Hollywood Asks State for Permission to Ban Pit Bulls

Categories: Animal Planet
pit bull image2.jpg
Hollywood may want to ban pit bulls too.

As Broward County reels following yesterday's announcement that it may soon follow Miami-Dade's lead and ban the ownership of pit bulls, the City of Hollywood has asked the state for permission to take similar legislative action against the animal.

Just in case the Hollywood City Commission decides it wants to do so.

"Residents at a recent City Commission meeting expressed concern about pit bull ownership in the city, and, right now, the city can't do anything on its own," said Hollywood spokesperson Jamie Hernandez. State law trumps city ordinances, he said, and Hollywood can't move on any ownership issue or smoking ban unless it first gets Tallahassee's permission.

See also:
- Broward County May Ban Owning Pit Bulls

- Pit Bulls Much Less Aggressive Than Other Breeds, Study Says

But before Hollywood moves on anything, he said, the city will wait to see what Broward County does.

On Thursday, Barbara Sharief, vice mayor of the Broward County Commission, proposed a ban on owning pit bulls, imposing a $500 fine for every occurrence in which the ban was broken. She also proposed fining pit bull owners $300 if the animals weren't properly vaccinated.

"This has a pretty good chance of being adopted," Sharief told New Times. "I'm not asking for anything that's unreasonable. We have an issue with pit bulls in south Broward County."

Hernandez said, as of now, the Hollywood City Commission hasn't proposed any bills that would ban pit bulls in the city limits. But, he said, if the city successfully lobbies the state for the ability to enact such legislation, that may change.

"I'm not saying the city is interested in banning pit bulls, but it wants the ability to implement a ban on pit bulls, if it decides to do so."

According to Hollywood's 2013 legislative priorities, however, it seems as though that decision's already been made.

"Changing statutes would allow municipalities to enact their own ordinance that treats specific breeds of dogs (particularly pit bull terriers or their derivations which have previously shown a predisposition towards aggressive behavior) differently from other breeds," the proposal says.

It continues: "Recently publicized events involving attacks on people by these or similar types of dogs have prompted the need to address this public safety concern more effectively."

In October 2011, two children were attacked by pit bulls in Deerfield Beach. Then in May of last year, a pit bull mauled a 77-year-old man in Miramar.

The Broward County Commission will discuss the issue on February 26.

Follow the writer on Twitter




My Voice Nation Help
67 comments
v_baker
v_baker

I seriously think that people should be banned not Pit's..  Its the moron's that raise them to kill not the breed. How about rounding them up and killing all of them without a trial??? I think that is only fair seeing how they want to kill my baby..Shame on Florida ,and any other state that accepts that all animals are bad because of a few.. 

v_baker
v_baker

I seriously think that people should be banned not Pit's..  Its the moron's that raise them to kill not the breed. How about rounding them up and killing all of them without a trial??? I think that is only fair seeing how they want to kill my baby..Shame on Florida ,and any other state that accepts that all animals are bad because of a few.. 

onlywic
onlywic

Owning a Pitbull should be treasured for all...They are the most amazing dog around...They are loyal, loving and most of all protective..... My landlord is afraid of Pits and won't take a chance on them....I want one again but will abide by her rules...... But to ban them out right.....thats just stupid..... 

Musufoo
Musufoo

What is it going to take for these places in Florida to read their own laws? They should know these bills cannot legally be passed; it obviously conflicts with the issue that breed specific legislation is illegal in the whole state.

Concerns me that these politicians can't even follow their set laws on such a strait forward issue! No matter their opinions on the issue -- if they will disregard the law in favor of the own thoughts -- they clearly can't handle it. 

nana14368
nana14368

STOP ACCUSING THE BREED!!!! MY PIT'S BEST FRIENDS ARE A RABBIT AND A COCKATIEL YES RABBIT AND BIRD, THEY ARE ALL FREE TO WALK AROUND THE SCREENED PATIO AND THE HOUSE NONE OF MY ANIMALS ARE CADGED. LOOK AT THE SO CALLED OWNERS OF THESE DOGS THE WAY THE DOG IS RAISED IS HOW THEY BEHAVE. PIT BULLS ARE WONDERFUL, LOYAL PETS. MY PETS ARE NOT PET BUT PART OF THE FAMILY. 

