Legislating dogs
Pit bull bans
Denver, Colorado
The most controversial pit bull ban in the US was enacted by the City of Denver in 1989. Over the course of 18 years, it has withstood numerous battles in state and federal courts. On each occasion, the City of Denver has prevailed. The litigious history of the ban, and Denver's victories, has helped many cities adopt similar measures. The Denver ban is undoubtedly the beacon that illustrates the legal viability of breed-specific law.
Related materials:
Denver's Pit Bull Ban: Section 8-55
Denver's Pit Bull Ordinance - History and Judicial Rulings
View a list of Colorado pit bull ordinances
Council Bluffs, Iowa
Pit bulls are not only problematic in large cities; they threaten mid-sized and rural communities as well. Located in the heartland, Council Bluffs, Iowa has approximately 60,000 citizens. After a series of devastating attacks, they joined over 250 cities nationwide and enacted a pit bull ban. The results of the ban -- which took effect January 1, 2005 -- demonstrate the positive effects such legislation can have on public safety in just a few years time:
Year Pit Bull Bites
2004 23%
2005 10% (year ban enacted)
2006 5%
2007 2%
Related materials:
Council Bluffs Pit Bull Ban: Section 4.20.122
View a list of Iowa pit bull ordinances
Pit bulls declared "dangerous"
The State of Ohio
Some communities adopt pit bull ordinances that declare the breed "potentially dangerous" or "dangerous," which triggers special rules for pit bull owners. In the instance of Ohio, the whole state adopted such a policy. The state of Ohio declared pit bulls as "vicious" and requires owners to carry $100,000 in liability insurance, securely constrain the dog when on-property and to use a chain-link leash when off-property.
Various cities within Ohio increased these restrictions. The most publicized one to do so is Toledo, which added the limitation of one pit bull per household and muzzling when off-property. Toledo's pit bull ordinance was heavily litigated over a period of years. As recently as February 2008, the United States Supreme Court halted the legal wrangling. Not only is Toledo's breed-specific ordinance constitutional, it cannot be appealed further.
Related materials:
Ohio Revised Code Section 955
Toledo Pit Bull Ordinance: Section 505.14
View a list of Ohio pit bull ordinances
Pit bull sterilization
San Francisco, California
A trend that started in California has communities across the country considering a similar option: mandatory pit bull sterilization. Cities troubled with high pit bull bite counts and shelter occupancy rates are hoping to combat both problems at once with spay/neuter laws targeted at pit bulls. In late 2005, San Francisco enacted such a measure. After 18 months of passing, the results proved encouraging: pit bull bites declined by 21%; shelter occupancy rates fell from three-quarters to one-quarter; and pit bull euthanizations dropped 24%.1
Related materials:
San Francisco Pit Bull Ordinance: Section 43
View a list of California pit bull ordinances
Dangerous dog regulation
Texas State
To evade the controversy that breed-specific law arouses, some cities opt for a "tough" dangerous dog law instead. Such laws hold all dog owners criminally negligent after a serious attack. The key word in this instance is "after." Policymakers hope that after enough people are sent to jail, there will be a deterrent to dog owners, whereby forcing them to be more responsible. The downside is that many new victims are created in the process.
Texas State recently passed the toughest dangerous dog legislation in the county. The law, known as "Lillian's Law," holds vicious dog owners criminally liable if their dog leaves owner property and attacks a person. Essentially it is a law that penalizes owners of loose dogs. Under Lillian's law, owners of loose dogs face 10 years in jail if the attack results in serious injury to a person and 20 years if the attack ends in death.
Related materials:
Lillian's Law: HB 1355
View a list of Texas pit bull ordinances
Votes:33
Comments: 0