Hays City Commission will meet on Nov. 12 at 6:30 to discuss proposed BSL against “pit bull” owners.

Previous alerts for Hays City: http://stopbsl.com/?s=hays+city

City Manager’s Office, P.O. Box 490, Hays, KS 67601
Phone: (785) 628-7320
Fax: (785) 628-7323

Ron Mellick, Mayor of Hays
rdcc@swbell.net

Christopher Channell, Vice Mayor
cchannell@media-net.net

Barbara K. Wasinger
barbwasinger@ruraltel.net

Troy Hickman
troy.hickman@hotmail.com

Henry Schwaller IV
hschwaller4@yahoo.com

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/sns-ap-ks–hays-pitbulls,0,1425755.story

Hays commission weighs ‘dangerous’ label, but no outright ban, for pit bulls

By Associated Press
4:01 AM CST, November 9, 2009

HAYS, Kan. (AP) — City commissioners in Hays could vote this week on strict new rules for pit bull owners.

Pit bulls would not be banned in the northwest Kansas community.

But a proposed ordinance would declare the dogs to be “dangerous” — a designation that would trigger several requirements.

Owners would have to keep any pit bulls confined securely, obtain insurance and provide identification microchips. They would also have to pay a registration fee of $50 a year, and keep the dogs muzzled and leashed if they’re out in public.

The commission is expected to take up the proposal at its meeting Thursday night.

The London deputy mayor has suggested adding breeds to the current ban.

Previous alert for London: http://stopbsl.com/2009/11/02/london-england-assembly-member-suggests-adding-breeds-to-ban/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/09/london-summit-weapon-dogs

City Hall summit over rise in ‘weapon dogs’ on London streets

Deputy mayor meets Met police and RSPCA as more than 700 dangerous dogs seized

Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk
Monday 9 November 2009 13.42 GMT

A summit aimed at tackling the increasing number of “weapon dogs” in London was held at City Hall today.

The number of suspected dangerous dogs seized by the Metropolitan police rose by 60% in the last year, while court cases involving dangerous dog offences rose by 50% between 2006 and 2007. In the last five years, London’s hospitals have seen admissions for dog bites increase by 79% , compared to 43% nationally.

The Conservative deputy mayor of London, Kit Malthouse, hosted the meeting with the RSPCA, Metropolitan police and representatives from the capital’s 32 boroughs.

Malthouse, who is deputy mayor for policing, said urgent action was needed so that “Londoners are free to walk the streets without fear of intimidation, injury and attack from a snarling weapon dog”.

“There is a new weapon of intimidation terrorising the streets of London,” he said. “Using a weapon dog is no different to using a gun or a knife to attack, maim and even kill. More and more people are choosing specific types of breeds as their weapon of choice and choosing them for a reason. Certain types of dogs are inherently more aggressive than others.”

Between April 2008 and 2009, 719 dangerous dogs were seized in London, a huge rise from the 27 seized in 2004/05. Malthouse said police were on course to pick up more than 1,000 dogs this year.

Earlier this month, the deputy mayor said it was time to “find a way gently to phase out the canine weapons that terrorise the streets of Peckham, Toxteth and Moss Side”.

“More and more people are using their dogs as instruments of fear and attack and they are choosing certain types and breeds,” he wrote in the Sunday Times. “It’s not just the owners we must be concerned about; there is also something in the dogs that must be considered. These breeds are chosen for a reason.”

But Malthouse’s campaign has been criticised as “increasing the appeal” of the very canines he is trying to crack down on.

Ryan O’Meara, editor of K9 magazine said that by branding breeds “weapon dogs” the deputy mayor was “creating a demand” for the very dogs he was trying to restrict.

“Malthouse is doing the equivalent of sticking parental advisory labels on CDs – calling breeds ‘weapon dogs’ is making them appeal to the exact groups they’re trying to avoid,” O’Meara said. “But he is coming at this from a position of ignorance. The four people killed by dogs since 2003 have all been killed by dogs belonging to family members inside family homes.