Littlesha
Littlesha

I'd be so interested in hear what PERSONAL experience Madame Commissioner has had with pitbulls. My guess....she's never even met one.

d_b60
d_b60

Baker1017: More children die from drowning in pools than by a Pit Bull (or any dog) attack! More people in general are killed by car accidents than by dog attack! Have they outlawed pools or cars????? NO--but they require the PEOPLE who have these things to be responsible. Just as you pointed out with a crib--is it really the crib's fault or the people who put their child into it??  MOST dog owners ARE responsible. Punish those that aren't responsible and encourage those that are! Also--responsible dog owners spay or neuter their pets--that is a given. Just banning a breed makes no sense because then there will be another breed that will be the #1 on the 'dangerous' dog list and then that one will have to 'go' too.

You wonder why there is an abundance of Pit Bulls in shelters? Because the PEOPLE who had them, failed them and with all this talk of BSL and banning them, people ared afraid of being punished for owning one--even with a CGC and no history of aggression etc. they face higher rates for insurance--or being dropped without coverage at all.

baker1017
baker1017

If a certain brand of crib killed 2 children in 39 days and no other cribs killed any that crib would be ban.What gives the owners of these dogs the right to steal the safety of Our Children form Us.? Stop breeding these dogs the shelters have excess of 60% pit bull population and You say You love this breed ? I call BS. If You love the breed stop the breeding because We are going to protect Our Children and loved ones.

grizzily
grizzily

'Mirrit', just because you change your screen name from 'Thomas McCartney' doesn't mean people won't figure out you're the same person if you spam the *exact same* bunch of posts. And Tom, just having the most posts on every thread on the internet about 'pit bulls' doesn't mean you win the argument. It makes you look like an obsessed fanatic.

cltls
cltls

Dear Barbara:

You are so wrong to think you have majority support for this abominable bill you are proposing!!! If you want to write a bill to support the people then write a bill that has stricter laws to hold the human accountable. Stricter fines are a good start but how about jail time, lifetime bans from owning dogs, community service to help groups trying to educate others on the proper way to raise/treat a dog. Funding to educate the public on the ways to greet dogs - programs in the schools to help children learn at a young age on how to greet/raise/treat an animal.

You do realize that the human is the one who has the ability to reason and make a choice - the animal only has the ability to react based on how it has been treated.

... Current studies, both independent and those backed by educational institutions, have proven breed laws DO NOT solve the problem. Are you so wanting to make a name for yourself that you will help to create further ignorance rather than striving to really solve the problem - the ignorance in humans.

I will not stand by while you do this, I can't in good conscious be silent while you work to bring more ignorance to our community. I will write, call, and be there on the 26th to let you and others know that your 'support' is not as strong as you would like everyone to believe.

Cynthia Stone
Dog Scout Troop Leader - Broward Paw Patrol 157
& proud to have many pit bull types as active members.

MyPitBullisFamily
MyPitBullisFamily

We are 'My Pit Bull is FAMILY' and we represent over 31 thousand families in our nation. The REAL STORY, the TRUTH about pit bulls is happening in these homes where pit bulls are loving family members to humans large, small and in-between, cats, other dogs of every size and breed, reptiles, birds, goats, you name it. We ask you - just as we have learned with people - to judge not based on how a dog looks or it's 'breed' (race) but by it's actions. Our responsible families do not deserve to lose their loving family members due to unjust and needless discrimination. Dangerous dogs - and irresponsible owners - should be punished. But loving families should not have to see their dogs confiscated and die!  This is America, and this is WRONG.

