Kirksville, MO: Breed ban revisited, public forum Oct 18

The city council has stated that “public input would be crucial in deciding how to proceed on addressing, in particular, vicious dogs such as pit bulls.”

A public forum to hear from the public about the proposed ban is planned for October 18. A vote on the proposal may occur on Nov. 1. The city council meets the first & third Monday of every month at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall Council Chambers.

City of Kirksville, 201 South Franklin Street, Kirksville, MO 63501
660-627-1225
Toll Free: 888-299-1223
660-665-0940 (fax)

City Council:
Todd Kuhns, Mayor, tkuhns@kirksvillecity.com
Richard Detweiler, rdetweiler@kirksvillecity.com
Carolyn Chrisman, cchrisman@kirksvillecity.com
Tony Fajkus, tfajkus@kirksvillecity.com
Martha Rowe, mrowe@kirksvillecity.com
City Manager Mari Macomber, mmacomber@kirksvillecity.com
City Clerk Vicki Brumbaugh, vbrumbaugh@kirksvillecity.com

Previous alerts for Kirksville: http://stopbsl.com/?s=kirksville

http://www.kirksvilledailyexpress.com/news/x833264739/Council-revisits-breed-ban

Council revisits breed ban

By Taylor Muller, Daily Express
Posted Aug 31, 2010 @ 12:49 PM

Kirksville, Mo. — Pit bulls and other vicious animals are once again in the city’s sights as a draft ordinance was debated Monday during the council’s study session.

Council also set the proposed 2010 tax levy rate during its regular meeting, a slight increase over the past year.

Council agreed that no consensus could be reached and that public input would be crucial in deciding how to proceed on addressing, in particular, vicious dogs such as pit bulls.

“We can’t do anything about cancer or the war in Afghanistan, but we can do something to make our citizens just a bit safer,” said council member Richard Detweiler.

Detweiler and council member Martha Rowe agreed the proposed ordinance should be approved, in order to prevent a tragic attack or loss of life involving a pit bull or other vicious animal.

Mayor Todd Kuhns and council member Carolyn Chrisman argued while they certainly supported public safety, specifically targeting a dog breed might not be the most effective or popular tactic.

“My goal is to have safer and more responsible owners,” Chrisman said.

Kuhns, expressing doubt of where the ban would eventually end, said he would have to remain a dissenting voice.

“It seems like we’re gradually just sliding down a slippery slope and I think we’re missing out on the fact that pretty much any dog could be vicious,” he said. Kuhns added he supported the vicious animal provisions in the draft ordinance, but suggested removing the sections regarding any specific breeds.

The proposed ordinance provides for any pit bull dogs that currently reside in the city limits to be “grandfathered in,” but otherwise prohibits the owning, transporting or selling of pit bulls. Violators would face a minimum $200 fine.

Any animal, including a long list of wild animals, can be classified as vicious and prohibited from ownership within the city, with decisions regarding an animal’s vicious status referred to a three-person committee of Police Chief Jim Hughes, Codes and Planning Director Brad Selby and a licensed veterinarian.

A summary of the ordinance will be sent out the last week of September in the city’s Community Connection newsletter that is attached to residents’ water bills.

The council will hold a public forum Oct. 18 with a possible vote on the ordinance coming at the following meeting Nov. 1.

[Irrelevant text elided]

Rochester Hills, MI: Attack spurs call for pit bull ban

Rochester Hills previously considered a ban or BSL after a similar incident (dog on dog attack), but ultimately decided against it. Continued highly publicized incidents and public pressure for a ban may cause them to rethink that decision, however.

Previous alert for Rochester Hills: http://stopbsl.com/?s=rochester+hills

Leanne Scott, City Council Coordinator
Clerk’s Office, City of Rochester Hills, 1000 Rochester Hills Drive, Rochester Hills, MI 48309
Phone: (248) 841-2460
Fax Number: 248-656-4744
citycouncil@rochesterhills.org

Greg Hooper, Council President, District 3
Voicemail: 248-841-2645
hooperg@rochesterhills.org

Vern Pixley, At Large
Voicemail: 248-841-2644
pixleyv@rochesterhills.org

James Rosen, At-Large
Voicemail: 248-841-2646
rosenj@rochesterhills.org

Michael Webber, At-Large
Voicemail: 248-841-2649
webberm@rochesterhills.org

Ravi Yalamanchi, District 1
Voicemail: 248-841-2643
yalamanchir@rochesterhills.org