“Dogs are the product of their upbringing and their environment. The solution is training owners and having compulsory ownership tests, not trying to enforce [breed specific legislation as enshrined in the] 1991 Dangerous Dogs’ Act – one of the most ineffective pieces of legislation in history.”

Malthouse came under the spotlight in September after declaring that he and Boris Johnson “have our hands on the tiller” of the Metropolitan police and have an electoral mandate to influence what it does.

Sir Paul Stephenson, the commissioner of the Met, interrupted his holiday to insist he alone set the operational strategy for policing in the capital.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091110/NEWS16/911100393/-1/NEWS

Lucas County Commissioner wants dog warden to be fired or demoted

By JC REINDL
BLADE STAFF WRITER

Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop intends to urge fellow commissioners today to dismiss Dog Warden Tom Skeldon or initiate a major reorganization at the county dog pound to demote the warden and relieve him of dog adoption responsibilities.

“If you’re killing innocent dogs, I think that inherently is cause for termination,” Mr. Konop said Monday.

He said he plans to argue for the warden’s dismissal or the reorganization during a human resources executive session after this morning’s commission meeting.

In addition to what he deems the warden’s unacceptably high kill rate for dogs, Mr. Konop criticized Mr. Skeldon for failing to implement any of the five suggestions for improving dog warden services that were made in 2007 when commissioners agreed to a $5 increase in the dog licensing fee.

At $25, Lucas County’s fee is believed to be the highest in Ohio.

“I think there’s a pretty compelling case that there needs to be a change of direction in the dog warden’s office,” Commissioner Konop said.

Mr. Skeldon, dog warden since 1987, has faced mounting pressure in recent weeks from dog advocacy groups and a county-appointed oversight committee, whose chairman recently criticized the warden for euthanizing too many dogs and adopting out too few.

An assistant at the warden’s office said late yesterday that Mr. Skeldon had left for the day and was unavailable for comment.

Mr. Skeldon has previously said that his office is doing its best to increase adoptions while fulfilling its mission of law enforcement and protecting the public from vicious dogs. He told The Blade last week that he does not plan to retire until “sometime in 2011.”

“They can come at me hot and heavy, but I’m not going to stop doing my job,” he vowed.

The warden’s office euthanized 2,483 dogs last year and more than 1,800 so far this year, killing either 77 percent or 66 percent of all dogs that entered the pound in 2008, depending on how the number of animals reclaimed by their owners are counted.

Pete Gerken, president of the board of county commissioners, declined last night to take a stance on Mr. Konop’s proposal, saying he did not want to publicly discuss private human resource matters before they are even presented.

However, Commissioner Gerken reiterated support of his own recent proposal for the Toledo Area Humane Society to review all nonvicious dogs at the county pound and for those deemed adoptable to be transferred to the society’s kennel and put up for adoption there.

The humane society, which claims a 100 percent adoption rate for all healthy and adoptable dogs, is to discuss Mr. Gerken’s proposal among its board members later this month.

“If we’re going to do something different [at the dog warden's office], I want to do it right and not do it in haste,” Mr. Gerken said.

Mr. Konop also called on Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak to recuse herself from all future votes involving Mr. Skeldon, who is her first cousin. He doubted whether Ms. Wozniak could maintain impartiality when the matter concerns a relative’s job.

“For the integrity of the process I think she should recuse herself,” Mr. Konop said.

Ms. Wozniak could not be reached for comment yesterday. She said last week that John Borell, assistant Lucas County prosecutor, advised her that there is no conflict of interest when she votes on items involving Mr. Skeldon.

Mr. Skeldon “was the dog warden for years before I became a county commissioner,” said Ms. Wozniak, who entered office in late 2002.

County Administrator Mike Beazley could not say definitively whether the commissioners have the authority to immediately dismiss Mr. Skeldon, or whether Mr. Konop’s criticisms amount to cause for dismissal.