http://www.mypitbullisfamily.com/family-photos.html

d_b60
d_b60

mirrit--you seem to want to perpetuate fear for these dogs and I have to wonder why? And more importantly--What do you want the end result to be for these dogs?  Pitbulls actually were considered Nanny Dogs in the early 1900s. Google it--you will find MANY references. It was not just a made up statement.  Pit Bull type dogs were also war Heros. Google 'Sgt Stubby' and Sgt Patton's dog Willie--who was a Bull Terrier. Would you have also asked to ban "Petey"? He was around children all the time while filming "The Little Rascals" and yet, he never attacked anyone. Please also google "Lilly the Hero Pit Bull" and the Pit Bull that just saved it's family during a fire in OK  http://gawker.com/5984332/hero-pit-bull-rushes-to-rescue-humans-and-dogs-from-burning-home

There are thousands of stories like the one linked above. More facts to consider--every animal professional I have ever met, has owned  and/or advocated for Pit Bulls. The MSPCA and the ASPCA both work tirelessly to better the Pit Bulls circumstances and recently the state of MA just put into effect a law that defines BSLs as 'illegal'. The state of Ohio recently rescinded their long standing ban on Pit Bulls as well. It's time to move forward and lead with education, not ignorance.

d_b60
d_b60

I don't even know where to start. I was afraid of pit bulls even before I knew what they were--all because of the scary stories reported about them. I wonder how many people who are pushing for these BSLs honestly have PERSONAL experience with these dogs? As a point of fact--I now DO have experience with Pit Bull type dogs and I have never been in danger from them at any time.

I've done a bit of 'googling' on this Bob Kerridge who is an SPCA director in NZ and most others' opinion of him is that he is off his rocker. As an animal advocate, he has NO business in this position if that is his stance. Pit Bulls are DOGS. Plain and simple. If they were so different from any other dog in an organic setting, then they would be a different species of animal.

smb09e
smb09e

Ashamed to be from Hollywood, FL. Ignorant bigotry at it's worst. 

freedomfighter
freedomfighter

This Mirrit guy does not have a life. I bet he is one of those pussies that own a chihuahua. Oye hacere why are you so afraid of a dog??   Pipo you should worry about crazy people like me having acces to guns... not a dog pussy!

mirrit
mirrit

Research showing severe dog bites are fewer in Manitoba areas with pit bull bans.


The study, conducted by University of Manitoba scientists, shows the number of dog bites requiring hospitalization have decreased since pit bull bans went into effect in 2005.

It states the number of hospitalization attacks fell from 3.5 per 100,000 population to 2.8 after the legislation took effect.

Many people feel the breed is inherently aggressive.

The study doesn’t purport to be the last word on the issue but does contain some compelling data, particularly when comparing Brandon, which has never prohibited pit bulls and Winnipeg, which has, said study co-author, Dr. Malathi Raghavan.

“I would not claim this is the ultimate study ... all dogs bite,” she said.

But she said the data collected from 16 larger Manitoba jurisdictions, along with recent Spanish and Texas studies suggesting similar results, is compelling.

“We should pay attention to the fact there is something going on here,” said Raghavan.

The Spanish data showed similar hospitalization reductions in the absence of pit bulls while the Texas research indicated higher rates of death, severe injury and treatment costs are linked to the breed.

Raghavan said she was careful to isolate the pit bull factor from others, such as changes in dog populations.

“The legislation was a variable coming out significantly,” she said.

mirrit
mirrit

 Rhode Island Introduces Statewide BSL Measure

(Thursday, February 07, 2013)

Two bills have been introduced in Rhode Island that would regulate all “pit bulls” (or dogs believed to be “pit bulls”) and impose numerous requirements on the owners. 

The bill would also require every kennel, veterinary office, and commercial breeder, among others, to post a sign notifying people of the new law and providing contact information for someone to report a dog owner who is not in compliance.

H 5287 and S 178 would regulate all “pit bulls” in the state. “Pit bull” is defined as any dog that substantially conforms to the American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier standards. Testimony by a veterinarian, zoologist, animal behaviorist, or animal control officer that states the dog has these physical characteristics creates the rebuttable presumption that the dog is in fact a “pit bull”.

The bills also contain “legislative findings” that in part state that these breeds were developed for the purpose of fighting and that breeders have “selected and maximized” certain traits, including an “unusually aggressive temperament towards human beings and animals” and “an extraordinary directness in their method of attack that does not include common warning signs such as barking or growling.”