J Martin Brennan, District 2
Voicemail: 248-841-2647
brennanm@rochesterhills.org

Nathan Klomp, District 4
Voicemail: 248-841-2648
klompn@rochesterhills.org

http://www.freep.com/article/20100901/NEWS05/9010368/Attack-spurs-call-for-pit-bull-ban

Attack spurs call for pit bull ban

BY TAMMY STABLES BATTAGLIA
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
Posted: Sept. 1, 2010

Larry Adams said he is glad the loose pit bull didn’t hurt his 16-year-old son during the attack as the boy walked the family’s 5-month-old Jack Russell terrier, Pebbles.

Adams said he expects to approach city officials about a ban in reaction to the attack at Culbertson and Auburn roads.

“I will do everything and anything in my power to get rid of every pit bull in the city of Rochester Hills,” Adams said Tuesday. “It’s ridiculous. There’s no place for those animals in this city. None.”

But Rochester Hills Mayor Bryan Barnett said Tuesday that the City Council considered a ban after an incident this year. But officials felt it would be too difficult to enforce by breed.

“Until I’m convinced we can enforce it effectively, I don’t think it makes sense to have it on the books,” he said.

Oakland County Animal Control cited the dog’s owner for harboring a dangerous animal and allowing a dog to run loose, Sgt. Jerry McNair said.

The misdemeanor charges are punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

The dog is being held pending a court decision about its fate.

Contact TAMMY STABLES BATTAGLIA: tbattaglia@freepress.com

Sterling Heights, MI: “Pit bull dog” workshop, Sept 29 (possible BSL)

Previous alerts for Sterling Heights: http://stopbsl.com/?s=sterling+heights

RESIDENTS INVITED TO ATTEND AND COMMENT

PIT BULL DOG WORKSHOP SET FOR SEPT. 29

You are receiving this e-mail because you expressed interest in receiving notice regarding a scheduled public forum to discuss Sterling Heights’ animal control ordinances.

Residents are invited to attend a Pit Bull Workshop Wednesday, Sept. 29 at the Senior Activity Center to provide officials with input in order to possibly strengthen the city’s existing animal control ordinances.  The workshop begins at 7 p.m. at the Senior Activity Center, 40200 Utica Road.

During the meeting, city officials will deliver a brief presentation and then open up the workshop to all parties to encourage meaningful, respectful dialogue regarding Sterling Heights’ vicious dog ordinances.

To register for the Pit Bull Workshop, please call the Sterling Heights Community Relations Department at (586) 446-CITY, register online at http://www.sterling-heights.net  or drop an e-mail to cityhall@sterling-heights.net.

Ontario, Canada: Dog owners want same laws for all breeds

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/854114–dog-owners-want-same-laws-for-all-breeds#article

Dog owners want same laws for all breeds

Published On Sun Aug 29 2010
Brendan Kennedy Staff Reporter

Ontario’s controversial ban on pit bulls — now five years old — is under fire once again as a coalition of dog-loving groups rallied Sunday to support a local MPP’s efforts to have the law changed.

“They’re ripping family pets away from people based on very vague legislation,” said Rui Branco, who successfully fought the City of Brampton earlier this year by proving his dog, Brittany, was not a pit bull.

The American bulldog-boxer mix was seized and held by the city for three months before an independent veterinarian was able to determine it was not a pit bull.

“An animal control officer looked at her and said she was a pit bull. Then she was taken away from us.”

A few hundred people and dozens of muzzled pit bull-type dogs gathered at Coronation Park on Lake Shore Blvd. W. Sunday afternoon to protest Ontario’s ban on pit bulls and to demand the repeal of “breed specific legislation.”

The Dog Owner’s Liability Act was amended in 2005 to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls. But since “pit bull” is not a specific breed of dog, the province’s definition includes pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and any dog “that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar” to those breeds, such as large heads, broad shoulders and muscular builds.

Dogs deemed pit bulls born before Nov. 26, 2005 are allowed to live, but must be sterilized, and muzzled and leashed in public. Any born after the ban took effect must be put down.