Mr. Konop said that if he doesn’t get the votes to fire Mr. Skeldon, he will argue for a reorganization that would demote the warden to solely law enforcement duties and cut his salary. The intent, he said, would be “to strip him of his duties of anything to do with adoptions or public outreach.”

Money saved from cutting Mr. Skeldon’s annual $69,097 salary could go to bringing in someone new to help increase the pound’s adoption rate and decrease its kill rate.

Mr. Konop is not the first to call for Mr. Skeldon’s job.

Last year, the group 4 Lucas County Pets launched a petition effort for the warden’s firing that claimed more than 3,000 signatures and resulted in a public hearing.

Co-founder Tamara Ernst yesterday applauded the commissioner for ratcheting up the pressure.

“Nothing will change while [Mr. Skeldon] is there,” she said. “He’s given a really really bad name to Lucas County. I have people from other counties asking me, ‘Why isn’t this guy being fired?’”

The 2007 suggestions which Mr. Konop said the warden failed to implement included a new community outreach and education program, new options for donating to local spay and neuter efforts, the offering of new microchip services and customized name tags, and the reopening a dog exercise park at the Lucas County Recreation Center.

Contact JC Reindl at: jreindl@theblade.com or 419-724-6065.

Breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter is still discrimination against a particular subset of people based solely on what their dog looks like.

Previous alert for Auburn: http://stopbsl.com/2009/10/25/auburn-ca-councilman-proposes-pitbull-ordinance/

The City Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Next city council meetings: Nov. 23 and Dec. 14.

Auburn city officals contact info
City Council

Mike Holmes, Mayor
njrhs@inreach.com

Bridget Powers, Mayor Pro Tempore
bridgetpowers@sbcglobal.net

Keith Nesbitt, Council Member
mr.auburn@sbcglobal.net

Kevin Hanley, Council Member
hanleykh@jps.net

Dr. Bill Kirby, Council Member
flyingsurgeon210@yahoo.com

City Council, City of Auburn, 1225 Lincoln Way, Auburn, CA 95603
Phone: (530) 823-4211, ext. 112
Fax: (530) 823-4216

City Manager Office, 1225 Lincoln Way, Room 9, Auburn, CA 95603
Phone: (530) 823-4211, ext. 191
Fax: (530) 823-4216

Robert Richardson, City Manager
(530) 823-4211, ext. 192
rrichardson@auburn.ca.gov

Police Chief Valerie Harris
530-823-4211 Ext 201

http://www.kcra.com/news/21560325/detail.html

City Eyes New Dog Rules After Attack

Advocates: Blame Owners, Not Dogs

POSTED: 7:21 am PST November 9, 2009
UPDATED: 12:41 am PST November 10, 2009

AUBURN, Calif. — Updating Auburn’s 12-year-old animal codes is now officially a priority for the City Council. They made that decision in a meeting Monday.

The decision came in light of a recent incident in which a teenager was attacked by four pit bulls almost two months ago.

“Something snapped. They started biting and attacking,” JoJo Kerschner said. Kerschner had to get 40 stitches after the attack.

Councilman Kevin Hanley got the rest of the City Council talking about adding some new regulations to the city’s animal codes for the first time in 12 years.

He said he hopes additional restrictions on certain dogs will prevent an attack such as the one Kerschner suffered.

Hanley and other City Council members discussed ways to restrict certain breeds such as pit bulls at Monday night’s meeting. One consideration Hanley mentioned is requiring pit bulls to be spayed and neutered.

“I’ve asked the police department to look at a number of options of what other jurisdictions in California do,” Hanley said.

Dawn Capp, an advocate for pit bulls, and other pit bull owners fear will the changes would do more harm than good.

“Breed-specific legislation doesn’t work,” Capp said. “It targets the wrong end of the leash. The only thing discriminating against breeds does is harm responsible people.”

Capp grew up around pit bulls and she said her dog, Savy, is the furthest thing from vicious.