Those who own dogs that meet the definition of “pit bull” must always keep the dog securely confined indoors, in a locked pen, or muzzled. Exceptions are made for when dogs are participating in dog shows or hunting.

Among other requirements, all veterinary offices, kennels, commercial breeders, commercial animal establishments, pet shops, and dog groomers must post a sign highlighting the pit bull law and local animal control contact information to report anyone who is not abiding by these laws. A kennel is defined in law as any establishment where dogs are kept that are not owned by the kennel owner.

mirrit
mirrit

In an article dated 03/02/2012.

SPCA executive director Bob Kerridge last week said pit bulls are the exception to the rule that dogs are not born bad. 
"The pit bull is the exception to the way we talk about dogs. No dogs are born bad, except pit bulls - owners make them bad," he said. 
Kerridge was responding to a spate of dog attacks. 
Six children have been attacked by dogs in the last month - at least three by pit bulls or pit bull crosses.

mirrit
mirrit

Myth: Pit Bulls have been called the Nanny Dog


Truth: This myth was started by statements made by two people. Mrs. Lilian Rant, President, Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America, magazine editor said they are referred to as a nursemaid dog in an interview published in the New York Times in 1971.

Second in 1987 Toronto Star article where Breeder Kathy Thomas, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Association said “In England, our Staffies were called the nanny-dog”.

No sources, citations or evidence just two biased people heavily invested in trying to change the image of Pit Bulls made these statements and started this whole myth.

mirrit
mirrit

No matter what you identify them as or what you choose to call them if any dog has pit bull genetics in it then the outcome of said genetics are always the same, death, mauling's, crippled and disfigured victims when their DNA is expressed into reality which it invariably will be the case.


So you can call them something else to protect them but they are still pit mixes who are what they are and do what they do, who as a result have no right to ever come into human contact.

Pit bull or Pit bull cross, same difference same outcome same reality as to what they are.

And all Pit bulls or restricted dogs including pit bull crosses by law must have leashes and Muzzles which they never have and all to often you seem them running around as such unmuzzled, this is an even greater problem then them being unleashed and that is bad enough.

Certain breeds like Pit bulls etc.are fundamentally evil in nature and action and do not deserve the freedom of action to carry out their DNA.

The point is, other dogs bite, Pit bulls and Pit bull crosses and others like mastiffs, Rotts etc. attack and kill and maim, that is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different attitude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright. The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.

mirrit
mirrit

The simple reality is that small dogs bite more but restricted large dogs like pit bulls maim and kill more & do all for more then any other breed proportionally speaking % wise.


A 1993 Toronto study found pit bulls accounted for 1 percent of licensed dogs but 4 percent of bites.

More ominous is a 2000 study by the Centers for Disease Control looking at 20 years of data on fatal dog attacks in.

the U.S.

Of 238 such incidents in which the breed of the attacking dog was reported,

"pit bull-type dogs" were involved in 32 percent, versus 18 percent for rottweilers and rottweiler mixes.

and 11 percent for German shepherds and mixes.

one study found 94 percent of pit bull attacks on kids were unprovoked, as opposed to only 43 percent of attacks by other breeds.

mirrit
mirrit

Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 26, 2011.


By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2011,1 Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, shows the breeds most responsible for serious injury and death.

Study highlights

The combination of pit bulls, rottweilers, their close mixes and wolf hybrids:

77% of attacks that induce bodily harm.

73% of attacks to children.

81% of attack to adults.

68% of attacks that result in fatalities.

76% that result in maiming.

mirrit
mirrit

The pit bull type dog kills and mauls more severely than all other breeds combined. So far this year all fatal mauling in the USA have been due to pit bull attacks.


https://www.facebook.com/ProtectChildrenFromPitBulls

PETER ANTEVY, pediatric E.R. physician, Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital.
Dr Antvey sees at least five dog-bite victims a month in his emergency room. Unfortunately, he said, "the biggest offender is the pit bull."

SHERYL BLAIR, Tufts Veterinary School symposium - Animal Aggression: Dog Bites and the Pit Bull Terrier.
The injuries these dogs inflict are more serious than other breeds because they go for the deep musculature and don't release; they hold and shake.