Once bylaw officers have identified a dog as fitting the province’s description of a pit bull, the onus is on owners to prove otherwise, which can be difficult if the dog was adopted from a shelter and its lineage is unknown.

Critics of the current law say its description of pit bulls is too vague, gives bylaw officers too much power and leads to harmless pets being removed from their homes and held at taxpayers’ expense. They want the province to go after bad owners, rather than target any specific breed.

“You can’t tell a dog’s breed by how it looks,” said Kelly Turnbull, a member of Stop K9 Profiling, the group that organized Sunday’s event.

After a series of legal challenges, the group contacted the MPP for Parkdale-High Park, Cheri DiNovo, who owns an English bull terrier herself. Earlier this year DiNovo tabled a private member’s bill calling for the repeal of the breed-specific aspect of the Dog Owner’s Liability Act.

Named “Hershey’s Bill” (for a pit bull that was barred from continuing its therapy work with seniors when the current law came into effect), Bill 60 received its first reading in the Legislature in May.

“This isn’t about the dog, it’s about the owner,” DiNovo said, adding the law has been ineffective in curbing the number of dog bites in the province.

A study by the Toronto Humane Society released earlier this year found that the number of dog bites in Ontario had changed little since the ban was put in place.

DiNovo said she would like to see more responsibility and liability for dog owners, without targeting specific breeds. She said the Dog Owner’s Liability Act would be more effective if it targeted all aggressive dogs and abusive owners equally.

The Ministry of the Attorney General stands behind the current law, saying it ensures fewer opportunities for pit bull attacks and its true impact cannot be measured in only five years.

One of the most anticipated speakers of the day was Bill Bruce, director of Calgary’s Animal Control Services, widely heralded for its education and training approach to animal control, which has drastically reduced the number of dog bites in Calgary without breed-specific by-laws.

“All dogs bite,” Bruce said. “I don’t care what kind of dog it is. If the dog is aggressive, it needs to be corrected.”

Bruce said the best way to do that is through education, proactive training, early intervention and stiff penalties for abusive owners.

Sunday’s rally was followed by a march along Queens Quay and a candlelight vigil at the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge all the pit bull-type dogs euthanized under the current legislation.

Jackson County, MI: Whispers of BSL

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2010/08/officials_no_easy_fix_for_pit.html

Officials: No easy fix for pit bulls

Published: Saturday, August 28, 2010, 11:54 PM
Aaron Aupperlee | Jackson Citizen Patriot

Charley Norris got a pit bull when it was 2 days old. He bottle-fed it for months, and it was docile and friendly. The dog loved to play with people, especially Norris’ young niece, Tyah.

“I loved him to death,” Norris said. “He was like a kid to me.”

But as the dog grew, Norris noticed it getting more aggressive. After an attack by another dog, it no longer played. Norris made the tough decision to part with the animal.

“I didn’t want something like this to happen,” he said Wednesday, a day after Tyah, his 6-year-old niece, was attacked by three pit bulls in Blackman Township.

Norris ran to his niece Tuesday and used a piece of lumber to club the dogs attacking her. Tyah’s blood stained his clothes and hands. Once a pit bull owner and lover, Norris thinks differently about the breed today.

He wants them banned.

“It’s just a dangerous breed. It’s in their blood to kill,” Norris said. “They’re not pets; they’re vicious animals. You can’t make a family pet out of them.”

Tuesday’s attack left Tyah with 500 stitches and a long recovery ahead of her. Doctors expect her to remain at C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor for months.

It also left residents wondering what can be done to prevent future attacks.

Two children were attacked by dogs Tuesday — Tyah, at 118 Mantle Ave., and a 6-year-old girl in Parma Township who was bitten by a lab-shepherd mix. In July, a pit bull attacked Joe Williams near Union and Grinnell streets. He needed about 100 stitches.

Local elected officials agree action should be taken but are not sure a ban is possible. It is difficult to forbid ownership of one breed. Other breeds also can be dangerous, they said.

Whether pit bulls are more likely to hurt people than other breeds is debated.

“Although media reports and rumors often give the impression that certain breeds of dog are more likely to bite, there is little scientific evidence to support those claims,” says the American Veterinary Medical Association’s brochure on dog-bite prevention.