About a dozen people in Auburn voiced similar opinions Sunday afternoon for a video testimonial.

“I’m trying to show the City Council that pit bull owners come from all walks of life,” Capp said.

Capp plans to present the stories to the City Council Monday in defense of dogs such as Savy, who Capp said would be the undeserving victims of a new ordinance.

Capp said attacks could come from any dog, not just pit bulls.

“It’s just about how they’re bred and raised,” Capp said.

Discussion by pet owners led City Council to ask animal control to compile a list with a full range of options for the city based on what’s been working for other city’s in the area. That list will include everything from possible limitations on the number of animals an individual can have, to stricter penalties for people with problematic pets and possibly regulations requiring certain breeds be spayed and neutered.

The council said their main objective is to hold animal owners responsible, and keep the community safe but not create restrictions that will limit undeserving responsible owners.

The committee that is creating a new animal control ordinance has decided to drop the breed-specific language. However, Elkhart continues to be a city to watch, since nothing final has been presented to city council yet.

http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?ID=497894

Panel won’t push breed-specific dog ban in Elkhart animal control ordinance

Elkhart animal ordinance committee votes to recommend owner-centric punishments, not breed-directed bans and fines.

Published: 11/10/2009 12:00:00 AM
Last Updated: 11/10/2009 12:01:06 AM
By: Josh Weinhold
Elkhart Truth

ELKHART — The city’s new animal control ordinance won’t contain a ban on pit bulls if the city council follows the recommendations of an ad hoc committee.

The panel tasked with drafting a new animal ordinance voted on Monday to eliminate the breed-specific legislation from a draft version of the law. Six of the nine members supported the ban’s removal, saying they believe the draft’s language on vicious and dangerous dogs is enough to lower the risk of animal attacks.

“Any animal can be considered a vicious and dangerous dog,” said committee member Anne Reel, executive director of the Humane Society of Elkhart County. “You start naming specific breeds, you limit what can be considered a dangerous dog.”

The proposed pit bull ban would have made it illegal to own any breeds or crossbreeds of the American pit bull terrier, unless it was licensed within 180 days of the ordinance becoming law. The ban was the primary point of public criticism at public hearings held on the draft ordinance earlier this year.

Several residents and animal experts suggested the new ordinance go after reckless pet owners, instead of including a breed-wide ban that would harm responsible ones. Dr. Rick Nelson, an Elkhart veterinarian and committee member, said the language the panel has added to the ordinance will do just that.

“We heard many anecdotes about how pit bulls can be good pets,” he said. “I’d rather see us focus on what’s best for the community and leave pit bulls out of it.”

The debate over the ban was lengthy and far from one-sided. The Rev. Franklin Breckenridge, a member of the city’s board of public safety, was the ban’s staunchest supporter. Pit bulls and other potentially dangerous dogs are always an attack risk, he said, and thus several other breeds should be banned, as well.

“If we’re going to include one, then we ought to include all of them that fall in that same category,” he said. “That goes to the basic premise upon which this ordinance is being enacted, for the overall protection and safety of the citizens.”

Reel, though, said that if the city bans six or seven breeds for being potentially dangerous, it might as well ban them all.

“I’ve seen every breed of dog,” she said, “those you wouldn’t think would be vicious dogs, behaving in a vicious manner.”

There will always be one popular breed of dangerous dog in the city, Nelson said. While 20 or 30 years ago the Doberman pinscher or Rottweiler may have been a popular intimidating animal, another breed will be trendy 10 years from now.

For that reason, he said, the ordinance should restrict individual animals that are dangerous, not entire breeds.

If passed by the council, the new ordinance will make it significantly tougher — and more expensive — to own animals deemed to be vicious or dangerous. If a dog attacks or attempts to attack another animal or human, it will be registered as a dangerous animal with the city.

Based on language adopted by the committee, that distinction could carry an annual fee of up to $500 and require the animal to be spayed or neutered. It would also place heavy restrictions on how the animal must be housed and handled in public.

