Hot Springs, AR: Proposed “pit bull” ban is dead

The local community made their feelings clear about the proposed “pit bull” ban. The photo at the link is particularly telling.

http://www.hotsr.com/news/Hot-Springs-FYI/2009/12/02/animal-ban-dies-at-board-meeting-26.php

Animal ban dies at board meeting

By: Don Thomason – The Sentinel-Record – Published: 12/02/2009

Dog breeds commonly known as “pit bulls” received a reprieve from the Hot Springs Board of Directors Tuesday night when an ordinance that would have banned them from the city died for lack of a second.

After the ordinance was read, District 1 Director Peggy Maruthur made a motion to adopt the ordinance, but Mayor Mike Bush’s request for a second was greeted by silence from the board members.

A second request by Bush for a second to Maruthur’s motion drew the same response and when he declared the ordinance dead, the crowd of about 100 citizens on hand to voice their opi…

[Subscription required to read the rest of the article at link above.]

Clinton, IA: Pit bull ban to be considered

City Hall, 611 South 3rd Street
Phone 563-242-2144
Fax 563-242-3215
www.ci.clinton.ia.us

Mayor Rodger E.J. Holm, rodgerholm@ci.clinton.ia.us
First Ward – Bob Soesbe, 563-242-2735, bobsoesbe@msn.com
Second Ward – Mike Kearney, 563-242-0414, kearney@alum.wustl.edu
Third Ward – Darrell Smith, 563-243-3356, dgsmith@clinton.net
Fourth Ward – Paul Gassman, 563-243-5173, paulgassman@aol.com
At-Large – Mark Vulich, 563-242-6870, councilmanmark@dybb.com
At-Large – Bette Oakley, 563-242-2573, boakley@clinton.net
At-Large – Ron Mallicoat, 563-242-2962

http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_335105713.html

Councilman wants to study possible pit bull ban

By Jason Nevel
Herald Staff Writer

CLINTON — A report last month that two pit bulls killed a Clinton resident’s dog has sparked Clinton officials to consider banning the breed in town.

At-Large Councilman Mark Vulich requested the measure for today’s Rules and Regulations Committee in response to the death of Hailey, Connie Crandall’s dog.

At this point, Vulich said the council is a long ways from banning pit bulls but he wanted to put the measure on the agenda to direct city staff to see what other municipalities across Iowa are doing to monitor the issue.

“I thought in fairness to her it was worth discussing what we can do and what other cities have done,” said Vulich, who added that he was not sure if the measure was even possible. “The first thing I want to do before I form an opinion is I want to see what has been done and what can be done.”

The issue would likely head back to the committee next month before being voted on by the full council, which is set to change in January.

The information obtained from the review would help the council decide what to do with current pit bulls owners.

Vulich said he was unsure if other towns forced owners to get rid of their pit bulls or if they’re grandfathered in and the ban would apply to all future dogs.

“We’re going to gather information and the new members will have it to decide if they want to do anything with it,” he said.

Police Chief Brian Guy said he has noticed the number of pit bulls in Clinton increase in the past decade but added it is up to the council to decide if a ban is needed.

Crandall could not be reached for comment but in a letter to the editor published in the Clinton Herald she wrote that the terrible accident may have been prevented with laws that prevent the ownership of vicious breeds of dogs such as pit bulls.

Jean Regenwether, administrator at the Clinton Humane Society, said not all pit bulls are vicious animals but owners need to pay close attention to them.

“People own pit bulls, and they’re wonderful breeds to have around,” Regenwether said. “But people need to be aware of the activity in their neighborhood.”

[Irrelevant text elided]

The committee will meet at City Hall on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.

Hot Springs, AR: “Pit bull” ban on agenda, Dec 1

Crossposted from BSL Updates:

The Hot Springs Board of Directors will consider an ordinance Tuesday night (December 1, 2009) that, if adopted, would ban ownership of “pit bulls” within the city limits.

Board meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. and are held at Board Chambers in the Hot Springs Municipal Building

The meeting is TOMORROW night. Please send your POLITE AND RESPECTFUL opposition to breed specific legislation to the city officials listed below. Please also send your suggestions and viable alternatives. Time is of the essense, so please take action TODAY.

Jodi Preis
Bless the Bullys
www.blessthebullys.com

City Clerk Janet Heath
jheath@cityhs.net

City Manager Lance Hudnell
lhudnell@cityhs.net 

City Attorney Brian Albright
balbright@cityhs.net

ORDINANCE NO. O-09-43

AN ORDINANCE BANNING AND REGISTERING CERTAIN BREEDS OF DOGS AND ANIMALS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS.