Before Tuesday, Jackson County Animal Control officers responded to six severe dog bites in recent months, Undersheriff Tom Finco said. Of the attacks, three were by pit pulls, two by shepherds and one by a rottweiler.

Finco said Sheriff Dan Heyns plans to meet with other county and law enforcement officials to address pit bulls or aggressive dogs. It could involve more licensing checks, for example.

Prosecutor Hank Zavislak said he would be involved: “I think there is a problem with any animal that attacks and does that kind of injury to any human being or another animal.”

On Friday, Zavislak’s office charged Brian Nace, 35, and his girlfriend, Jasmine Bailey, 19, with keeping a dangerous animal that caused serious injury. They owned the dogs that hurt Tyah.

The charges send a message about dog owners’ accountability in the event of an attack, Zavislak said.

Keeping pit bulls as a status symbol seems to be a trend, Zavislak said. This “translates into, ‘I am bad. Don’t mess with me,’ ” Zavislak said, reading a statement at a Friday news conference.

Many put the blame on the owners who neglect pit bulls or train them to be fighters.

“I don’t think they should be banned,” said Destiny Kidd of Blackman Township. “It’s all how you raise them.”

Kidd had a pit bull for 10 years before it died last year. The dog was not aggressive, Kidd said, and loved to play with her children.

“My daughter could ride her like a horse,” Kidd said.

Kidd’s children, Maya, 5, and Antonio, 6, are good friends with Tyah and could have easily been playing with her Tuesday when she was attacked, she said. They were not.

Some, like Charley Norris, want pit bulls out of their communities. Waterford Township near Detroit has enacted a ban. Jackson County officials have not seriously considered one.

“Pit bulls can be a mean dog. There are good pit bulls, too,” said county Commissioner Jeff Kruse, who represents Leoni Township. “And people have been bitten by other breeds of dogs. Do you ban all dogs from the county? I don’t think you can do that.”

Blackman Township Trustee Chuck DeBruler said his gut reaction to Tuesday’s attack is to ban pit bulls in the township. He said he would never own one and would be nervous if his neighbors did.

DeBruler, however, thinks more laws and regulations surrounding ownership of potentially vicious dogs might protect residents better. Licenses, insurance and education should be a part of owning a pit bull, he said.

“I think they’re dangerous, and I think we have to make people, especially the owners, aware of the responsibility they take on when they own a dog like that,” he said. “There’s been too many people bit and hurt.”

DeBruler expects to talk about dogs at the Sept. 6 Blackman Township meeting.

Township Treasurer Sherry Brockie brought up the issue in January after a man paying taxes in the township office asked Brockie if the township could mandate permits for pit bulls and rottweilers. Public Safety Director Mike Jester took the question to the Public Safety Committee in March.

“The committee discussed the idea and decided that they were not interested in pursuing this matter further,” read the minutes from that meeting. “They felt that animal-control issues are handled at the county level.”

“I think the whole county needs to be policed on it, not just one township,” said township trustee David Sercombe, who sits on the committee. The rules should be consistent throughout the county, he said.

There has been some discussion about countywide pit bull regulation, and there will be more talk of it, county Commissioner Clifford Herl said.

Like others, he said it is difficult to legislate only one breed: “Every dog could be vicious.”

Stricter licensing enforcement is one strategy. The dogs in the recent attacks were not licensed, but licenses do not raise enough money for the county to hire someone to go out and check all dogs.

Licenses, which require proof of rabies vaccination, are $10 to $30, depending on when a resident buys a license and whether the dog is spayed or neutered. Seniors pay half.

If the county raised the prices, fewer people might bother to get licenses.

“I wish there was an easy answer,” Jackson Mayor Karen Dunigan said.

City officials have talked about legislation for pit bulls or vicious dogs in recent years but opted to operate under the county’s guidelines.

The city’s only pet ordinance regulates the number of pets, Dunigan said.

It is difficult to determine which dogs are aggressive or what dogs should be regulated. Asked Dunigan: “Where do you start and where do you stop?”

— Jackson Citizen Patriot staff writer Danielle Quisenberry contributed to this report.

Levels of dangerous animals

Jackson County’s animal control ordinance addresses dangerous and vicious animals. The county assigns levels to different behaviors to classify how dangerous animals are and regulate them properly.