The committee will meet for a final time next week, to review the new draft ordinance, listen to public comment and vote on sending the document on to the city council.

The new law will be much tougher, members said, but all in the name of public safety.

“We’ve put a lot of meat on the bone of this ordinance,” committee chairman and city council president Rod Roberson said. “At the end of the day, we have a lot of this breed out there that aren’t appropriately restrained.”

This is a very poorly-written, unclear article that hints that Genesee County, MI, or some of the cities/towns inside the county (Flint? Mt. Morris?) may consider BSL of some sort.

Follow the link to read the whole article.

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/11/pitbull_debate_rages_in_genese.html

Too violent for society? Pitbull debate rages in Genesee County following serious attacks

Despite the headline, only two attacks were mentioned in the body of the article. One was serious. One involved taking a child to a “clinic” for unspecified reasons. And a third incident mentioned left a dog dead, but no one was injured and it was unclear whether the dog was actually attacking anyone at all. In all cases, loose dogs were involved.

Also note that a few of the photos feature a couple of local “pit bull” breeders that play into the “thug” stereotype and raise non-breed-standard dogs. They offer this gem of wisdom, indicating they don’t really understand why dogs bite at all: “Half the time, if a pitbull gets out and bites someone it’s just because it’s hungry and has been mistreated by its owners.” We really don’t need “friends” like this in the fight against BSL, and the media should not hold these types of people up as “experts.”

An excellent article about Lucas County’s high euthanization rates that is too lengthy to post here:

Lucas County dog death toll rises as controversy swirls

Warden’s records show 70 breeds hit by agency extermination policy

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091108/NEWS16/911080324/0/SPORTS02

If you would like to thank City Council members, you can email cwheeler@oakharbor.org

Previous alerts on Oak Harbor: http://stopbsl.com/?s=oak+harbor

Pit bulls freed from muzzles

By JENNY MANNING
Whidbey News Times Reporter
Nov 06 2009, 3:43 PM

Leeon and Lorriane Stecher can now walk their pit bull-chocolate lab mix, Angel, in Oak Harbor city limits without a muzzle as a result of the City Council’s decision Wednesday night to repeal a breed-specific ordinance that, some say, unfairly discriminated against pit bulls and their owners.

Oak Harbor’s breed-specific ordinance went into effect in 2006 and required pit bull owners who live within city limits to house the controversial canines in a secure pen and muzzle the animals while on leash, among other restrictions. Pit bull owners who didn’t follow the ordinance ran the risk of having their dog impounded or earning a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, jail time up to 90 days, or both.

Now the animal control officer will rely on the “Dangerous Dog and Potentially Dangerous Dog” chapter of the animal control ordinance that deals with animals based on behavior, not breed.

Before the council made their final decision, Councilman Jim Campbell questioned whether the “Dangerous Dog and Potentially Dangerous Dog” chapter was enough to protect the citizens of Oak Harbor.

“We don’t need this because we have sufficient coverage in the one that we already have? Does it also have the hard rules for the owner that has a dog with biting habits?” he asked Police Chief Rick Wallace.

Wallace said yes, and proceeded to read from the “Dangerous Dog and Potentially Dangerous Dog” ordinance that requires the owner of these dogs to keep the animals in a proper enclosure, post a visible warning sign that a dangerous dog is in the area, purchase a surety bond of at least $250,000 or a liability insurance policy, have the animal microchipped and register the dog with the city.

Councilwoman Beth Munns made the motion to repeal the breed specific ordinance, and Campbell seconded her motion. The council unanimously voted to support Munns’ motion, 6-0. Councilman Danny Paggao was not at the meeting.

The changes will make life easier for the Stecher family and other pit bull owners who live in Oak Harbor because pit bulls will no longer be considered dangerous according to the city ordinance.

“It’ll be more convenient to take her on walks,” Lorriane Stecher said, adding that it’ll be nice to walk in town without worry of getting ticketed.