SECTION 2.

(a) Banned pit bull breeds of dogs are banned entirely and may not be owned or kept within the City. Banned breeds of pit bull dogs are any of the following:

(1) American Pit Bull Terrier;

(2) Staffordshire Bull Terrier, unless they meet the requirements of Subsection 3-1-5(b);

(3) American Staffordshire Terrier, unless they meet the requirements of Subsection 3-1-5(b);

(4) American Bull Dog;

(5) Any dog whose sire or dam is a dog of a breed which is defined as a banned breed of dog under this section;

(6) Any dog whose owner registers, defines, admits, or otherwise identifies the dog as being of a banned breed;

(7) Any dog conforming or substantially conforming to the breed of American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or American Bull Dog as defined by the United Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association, or American Kennel Club;

(8) Any dog which is of the breed commonly referred to as “pit bull” and commonly recognizable and identifiable as such.

CITY OF HOT SPRINGS AGENDA ITEM # 19

BOARD ACTION REQUEST O-09-43

DISCUSSION: Providing that certain dog breeds be banned from ownership within the incorporated limits of the City of Hot Springs. Also providing a registration requirement for dogs that are of “Banned Breed” status to comply with the ordinance for “Grandfathering” at the time of the passage of this ordinance. On November 17, 2009 the Animal Services Advisory Committee provided their findings via attached letter. Also find attached my report entitled “Breed Specific Considerations for Municipalities” that reviews three Arkansas Municipalities approach to controlling dangerous dogs and the fiscal impact of providing either type of ordinance approach.

Also attached is an excerpt from City of Hot Springs Ordinance that displays the manner that we currently handle “dangerous dog cases” and finally attached is a letter from the National Park Kennel Club and their recommendations for addressing this issue.

FISCAL IMPACT: A significant increase of enforcement duties will require additional staffing to ensure compliance with the ordinance, as well as supplies and veterinary services for the spay/neuter aspect of this ordinance. $100,000 annually for the first two years for two additional Animal Control Officers and equipment for a Breed Ban, and that same amount of funding in a perpetual manner for a updated Breed Regulation program. Fundamentally, we may not actually be at this juncture had the Animal Services Department been provided officer staffing levels that it has requested for the past several years and been capable of more pro-active neighborhood work and enforcement.

My recommendation in the report falls form my experience of funding for the Department, and the reality that funding has not been adequate even though we have justified that increased revenues the Department has collected that would offset any increased costs in staffing levels.

ALTERNATIVES: Do not adopt ordinance/ Amend Dangerous Dog ordinance

Queensland/Gold Coast, Australia: The pit bull is the usual suspect

Visit the link below to read a lengthy but interesting article on the effects of the breed ban in Australia, featuring two major problems: breed identification and expense to enforce (lawsuits).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/the-pit-bull-is-the-usual-suspect/story-e6frg8h6-1225804507090

The pit bull is the usual suspect

Lucas County, OH: County to stop killing “pit bull” puppies

Identification of a “pit bull” is difficult enough; identification of a “pit bull” puppy is even more so. Dog warden Tom Skeldon apparently had no set criteria to identify “pit bulls,” as he could not produce this criteria when requested to do so by the Dog Warden Advisory Committee.

Previous alerts for Lucas County: http://stopbsl.com/?s=lucas+county

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091125/NEWS16/911250344/-1/NEWS04

Lucas County orders end to puppy euthanasia

Dog warden’s TV remarks draw ire

By TOM TROY
BLADE POLITICS WRITER
Article published November 25, 2009

The Lucas County commissioners voted yesterday to prohibit Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon from killing puppies at least through 3 months of age, including, for the first time in years, “pit bull” puppies.

And in a development that could threaten even the few weeks remaining in Mr. Skeldon’s tenure as dog warden, Commissioner Ben Konop called for his suspension for making allegedly false statements about the Toledo Area Humane Society in a television interview.

The commissioners adopted the recommendation of the Dog Warden’s Citizen Advisory Committee to end puppy euthanasia through the end of 2009. The only exception would be puppies that are ill, as determined by a veterinarian.

The advisory committee specifically included “pit bulls” in the moratorium for two reasons – because no 3-month-old puppy of any breed would be a threat to people and because it is too difficult to determine that such a young dog is a “pit bull.”