• Level 1: Animal continuously runs loose.

• Level 2: Animal indirectly causes injury or damage to a person, animal or property.

• Level 3: Animal, while at large, is found to menace, chase, display threatening or aggressive behavior, or otherwise threaten or endanger the safety of any domestic animal.

• Level 4: Animal bites or scratches another animal in a less-than-dangerous manner.

• Level 5: Animal bites or scratches a person in a less-than-dangerous manner.

• Level 6: Animal, while at large, is found to menace, chase, display threatening or aggressive behavior or otherwise threaten or endanger the safety of any person.

• Level 7: Animal, while confined, aggressively bites or causes physical injury less than serious to any person or animal.

• Level 8: Animal, while at large, aggressively bites or causes physical injury less than serious to any person or domestic animal.

• Level 9: Animal, whether or not confined, causes the serious injury or death of any person, kills or causes serious injury to any domestic animal, engages in or is found to have been trained to engage in exhibitions of fighting, or has been classified as level 7 or 8 and repeats the behavior.

Under the ordinance, animals classified as level 1 through 5 must be restrained so that they do not reach any public sidewalk or adjoining property when not on a leash.

An animal at level 6 must be confined inside a secure enclosure whenever not on a leash or in the owner’s house. The animal must also be microchipped.

Level 7 is the same as level 6, but the owner must post warning signs. Level 8 is the same as level 7, but the animal cannot leave the owner’s property unless it is muzzled.

Animals at level 9 can be euthanized by a court order or be subject to level 8 restrictions.

— Source: Jackson County Animal Control Ordinance

Sterling Heights, MI: Public asked to share opinions on animal ordinance

There’s no denying an element of racism or classism going on here. Says a resident: “We have inner city people who bought homes here … They don’t need to bring their pit bulls here.”

Sterling Heights has been considering BSL for a while. These public workshops will be the time to steer them toward effective non-breed-specific ordinances. Dates have not been set for the workshops. Previous alerts for Sterling Heights: http://stopbsl.com/?s=sterling+heights

Mayor and City Council
Mayor Richard Notte, rnotte@sterling-heights.net
Joseph Ramano, cityhall@sterling-heights.net
Yvonne Kniaz, ykniaz@sterling-heights.net
Deanna Koski, dkoski@sterling-heights.net
Maria Schmidt, mgschmidt@sterling-heights.net
Michael Taylor, mctaylor@sterling-heights.net
Barbara Ziarko, bziarko@sterling-heights.net

http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2010/08/25/news/doc4c75462d23886566652720.txt

Public asked to share opinions on animal ordinance

Published: Wednesday, August 25, 2010
By LANA MINI

Sterling Heights administrators are examining dog ordinances from municipalities around the country to determine if the city should change the way its handles its own animal laws.

The city will soon host public workshops where residents will be asked to voice their ideas.

“The date will be sometime in September, and we are asking people to come and share their opinions, and any knowledge they may have on the issue,” Sterling Heights Community Relations Director Steve Guitar said.

The issue regarding vicious dogs stems from incidents that occurred earlier in the year in which two people were attacked on two different occasions by unleashed pit bulls that escaped from their backyards. In one incident, a pack of four pit bulls, which have since been euthanized, attacked a Warren man while he was riding his bike. In the second attack, two pit bulls repeatedly bit a woman and her two dogs on her own property.

Research and public input will help administrators decide if any animal ordinance changes should occur, Guitar said.

Cathy Kovak, who is recovering from the attack on her and her dogs in June, said she trusts the city will make the right decision to keep residents safe.

“We have been looking at model ordinances not only in Michigan, but throughout the country on this,” Guitar said.

Some cities have outright banned the ownership of pit bulls and other breeds they consider “vicious.” Other towns banned the breed only if animal control officials can prove a dog is actually a pit bull and not a different type of similar-looking terrier.

Some communities have banned bringing pit bulls into the community, yet grandfathered in dogs that already live in the city.

Most commonly, pit bulls aren’t banned, but laws are strengthened so that sturdy, tall privacy fences are in place and owners receive hefty fines if dogs are caught roaming. Spaying and neutering laws, as recommended by the Humane Society of the United States, could help curb all dogs’ urge to roam.