The couple used to drive Angel outside city limits for her walks so they wouldn’t have to put a muzzle on her. The muzzle restricted Angel’s ability to pant, so the couple preferred to walk her where she wasn’t required to wear one.

“The muzzle also scared people because they thought she was a dangerous dog,” she said.

City officials hope the change will also decrease the number of pit bulls surrendered to island animal shelters, and possibly increase their rate of adoption.

The changes will go into effect on Monday, Nov. 16, 2009.

Whidbey News Times Reporter Jenny Manning can be reached at jmanning@whidbeynewstimes.com.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091106/NEWS16/911060345/0/SPORTS01

Dog advocate says ‘pit bulls’ are unfairly demonized

Canine profiling cited as ineffective approach

By CARL RYAN
BLADE STAFF WRITER
Article published November 06, 2009

In dealing with dangerous dogs, Ohio and Lucas County are all wrong, a lawyer-lobbyist for an animal-welfare organization told a group at Government Center yesterday.

Ledy VanKavage, a specialist in animal law, said Ohio and Lucas County are behind the times in adopting laws and practicing policies that target a particular breed.

“Ohio is the only state that discriminates against ‘pit bulls’,” she said. “Twelve states, including Illinois, prohibit breed discrimination. Breed-discrimination laws are ineffective. Profiling doesn’t protect the public.”

Ms. VanKavage is senior legislative analyst for Best Friends Animal Society, the group that rescued disgraced NFL player Michael Vick’s approximately 50 “pit bulls,” which have been rehabilitated and adopted out.

She said she is on the American Bar Association’s animal-law committee, which has published A Lawyer’s Guide to Dangerous Dog Issues, a book that “shows that canine profiling is not effective. Studies show that breed discrimination doesn’t work.”

Ohio law specifically defines vicious dogs to include “pit bulls,” regardless of their temperament. House Bill 79 sponsored by State Rep. Barbara Sears (R., Sylvania), who attended the presentation, would remove the breed reference and define a dangerous dog according to its behavior. Ms. VanKavage said she supported the bill and would like to testify on its behalf in the legislature.

In fact, the term “pit bull” is used loosely. The name comes from the cruel and sadistic 19th century British sport of putting dogs in a pit with rats to see which dog could kill the most. A pit was used to keep the rats from escaping. “Pit bull” describes several breeds of dogs, including the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and many mongrels.

Ms. VanKavage was in Toledo at the invitation of Jean Keating and her organization, the Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates, which has been agitating for the firing of Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon on the claim that he euthanizes too many dogs and places too little emphasis on adoption. Last year, 2,483 dogs were killed at the Lucas County dog pound, 80 percent of the dogs taken in.

“What I’m amazed at is the level of rhetoric making these dogs demons. It’s insane,” Ms. VanKavage said. “It has basically become a witch hunt.”

Mr. Skeldon, who has warned of the dangers of “pit bulls” for years, said he met Ms. VanKavage and was familiar with her views. “She’s a nice, intelligent lady, but she’s on the opposite side of this issue from me,” he said last night.

Based on state law that automatically labels “pit bulls” vicious dogs, including dogs and puppies that have not bitten anyone, Mr. Skeldon said it is his policy that he won’t let people adopt “pit bulls” impounded at his facility or hand them over to dog rescue groups, resulting in the killing of hundreds of “pit bulls” each year held at the dog pound.

Last year, Mr. Skeldon’s operation killed 1,281 “pit bulls” at the county dog pound, out of 2,483 dogs and puppies euthanized by the dog warden. The dogs are killed by injection, placed in freezers, and disposed of in either Toledo’s Hoffman Road landfill or the Evergreen landfill in Northwood.

Owners of “pit bulls” picked up by the dog warden may reclaim their dogs if they don’t have criminal records involving dog fighting and drugs, have no complaints on file involving dogs, agree to have their dogs spayed or neutered, and pay any fines associated with their dogs’ impoundment.