MICHAEL W. FOX, veterinarian, animal behaviorist.
"I spent 20 years studying the behavior of dogs and it's not in their nature. Man, has created a monster, If you wish...These dogs were selectively bred to fight, they have greater propensity to fight than other animals, which is brought out in training."

"They can attack people, and because the attitudes of Pit Bulls it is more likely they will attack people. The worry is the power of the dogs jaw...to bite and not let go. It's quite sufficient to crush right through a child's arm or leg."

mirrit
mirrit

DR. AMY WANDEL, plastic surgeon.


I see just as many dog bites from dogs that are not pit bulls as bites from pit bulls. The big difference is pit bulls are known to grab onto something and keep holding so their damage they create is worse than other breeds.

mirrit
mirrit

Toronto dog bites fell after pit bull ban

Patrick Cain, Global News : Monday, November 14, 2011 02:12 PM

The number of dog bites reported in Toronto has fallen since a ban on pit bulls took effect in 2005, public health statistics show. 

A total of 486 bites were recorded in 2005. That number fell generally in the six years following, to 379 in 2010.

Provincial laws that banned 'pit bulls,' defined as pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and dogs resembling them took effect in August 2005. Existing dogs were required to be sterilized, and leashed and muzzled in public.

Bites in Toronto blamed on the four affected breeds fell sharply, from 71 in 2005 to only six in 2010. This accounts for most of the reduction in total bites. 

The fall in bites blamed on the four breeds tracks a reduction in the dogs themselves, data obtained separately by globalnews.ca under access-to-information laws shows. Some 1,411 Toronto dogs were in the four breeds in 2008, as opposed to 798 in mid-2011.

"It is encouraging to hear that fewer people are victimized by dangerous dogs," Ontario Attorney-General John Gerretson said in a statement.

About 1,000 Ontario pit bulls have been put down since the ban took effect. 

With totals of Toronto dogs by breed and ten years of bite data, it is possible to see which dogs are most likely to bite in Toronto based on a ratio between dogs of a given breed in 2011 and reported bites over the decade between 2000 and 2010. Below are the 20 most bite-prone dogs. The four prohibited breeds all appear in the top eight slots. Breed Dogs, 2011 2000-10 bite reports Dogs per 2000-10 bite report
1 PIT BULL 473 384 1.23
2 STAFFORDSHIRE 177 97 1.82
3 ST BERNARD RGH 19 10 1.90
4 FINNISH SPITZ 32 15 2.13
5 AM PIT BULL TER 43 20 2.15
6 ROTTWEILER 538 245 2.20
7 GERM SHEPHERD 1926 772 2.49
8 AMERICAN STAFF 105 40 2.63
9 CHOW CHOW 203 76 2.67
10 DALMATIAN 73 27 2.70
11 JINDO 36 13 2.77
12 COLLIE SMOOTH 69 24 2.88
13 AKITA 60 18 3.33
14 BELG MALINOIS 39 11 3.55
15 ALASK MALAMUTE 86 20 4.30
16 BULL TERRIER 91 21 4.33
17 BOUV FLANDRES 164 36 4.56
18 BULLMASTIFF 93 20 4.65
19 MASTIFF 77 16 4.81
20 PARSON RUSS TER 1911 396 4.83

(Breeds with fewer than 10 dogs excluded from the calculation)

mirrit
mirrit

Wayne County town’s pit bull ban upheld

January 24, 2013 6:00 AM
By NATHAN BASS
CHARLESTON – The state’s Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the Town of Ceredo’s ordinance prohibiting the ownership of pit bull terriers within the city limits.

In a memorandum decision filed Jan. 14, the court affirmed the order of Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Darrell Pratt, who had affirmed the Municipal Court of Ceredo’s conviction of three defendants for the possession of pit bulls in the city limits.

Steve Hardwick, Sharon Nalley, and Glenna Pelfrey were charged with owning pit bulls within the city limits of Ceredo under section 505.16 of the city’s Codified Ordinances.

On Nov. 12, 2009, the defendants were convicted by the city court and each was fined $162 plus costs. They appealed to the circuit court arguing that the ordinance in question was “unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary and unreasonable.”