Everything is on the table for city officials to examine.

Kovak said residents who own any animal should be given literature on proper pet care, and asked to sign the documents to prove that they’ve read them, upon dog license renewal.

The man who was attacked by four pit bulls June 1 said he has varying opinions on the issue.

“I kind of have mixed feelings,” James Stempnik, of Warren, said. “If you have four pit bulls, then your backyard better be built like Fort Knox. But on the other hand, would you want these dogs in your neighborhood? That’s up to Sterling Heights residents and the paid officials.”

A study by HSUS indicated that cities with strict animal ordinances show positive results of fewer animal attacks than cities that ban specific breeds.

Pit bulls are not bred to fight and their natural instinct is loyalty to their owner, according to HSUS. If a dog is trained as a fight or guard dog, and if they are then neglected by their owners, problems can occur, according to HSUS.

“The HSUS is committed to keeping dogs and people safe, and is available and willing to offer advice, educational materials and model legislation to communities interested in decreasing the incidence of dog bites and aggression.”

A September 2000 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association detailed dog attack fatalities in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998. “Legislation aimed at punishing the owner of the dog, rather than punishing the dog, is far more effective in reducing the number of dog bites and attacks,” according to the AVMA.

Some residents however, want a complete ban specifically on pit bulls. Since the recent attacks, resident Jeff Norgrove has attended several council meetings to voice his concern.

“We need to immediately ban pit bulls and not include a grandfather clause for people who already own pit bulls,” Norgrove said. “We have inner city people who bought homes here … They don’t need to bring their pit bulls here. We need to do this before a child is killed.”

Denver, CO: Breed ban exceptions for service dogs may be on horizon

http://facethestate.com/by-the-way/19263-after-decades-ban-denver-revisits-pit-bulls

After decades with ban, Denver revisits pit bulls

August 24, 2010
By Jared Jacang Maher, Face The State

Pit bulls, outlawed from Denver more than 20 years ago, will be allowed back into city limits as service animals under a proposed law being considered today by the city council’s safety committee.

The ordinance proposed by City Attorney David Broadwell would prevent owners of the breed from being prosecuted under Denver’s anti-pit bull ordinance if the dog qualifies as a “service animal” under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Owners who claim their pit bulls are trained to perform tasks that help them cope with a psychical, mental or psychiatric disability will be able to claim an “affirmative defense” against any charges that their dog’s breed violates Denver law.

The proposed change comes as Denver and Aurora contend with a class-action lawsuit challenging both cities’ breed bans as contrary to the civil right for disabled people to possess and utilize a service dog of their choosing. Two of the defendants are U.S. veterans who say their pit bull service animals assist them in dealing with war-related mental trauma and disabilities. One of the veterans was separated from his dog for five months after it was confiscated by Aurora Animal Control for being a pit bull.

Jennifer Reba Edwards, the attorney representing the dog owners, says that both Denver and Aurora have requested time to try and enact changes to their respective ordinances to allow disabled people to possess service animals that are pit bulls. “The writing was on the wall,” says Edwards. “They know they should have had this in place a long time ago.”

Another motivating factor for city officials are regulations enacted recently by the Department of Justice that confront breed restrictions by state and local governments as “limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA.” A memo from the department says that decisions as to whether a dog should be permitted under the umbrella of “service animal” should be “based on that particular animal’s actual behavior or history – not based on fears or generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave.”

It appears that Denver hopes that passing this bill to allow pit bulls as service dogs will get the city on the right side of the ADA while still maintaining the integrity of the breed ban. But, when put into practice, this sliver of an exception could likely turn into a barn door as officials attempt to determine which pit bulls are legitimate service animals and which are not.

The ADA section on what constitutes a service animal is notoriously vague. There is no national database or permitting model for service animals. Public officials cannot demand documentation that the animal has been certified, trained or licensed, nor can they ask an individual about their disability, which could range from blindness to severe anxiety.

Denver could be welcoming back pit bulls in a big way as people find loopholes around the ban, especially since Animal Care and Control head Doug Kelly has indicated that his agency is apt not to become an arbiter of true disability. If the DOJ suggests breed bans are overly broad for service animals, Denver’s famously animal-loving citizens may ask, why not for all dogs?

