There currently are 225 licensed dogs in the city; five are some sort of pit bull breed.
Labels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Osceola Being Proactive; Ban Before a Bite
 Second Reading of New Dangerous Dog Ordinance
Osceola, NE - The City of Osceola is about to hold a second reading of a proposed ordinance to ban pit bulls and seven other dog breeds. The current ordinance is restrictive. The new ordinance, if it passes, will actually ban possession of dog breeds listed as vicious.
Willie Dotson-Monroe owns Maggie, a 2-year old pit bull. Maggie is the only dog in Osceola known to be listed in the city’s current dangerous dog ordinance. Dotson-Monroe and his dog live across the street from Renee and Kent Johansen and their three children. The Johansens are leading the move for the ban. Mayor Lindsley says:"We are trying to be proactive and do what’s right before something happens that forces us to take some reactive action." Maggie's owners are distressed. They bought the $100,000 dollar liability insurance that the current ordinance demands. They also bought a "stake" that could not be pulled out of the ground and shortened Maggie's chain. Later they even bought a kennel for the dog. They claim they spent a $1,000 to adhere to the current ordinance.The family across the street (with three children) is still looking at a staked, chained pit bull; a recipe for disaster. Renee Johansen admits that Maggie has not done anything yet. But apparently a different potentially dangerous dog did, which is why she and other town members support banning a group of breeds from their neighborhoods. The article mentions 7 breeds, in addition to pit bulls, but does not list their names. The third and final reading of the new ordinance occurs June 10th.
Some cities (and countries) ban all "fighting-breeds." An example is Aurora, Colorado's ban which includes: Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, Canary Dog (Presa Canario), Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian Mastiff), Presa Mall orquin, Tosa (Tosa Inu). Labels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
In Virginia, Every Dog Still Gets "One Free Bite"
Contributory Negligence Defined
Waynesboro, VA - In Virginia, every dog gets one free bite, even if the first bite severely injures or kills a person. Furthermore, due to a statute called, contributory negligence, if a person is even 1% percent responsible for an accident, they are entitled to no compensation at all.
After a Waynesboro boy was recently mauled by a dog, his mother, Lori Tinsley, expected police to take action. But because the dog was "on-property," and no previous complaints had been filed against it, Virginia’s one-bite rule -- which protects dogs and their owners from prosecution for a first-time attack -- applied. The dismal law is best described by attorney Kenneth Phillips:"It gives every dog a free bite. If you own three dogs, all three of them can bite somebody. Then you can buy three more dogs, and all three of them can bite three people, and this can go on and on." A 2-year-old pit bull-labrador mix named Chopper, tethered to a 50 foot chain in a neighbor’s backyard, knocked Adam to the ground, repeatedly biting his head and face. When his mother got to the scene, she said, "He was completely soaked in blood." Adam was rushed to Augusta Medical Center where he received 14 stitches. He nearly lost one of his eyes.
The one-bite rule, rooted in English Common Law, is an anachronism, said Phillips. Although it has been abolished or modified in most parts of the country, it still applies in 19 states, including Virginia. English judges devised the rule in the 1600s to judge the liability of English villagers at a time when people lived with goats and sheep and ducks in their house. Phillips added:The one free-bite rule was before pit bulls or other fighting dogs, before insurance and before American concepts of responsibility and human rights were invented. The rule is completely out of touch with reality and fairness and everything else in modern American law. Police said the one-bite rule wasn’t the only thing preventing them from prosecuting. Because the dog was tethered "on-property," the attack would have to have been unprovoked for them to press charges. Renee Audette, Chopper’s owner, said she had warned Adam Tinsley from playing in her backyard. She also said the dog was eating when Adam approached it.
Under another age-old Virginia rule, the dog owner's assertion could be sufficient to void any claim to damages Adam or his family might have. According to the statute, called contributory negligence, if a person is even 1% percent responsible for an accident, they are entitled to no compensation at all. That rule only applies in three other states, according to Phillips.
Phillips said the two rules together make Virginia one of the toughest places in America to claim damages from a dog bite. As a result, he generally avoids cases in the state. "The one-bite rule is a huge barrier because you have to somehow prove what’s in the mind of the dog owner," he said. "But it’s really easy to prove that a victim’s conduct is 1% percent responsible.
Contributory negligence states:
Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
One free-bite states:
Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming
DogBiteLaw.com - Kenneth Phillips
View Kenneth Phillip's website for additional details on state dog laws.Labels: dog law, Virginia
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Anti-Tethering Group Pushes for Law in Pennsylvania
 An Old Practice Coming to an End?
Tipton, PA - A Denver study revealed that "chained" dogs are more likely to be aggressive. Stories abound regarding chained dogs -- primarily concerning pit bulls, rottweilers and chows -- injuring and killing children. In 2007 about, 20% of dog bite fatalities stemmed from chained dogs. Anti-tethering bills are gaining momentum in several states.
In Pennsylvania, various animal groups gathered to support House Bill 1065. The proposed bill prohibits the tethering of dogs between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The founder of Dogs Deserve Better, spoke at the event regarding the suffering of chained dogs. She also highlighted children, who are frequent victims of attacks by chained dogs.The question is, if people can't chain their pit bulls, what will they do with them? Pit bulls scale fences all the time. Related articles:
05/26/08: Mutts Questions the Belief that All Chained Dogs are Killers
05/15/08: Screenshots: Pit Bull Scales Fence, Terrorizes Neighbor
03/25/08: Georgia Rice Still Healing from Pit Bull Attack Last YearLabels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
11 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Vicious Animal Law Under Review in Rector
Mayor, Police Chief Agree Pit Bulls are More Dangerous
Rector, AR - Another Arkansas town is reviewing its vicious dog ordinance and another police chief speaks pointedly at pit bulls. Police Chief Tommy Baker says that pit bulls are the most dangerous breed there is because they don't let go."Unlike German Shepherds and Dobermans, a pit bull is bred to not let go once it bites. That causes more damage and makes them more dangerous." Mayor Ron Kemp agrees. He says, "I think if you went to the people in town who were concerned about vicious dogs and told them you were going to put an ordinance into effect which required Pit Bulls to be kept in a pen, 90 percent of them would be happy."
Common sense is prevailing in Rector city. Because of this, future victims will be spared. Other cities have enacted breed-specific measures in the state of Arkansas, and the State Supreme Court has upheld these ordinances as constitutional including: Maumelle, Pine Bluff, Russellville, Sherwood and Siloam Springs. Labels: dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
| recent posts |
|
 |
|
|
| join the list |
|
 |
|
|
|