A hearing was set and defendant Pelfrey did not appear at the hearing so her appeal was dismissed and her conviction affirmed. The circuit court then ruled on the appeals of the remaining defendants.

The circuit court found in relevant part:

“That each Defendant’s dogs are of the breed that is typically referred to generically as pit bull dogs which are aggressive by nature, have been known as attack animals with strong massive heads and jaws, and have been found to represent a public health hazard;

“The majority of jurisdictions have accepted the proposition that dogs of this type have a propensity to be aggressive and attack without provocation and it is well established that such dogs have gotten a lot of notoriety of being dangerous to public health and safety;

“The ownership, maintenance and control of dogs or other animals within city limits is a local concern which does not exceed the limitations of the home rule doctrine;

“That section 505.16 of the Codified Ordinances of the Town of Ceredo is legitimate, specific, rationally related to that legitimate interest and exercises the constitutional powers of the municipality to impose safety regulations to insure the health, protection and welfare of the citizens;

“That the ordinance is not constitutionally vague nor does it violate the due process of the Defendants because the owners may by limited by and subject to the City’s legitimate exercise of police powers by living inside the city limits; and

“That the conviction of each Defendant was based upon the evidence that these were pit bull dogs, they were within the city limits, and they were owned, harbored or maintained by each of the defendants within the jurisdiction and based upon the same the Court finds that there was no violation of due process.”

Hardwick and Nalley then appealed the circuit court’s order to the state Supreme Court. They were represented by counsel Cathy L. Greiner and the Town of Ceredo was represented by Lora L. Lake, the Prosecuting Attorney for the Town of Ceredo.

“On appeal, petitioners allege that the circuit court erred in denying their appeal because the ordinance in question is unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary and unreasonable. According to petitioners, the ordinance assumes a dog to be vicious based merely upon its breed without any further evidence of viciousness,” the opinion states.

“In response, the Town of Ceredo argues that West Virginia Code § 8-12-1, et seq., grants municipalities general police powers to protect their communities. Respondent asserts that it has a legitimate interest in protecting its residents against the dangers of pit bulls and that the ordinance in question is constitutional because it is rationally related to that legitimate interest.

“Having reviewed the circuit court’s “Order” entered on June 7, 2011, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignment of error raised in this appeal. The Clerk is directed to attach a copy of the circuit court’s order to this memorandum decision.

“For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court and its June 7, 2011, order denying petitioners’ appeal is affirmed.”

This entry was posted in State Supreme Court, Wayne County. Bookmark the permalink.

mirrit
mirrit

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Upholds

Town of Ceredo's Pit Bull Ban

High Court Upholds Pit Bull Ban

Charleston, WV - In a memorandum decision filed January 14, the highest court in West Virginia affirmed the constitutionality of a breed-specific ordinance that prohibited the ownership of pit bull terriers in the Town of Ceredo. 

In the decision, the high court affirmed the order of Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Darrell Pratt, who had affirmed the Municipal Court of Ceredo's conviction of three defendants for the possession of pit bulls within the boundaries of Ceredo.

The defendants were convicted by the municipal court on November 12, 2009 and each fined $162 plus costs. They appealed to the Wayne County Circuit Court arguing that the ordinance was "unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary and unreasonable." 

At the circuit court hearing, defendant Glenna Pelfrey failed to appear. Her appeal was dismissed and her conviction affirmed. The circuit court then ruled on the constitutionality of the Town of Ceredo's pit bull ordinance.

Circuit Court's Findings:
"That each Defendant’s dogs are of the breed that is typically referred to generically as pit bull dogs which are aggressive by nature, have been known as attack animals with strong massive heads and jaws, and have been found to represent a public health hazard. 

The majority of jurisdictions have accepted the proposition that dogs of this type have a propensity to be aggressive and attack without provocation and it is well established that such dogs have gotten a lot of notoriety of being dangerous to public health and safety."

"That in the State of West Virginia, a municipality has the authority to pass an ordinance to promote the safety of its citizens and to prevent risk of harm to its citizens which is a legitimate exercise of their police powers as granted by the West Virginia Legislature in Chapter 8 Article 12 of the West Virginia Code."