Contact the author at jared@facethestate.com or 720-279-9870 x106.

Shadyside, OH: “Pit bulls”banned

Previous alerts for Shadyside: http://stopbsl.com/?s=shadyside

http://www.wtrf.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=84996

Pit Bulls Are Banned From Shadyside

Posted Tuesday, August 24, 2010 ; 04:36 PM

The unusual ordinance prepared for months by the town’s “vicious dog committee” has passed.

SHADYSIDE, Ohio — It is now illegal to have a pit bull in Shadyside, Ohio.

It all started after two residents were allegedly charged by pit bulls, and one of those residents was reportedly bitten.

So now, pit bulls currently living in Shadyside can stay, but new pit bulls will not be permitted.

Ex-councilman Gregg Warren was on the committee.

He says the people who were allegedly attacked were friends of his.

So now, pit bulls are banned in Shadyside.

There’s a grandfather clause for people who already have them, but they can’t have more than two to a family.

And once these dogs have died, no more will be allowed in town.

And the existing ones have lots of new rules to abide by.

“If the dog’s outside, there’s restrictions,” said Gregg Warren. “Fencing–fence must be six foot high, buried in the ground so the dog can’t dig out. The dog must be muzzled when it’s off the premises, $100,000 insurance on the dogs, there’s restrictions on neutering and spaying. Within 30 days they must be neutered or spayed. Within five days the owner must notify the village that they have a pit bull.”

He says they must also post a Beware Of Dog sign.

Warren believes pit bulls are responsible for more fatal dog attacks than any other breed, and he says there is research to back that up.

He says Ohio is the only “breed specific state”–that there is case law to back up a community that bans a particular breed of dog.

Ogden, UT: Tentative work session scheduled for pit bull ordinance, Sept 28

Ogden city council has tentatively planned a work session for a pit bull ordinance (which has been on the back burner for well over a year) for September 28. I will try to keep an eye on this situation and let you know if and when I have more details.
Additional information will also be distributed prior to this meeting on the City Council’s website at http://council.ogdencity.com

A big thank you to Lena for the info!

Previous alerts and info about Ogden:
http://stopbsl.com/2009/07/11/reminder-ogden-ut-council-will-not-vote/
http://stopbsl.com/2009/06/19/ogden-ut-pit-bull-owners-say-ordinance-discriminates/
http://stopbsl.com/2009/04/15/ogden-ut-pit-bull-ban-to-be-discussed-by-city-council-june-18-530-pm/
http://stopbsl.com/2009/04/02/ogden-ut-ogden-delays-pit-bull-debate/
http://stopbsl.com/2009/03/29/ogden-ut-bsl-proposed/

Barstow, CA: Breed-specific MSN a possibility

Online contact form: http://user.govoutreach.com/barstow/
City Council Member Timothy Silva, tsilva@barstowca.org
City Council Member Tim Saenz, tsaenz@barstowca.org
City Council Member Willie Hailey Sr., whailey@barstowca.org
Mayor Pro Tem Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre, jmcintyre@barstowca.org
City Manager Richard Rowe, rrowe@barstowca.org

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/barstow-21287-spay-consider.html

Barstow may consider mandatory spay, neuter law

August 23, 2010 10:10 AM
JESSICA CEJNAR, Staff Writer

BARSTOW • A consultant working with Barstow to update its vicious-dog ordinance recommends that the city consider a mandatory spay-and-neuter law.

But whether that law would require all dog owners to fix their animals or only to pit bull owners is up to city officials, he says. San Bernardino County began enforcing a pit bull spay and neuter law Aug. 13, and other cities such as Yucaipa have passed similar laws.

A draft of the updated vicious-dog ordinance is currently being reviewed by city staff. Steve Fries, whose contract with the city ends later this month, and city staff finished a draft of the updated vicious-dog ordinance in May and submitted it to City Attorney Yvette Abich-Garcia.

Requiring pet owners fix their animals would keep dogs from roaming the streets, forming packs and attacking people, he said.

Under state law, the city can’t establish a law that targets specific breed except when it comes to population control.

Cities and counties can establish mandatory spay and neuter laws, but they have to provide the state with statistical information on dog bites, including how serious the bite was, the breed of dog involved and whether the dog was fixed.

To read the full story, see Monday’s Daily Press.