Ms. VanKavage said countries and communities that have banned breeds perceived as dangerous have seen no reduction in dog attacks. She said she owns three “pit bulls.” Cook County, Ill., which includes Chicago, has a cadaver dog that’s part “pit bull,” she said.

“Dogs are individuals, just like people, and they should be judged as individuals,” she said.

Ms. VanKavage said visual identification of “pit bulls” is wrong most of the time and only DNA testing, which costs $120 per dog, is truly accurate.

Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop, who has been pushing for change in the dog warden’s operation, asked if there were DNA grants Lucas County might apply for. She said she thought funding was available.

Rob Ludeman, a member of the commissioners’ dog warden advisory committee who was elected to City Council Tuesday, said he heard some good ideas that he would approach council with next year.

He said he wanted to explore forbidding felons from owning unsterilized dogs that can be used for fighting, as other communities have done.

“This could cut down on dog fighting,” he said.

Contact Carl Ryan at: carlryan@theblade.com or 419-724-6050.

BSL is still under consideration in Fremont. A third public meeting will take place at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 19.

Previous alerts on Fremont, OH: http://stopbsl.com/?s=fremont%2C+oh

Fremont Law Director Bob Hart, who is pushing for the ban: 419-334-2908

City Councilmembers’ Contact Info:
Mike Koebel, 419-334-4231 home, 419-332-5300 work
Jim Melle, jmelle@fremontohio.org
Larry Jackson, ljackson@fremontohio.org
O. Duane Simmons, odsimmons@fremontohio.org
Rick Root, rroot@fremontohio.org
Jim Weaver, jweaver@fremontohio.org
Karen Wagner, pwags43@yahoo.com
Don Nalley, nalley1stward@aol.com

http://www.thenews-messenger.com/article/20091106/NEWS01/911060305

Council hears about other dog laws

BY LESLIE BIXLER • Staff writer • November 6, 2009

FREMONT — City hall was once again packed Thursday night as residents came to hear more about what other states and municipalities are doing about vicious dogs. City officials want to gather information to decide whether to enact a dog policy here.

Ledy VanKavage, an attorney with the Best Friends Animal Society out of Illinois, spoke to council Thursday about different laws.

At the Oct. 15 public meeting at city hall, Fremont police Chief Tim Wiersma, Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates’ Jean Keating and Sandusky County’s deputy dog warden Gina Halbisen debated pit bulls.

“Any dog can bite and we need to focus on the individuals (who own them),” VanKavage said in her presentation.

In 2006, 84 percent of fatal dog attacks involved reckless owners, according to a statistic in her presentation.

No one knows how many German shepherds, pit bulls or other types of dogs there are in communities, and people go through cycles deciding which dogs are dangerous, she said. She said she once had a German shepherd, and as she was walking the dog, someone told her to be careful because it could turn on her.

VanKavage discussed canine profiling laws and how the U.K. banned pit bulls in 1991. However, there has not been a published U.S. study on the laws. She also said the breed ban in Denver is not working. According to her presentation, breed-specific legislation is not as effective as more strict dangerous-dog laws, which hold owners responsible.

Texas prohibits dogs being tied up between certain hours of the day, within 500 feet of a school and during certain temperatures because dogs that are chained can be more aggressive.

She also stressed the importance of dogs being spayed or neutered and microchipped, as some states require.

Lucas County has more than 800 dog bites a year, which is a lot for a county that size, she said. There, people can have only one pit bull, but the bites have increased, she said.

VanKavage said identification is also a problem because people tend to misidentify a dog as a pit bull when it might be a mixed breed.

City Law Director Bob Hart said, “I want to do what is best for Fremont. I’m starting to buy this owner’s responsibility. But I’m still troubled. … I can’t deny what I’ve seen when someone was attacked by a pit bull.”

Councilman Mike Koebel asked, “Is it true that pit bulls jaws lock?”

VanKavage said that their jaws do not lock when they bite, they are just muscular.

A third public meeting will take place at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 19.