Mr. Konop made the motion to adopt the moratorium, although he initially proposed to make it indefinite. He voted against an amendment from President Pete Gerken to limit the moratorium to the current year. The amendment passed 2-1, with Mr. Gerken and

Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak voting in support.

“It would have made a lot more sense to do it on an indefinite basis,” Mr. Konop said. “Today there was actually some substantive change, and that’s better than the status quo.”

Mr. Skeldon did not return calls seeking comment.

Mr. Gerken said he agreed to the amended resolution because it did not conflict with the recommendations of the advisory committee.

Ms. Wozniak said the moratorium was unnecessary because the dog warden already established a policy of protecting puppies from euthanasia.

“That practice of taking care of puppies and getting puppies adopted already exists,” Ms. Wozniak said.

However, yesterday’s action was the first time that “pit bull” pups have been explicitly protected, at least until they are three months old.

“Pit bull” is a generic descriptive term for a dog trained to fight and may refer to multiple breeds, including the American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, and other mix breeds determined to be “pit bulls” by Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon.

One week ago, the dog warden announced a policy of no longer killing puppies other than “pit bulls” and sick puppies that would be euthanized for humane reasons.

The Dog Warden Advisory Committee recommended the temporary moratorium on Nov. 12. Its recommendation said that it had asked the dog warden for the criteria used to distinguish “pit bull” type dogs from others, but so far he had not done so.

“Pit bull” is a generic descriptive term for a dog trained to fight and may refer to multiple breeds, including the American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, and other mix breeds determined to be “pit bulls” by Mr. Skeldon.

[Text elided; more at article link]

Tasmania, Australia: Tougher Controls on Dangerous Dogs (BSL passed)

The following dogs are now considered “restricted breeds” in Tasmania. There are special requirements for owners of these types of dogs:

(a) dogo Argentino;
(b) fila Brasileiro;
(c) Japanese tosa;
(d) American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier;
(e) Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario;
(f) any other breed, kind or description of dog whose importation into Australia is prohibited by or under the Customs Act 1901 of the Commonwealth.

Read the entire Dog Control Amendment Act 2009 here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/bill/dcab27o2009243/

http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=28515

Tougher Controls on Dangerous Dogs

Tasmania now has tougher controls for dangerous dogs with the Dog Control Amendment Act 2009 being passed by State Parliament last week, the Minister for Local Government, Jim Cox, said today.

Mr Cox said the measures included compulsory micro-chipping, a new process around problem barking dogs and tougher management of restricted breed dogs and those declared as dangerous dogs.

Changes to the Act include:

• Stronger control measures on dangerous dogs, including child-proof enclosures of a minimum standard.
• Stronger provisions for councils to seize and detain dogs.
• A new noise abatement notice process to tackle problem barking dogs.
• A new classification of restricted breed dog with stronger control requirements.
• Mandatory de-sexing of restricted breed dogs and dangerous dogs.
• Restrictions on selling and exchanging dangerous and restricted breed dogs.
• Compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs.

“These measures, particularly the new controls on restricted and dangerous breeds, have been brought in to reduce the risk of dog attacks in the community,” Mr Cox said.

“The State Government is serious about the safety of Tasmanians, and placing tougher controls on dangerous dogs is an important step in reducing the risk of potentially life-threatening attacks occurring.”

Mr Cox said the State Government would be implementing the stronger controls, including those on dangerous dogs, the new restricted breed provisions, and the new noise abatement notice process as a matter of priority.

“We will be working closely with councils and interest groups on the detail of the new measures and how we will implement them.

“We want to ensure that affected dog owners fully understand how the new legislation will affect them, and what the new requirements will be before they are put in place.

“We intend to have these measures in place by 1 July 2010, which will give affected dog owners ample time in which to meet the new control requirements.”

The new requirements for all dogs to be micro-chipped will not be implemented until 1 July 2011, to allow for micro-chipping database systems and approvals to be put in place.

“The extended time period on micro-chipping also takes into account the large number of dogs that will need to be micro-chipped.

“However, I would encourage all dog owners not to wait until July 2011 to have their dog micro-chipped. The benefits of micro-chipping your pet, such as being able to more easily identify lost animals, can be of huge benefit straight away.”

Mr Cox said the legislation had been developed through broad consultation and research to find the best model for Tasmania.

“This included a working group comprising representatives of the Local Government Association of Tasmania, the RSPCA, the Australian Veterinary Association, Animal Management Officers Association of Tasmania, the Royal Guide Dogs and other interest groups.”

Des Moines, IA: D.M. tables plan to change vicious dog rules (additional BSL dropped)

Des Moines already has BSL, and because it’s not working very well, the city council considered making the breed-specific ordinance even more strict. These plans have now been tabled (put on hold indefinitely).

Previous alerts for Des Moines: http://stopbsl.com/?s=des+moines

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20091124/NEWS/911240357/1001/NEWS/D.M.-tables-plan-to-change-vicious-dog-rules

D.M. tables plan to change vicious dog rules

By JASON PULLIAM • jpulliam@dmreg.com • November 24, 2009

A proposal to increase fees to license so-called vicious dogs has been tabled by the Des Moines City Council.

Council members called for more public input and time to study whether the fees and other proposed changes to the city’s vicious dog ordinance would have worthwhile results.

“The responsible dog owner will comply with all of this,” Councilwoman Christine Hensley said. “It’s the nonresponsible dog owner. How do we deal with them?”

City officials in recent months have debated whether to change a 22-year-old ordinance that classifies pit bulls as vicious by breed, in addition to animals that are declared vicious because of behavior. A string of recent incidents involving pit bulls prompted city leaders to scrutinize whether regulations should be changed.

City officials have called for a mix of tougher license fees, insurance requirements and owner training to improve Des Moines’ vicious-dog ordinance and reduce the number of attacks.

Skeptics contend the measures under consideration will do little to prevent attacks and will punish responsible owners.

“You’re not giving credit to responsible owners,” said Cindy Holliday, director of the volunteer citizens group All Dogs All People Together for Des Moines, or ADAPT4DSM.

Holliday and others want breed-specific language that labels pit bulls as vicious removed from the city code.

City officials had considered a pit bull ban, but “we weren’t sure we would be successful if we went that way,” said Assistant City Manager Randy Wetmore.

Under the pending proposal, vicious-dog license fees would be increased to $35 from $15 for spayed and neutered dogs and $55 for dogs that are not altered.

Other requirements under consideration include:

- Requiring owners of vicious dogs to show proof that the animals are microchipped at the time they are licensed.

- Banning owners of vicious dogs that are found running at large three or more times in a three-year period from owning any vicious dog for five years.

- Requiring training for vicious-dog owners if their dogs are not properly leashed or confined.

Skeptics say city officials need to focus on making sure that dogs declared vicious because they were involved in an attack are properly confined.

“Certain breeds that we have listed in our breed-specific ordinance guarantee that the dogs we’re worried about will never be socialized, or trained, vaccinated or (receive) proper veterinary care because people are hiding them,” said Dana Fedman, a licensed dog trainer who has called upon city leaders to reconsider breed-specific language.

East China Twnshp and St. Clair County, MI: Whispers of BSL

A resident of East China Township, MI, has requested that the Board of Trustees consider implementing BSL similar to that of Mt. Clemens. The same resident is pushing St. Clair County to pass similar legislation.

East China, MI

Next East China Township board meeting: December 7 and December 21, 7:30 PM
Township Hall, 5111 River Road, East China, Mi., 48054
(810) 765-8879

Contact info per http://www.eastchinatownship.org/feedbk.html:
Township Supervisor John A. Randolph, jack@eastchinatownship.org
Township Clerk Gary Arnold, gary@eastchinatownship.org
Township Treasurer Donald K. Beaudua, cindon1978@comcast.net
Township Trustee Richard Bober, vajar@sbcglobal.net
Township Trustee Larry J. Simons, simonslj@hotmail.com
Township Trustee Angelo Patsalis, vajar@sbcglobal.net
Township Trustee Donald Horn (no email available)

St. Clair County, MI

Next Board of Commissioners Meeting: December 2, 6:00 PM
St. Clair County Administration Building, 2nd Floor – Board Room, 200 Grand River, Port Huron, MI 48060

Commissioners Office
200 Grand River, Suite 203, Port Huron, MI 48060
Phone: 810-989-6900
Fax: 810-985-3463

District 1 Steven L. Simasko
ssimasko@stclaircounty.org

District 2 Dennis M. Kearns
dkearns@stclaircounty.org

District 3 Howard Heidemann
hheidemann@stclaircounty.org

District 4 Patrick W. Quain
pquain@stclaircounty.org

District 5 Jeff Bohm
jbohm@stclaircounty.org

District 6 Wallace R. Evans
wevans@stclaircounty.org

District 7 Pamela Wall
pwall@stclaircounty.org

Link to the opinion article that prompted this alert: http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091124/OPINION03/911240325/-1/NEWSFRONT2/County-must-move-to-contain-pit-bull-threat

Pender County, NC: Neighbors push for stronger animal control in Pender County

This is a situation to keep an eye on. Effective non-breed-specific ordinances should be suggested to county commissioners.

Next County Commission meeting: December 14, 7:00 PM
BOCC Meeting Room, Pender County Admin. Building, 805 S. Walker St. Burgaw, NC 28425

Commissioners’ Contact Info:

Jimmy Tate – Chairman (5th District)
university@ec.rr.com
910-285-5444

George Brown – Vice Chairman (3rd District)
browng@pender-county.com
910-675-8653

David Williams, Jr. – Commissioner (1st District)
williamsd2@pender-county.com
Phone: 910-270-7757
Fax: 910-270-7757

Norwood Blanchard – Commissioner (2nd District)
blanchardn@pender-county.com
910-259-2003

F.D. Rivenbark – Commissioner (4th District)
rivenbarkf@pender-county.com
Phone: 910-259-2717
Fax: 910-259-7480

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091123/ARTICLES/911239988/1004?tc=autorefresh

Neighbors push for stronger animal control in Pender County

By K.J. Williams
Citydesk@StarNewsOnline.Com
Published: Monday, November 23, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, November 23, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.

Several Pender County residents are taking a grassroots approach to combating dog attacks by asking for stronger animal control ordinances.

After an attack last week that caused the death of a dog in Rocky Point, the owners and a neighbor voiced their complaints at a Nov. 17 county health board meeting. Animal control is overseen by the health department.

Stephanie McLendon, whose family’s 6-month-old terrier mix, Daisy, died soon after the Nov. 16 attack, said she plans to start a petition drive to institute a leash law in Eagles Ridge, a Rocky Point subdivision.

“There are a lot of children around here,” she said of the need for more control over animals.

McLendon’s neighbor, Kristal Moore, said they plan to attend the Pender County Commissioners meeting at noon on Dec. 14 to ask commissioners to outline specific procedures on dealing with dangerous dogs.

In May, the county commissioners unanimously rejected revised animal control ordinances recommended by Health Director Jack Griffith at a meeting heavily attended by hunters who opposed requiring pet licenses and licenses for larger kennels.

The issue of animal control ordinances was first raised by Commissioners Chairman Jimmy Tate after resident Ella West spoke at a February meeting about a dog attack that killed her pet dog, Jet.

Griffith said Thursday that the defeated revisions wouldn’t have an impact on dog attack incidents because they mainly addressed problems with puppy mills and rabies control.

But Tate said Friday that the commissioners need to revisit the issue.

“We need to do something that will work with the hunters as well as the pet owners,” he said.

In June, the board decided to address understaffing at the animal control department by adding two officers.

Steve Throneburg, the county’s animal control supervisor, said that has improved response times. “That was the biggest need, because of the number of complaints and the number of officers,” he said.

[Rest of article continues at link above; not much additional info]

Erie, PA: Incidents renew calls for regulation of pit bulls, other vicious dogs

Article writer Kara Murphy needs education about how to interpret dog bite statistics and how to identify credible scientific sources (see “Journalist Resources: Scientific Studies” to understand why Animal People/Merritt Clifton’s so-called “study” is not legitimate scientific research): kara.murphy@timesnews.com

City shelter manager Kris Watkins needs education about no-kill initiatives, how to decrease the kill rate, and how to save more “pit bulls” (first step: stop talking about “pit bulls” in a way that feeds the vicious stereotype): staff@theannashelter.com or 814-451-0230.

Erie can’t pass BSL due to state law, but City Councilmembers need information about effective non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws, preferably from locals who understand why the current dog laws are failing.

Send correspondence to the entire City Council by sending to the city clerk:

City Clerk Jim Klemm
Email: jeklemm@erie.pa.us
Phone: (814) 870-1291
Fax: (814) 870-1296

Dept. City Clerk Gloria Criscione
Email: gloriac@erie.pa.us
Phone: (814) 870-1292
Fax: (814) 870-1296

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091123/NEWS02/311239975

Incidents renew calls for regulation of pit bulls, other vicious dogs

By KARA MURPHY
kara.murphy@timesnews.com
Published: November 23. 2009 1:15AM

[Text elided]

The recent attacks have raised questions of whether regulations on pit bull owners should be tightened, an idea that Erie police last raised in 2007 after a series of attacks involving the breed, including two incidents in which Erie police officers shot and killed attacking pit bulls.

But City Councilman Jim Thompson said state law prohibits local governing bodies from putting in place breed-specific laws. He pursued the idea of tightening regulations against pit bull owners several years ago.

“State law forbids us to be breed-specific,” Thompson said. “The problem is persistently pit bulls, but we can’t pass a law until the state changes its laws.”

The city could, however, put in place a strict “vicious dog” ordinance, said Erie Police Chief Steve Franklin. That ordinance could require dog owners to turn over their pets to authorities in cases of bites or aggressive behavior, he said.

“It’s something I’d like to look at further,” Franklin said.

But pit bull owners say the city should leave them and their dogs alone.

Daniel Harman, of Erie, owns a 5-year-old pit bull named Sincere. He grew up around pit bulls and adores the breed.

“I baby my dogs. They’re part of the family,” he said. “My mom calls Sincere her granddaughter.”

He said Sincere is affectionate with children and adults, and has never shown any signs of aggression. She sleeps with him every night, and the two go for walks every day.

He, like other pit bull owners, said he believes the problem with the breed stems from certain owners, rather than the dogs themselves.

“They can be trained, and when they are, they’re great dogs,” he said. “But there’s certain people who shouldn’t own dogs, period.”

But while good owners can keep pit bulls under control, the number and ferocity of the attacks involving pit bulls indicate a problem specific to that breed, said Kris Watkins, the manager of the city’s A.N.N.A.. Shelter.

Pit bulls by far outnumber any other breed in the number of attacks that maim or kill people, according to a study by Animal People, an independent newspaper that says it provides investigative coverage of animal protection. The magazine looked at attacks between September 1992 and November 2006 by all breeds of dogs. Pit bulls accounted for 50 percent of serious attacks, with 495 adult victims and 397 child victims. Of those victims, 104 were killed.

The fact that pit bulls attacked more adults than children was noteworthy, the study’s author found.

“Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are,” Animal People Editor Merritt Clifton wrote.

‘Chihuahuas can’t bite a face off’

On a recent afternoon in Erie, six of 13 stray dogs being kept at the Association for Needy and Neglected Animals were pit bulls. Overall, 22 percent of the stray dogs the shelter has housed in 2009 were pit bulls or pit bull-mixes, making them by far the most represented breed at the shelter, said Ruth Thompson, the shelter director.

But the figure that really stands out to Thompson is the number of those pit bulls that have been adopted or returned to their owners.

If a dog’s temperament does not allow it to be adopted, the shelter euthanizes the animal, she said.

The shelter has euthanized 278 dogs in 2009. Of those, 151 — or 54 percent — were pit bulls.

“I hate those numbers,” Thompson said. “But we can’t responsibly adopt these dogs out.”

The pit bulls that come into the shelter are city strays, and very few owners ever come looking for them, she said.

“They’re disposable animals to people,” she said. “It’s very sad.”

Because of the issue, the A.N.N.A.. Shelter is considering creative ways to reduce the number of pit bulls in the city, including applying for a grant that would provide funding to pit bull owners to spay or neuter their animals.

“Very few of the pit bulls we see have been spayed or neutered,” Thompson said.

Pit bulls are a type of status symbol in the inner city, Watkins said.

“They make someone tough,” she said. “That’s why we’re also extremely careful about who we adopt them out to, when we do have one that is adoptable.”

While the Humane Society of Northwestern Pennsylvania does not count dogs by breed, pit bulls aren’t nearly as big of a problem there, said Joe Grisanti, the Humane Society’s executive director. The Humane Society does not take animals from the city.

Because of the numbers of pit bulls and the problems associated with the breed, Watkins said she supports the idea of toughening up regulations on pit bull owners. Specifically, she would like to see rules in place that don’t allow anyone under 18 to walk the dogs, mandatory identification chips to identify owners of stray dogs, and higher licensing fees for owners of pit bulls.

“It would be a start,” Watkins said.

She said while she understands that all dogs have the potential to bite, the injuries associated with pit bulls and the number of attacks involving the breed make them a more dangerous animal than other types of dogs.

“Chihuahuas can’t bite a face off,” she said.

KARA MURPHY can be reached at 870-1858 or by e-mail.