"The ownership, maintenance and control of dogs or other animals within city limits is a local concern which does not exceed the limitations of the home rule doctrine."

"That § 505.16 of the Codified Ordinances of the Town of Ceredo is legitimate, specific, rationally related to that legitimate interest and exercises the constitutional powers of the municipality to impose safety regulations to insure the health, protection and welfare of the citizens."

"That the ordinance is not constitutionally vague nor does it violate the due process of the Defendants because the owners may by limited by and subject to the City’s legitimate exercise of police powers by living inside the city limits."

"That the conviction of each Defendant was based upon the evidence that these were pit bull dogs, they were within the city limits, and they were owned, harbored or maintained by each of the defendants within the jurisdiction and based upon the same the Court finds that there was no violation of due process."

Defendants Steve Hardwick and Sharon Nalley1 appealed the circuit court's order to the state Supreme Court. The Prosecuting Attorney for the Town of Ceredo, Lora L. Lake, filed the response to the appeal and successfully argued the circuit course case.

Supreme Court of Appeals:
After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, this Court concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ appeal. 

Having reviewed the circuit court’s “Order” entered on June 7, 2011, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignment of error raised in this appeal. The Clerk is directed to attach a copy of the circuit court’s order to this memorandum decision.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court and its June 7, 2011 order denying petitioners’ appeal is affirmed.

The State of West Virginia now joins eleven other U.S. states and the District of Columbia where appellate courts have affirmed the constitutionality of a breed-specific pit bull ordinance. 

These states include: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. (Kudos to Prosecuting Attorney Lora Lake, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Darrell Pratt and the concurring Supreme Court of Appeals Justices.)

See full decision: Steve Hardwick and Sharon Nalley v. Town of Ceredo

1West Virginia pit bull owners can thank Hardwick and Nalley for successfully paving the way for new West Virginia municipalities to adopt similar pit bull ordinances without fear of constitutional challenges in these areas.

mirrit
mirrit

Manly City Council upholds pit bull ban


January 02, 2013 10:09 pm • By MARY PIEPER

MANLY — The Manly City Council Wednesday voted to uphold its ban on pit bulls.

Pit bull owners who were sent letters about the ban now have until Monday to remove their dogs from the city.

A number of citizens came to the meeting to speak on the issue, both for and against the ban.

Yvonne Meyer said she didn’t know the town had a pit bull ban when she moved to Manly with her 7-year-old pit bull a year and a half ago.

“Pit bulls can be nice dogs,” she said.

Collier Marinos said banning a particular breed is like not allowing Mexicans in town because of drug dealers in Mexico.

He said a puppy, like a human baby, “knows nothing of the violence of the world.”

He said owners are responsible for how their dogs are raised.

Marinos said the ban tells him that city officials “don’t trust our residents.”

He said Manly already has a vicious animal ordinance and a leash law, and that should be enough. 

However, Rick Aguilera noted the vicious animal ordinance doesn’t go into effect until someone is attacked.

“Are we going to wait until someone is torn up?” he asked.

Aguilera, who used to be a mail carrier, said he had to use pepper spray to defend himself from pit bulls on his route. 

The ban on pit bulls was passed in 2008 after an incident in which a pit bull terrier threatened two children by backing them against a fence.

“The council didn’t just pull it (the ban) out of the air,” said council member Scott Heagel, noting Manly residents requested it.

However, the ordinance was not enforced, according to Mayor Kevin Isaacson.

The council revisited the ordinance in April and decided against rescinding it.

The issue came up again in November, when letters were sent to pit bull owners telling them they had 10 days to remove them from the city limits.

After the pit bull owners came to a city council meeting that month to protest, the council decided to table the discussion. The topic was back on the agenda Wednesday.

Heagel said he talked to 20 people in town who said the council should enforce the ordinance. Two others he spoke to didn’t care either way.

Heagel said an 88-year-old man in Ventura recently spent a week in the hospital in Rochester, Minn., after his daughter’s pit bull attacked him.

“That dog shredded him,” he said.

The vote to uphold the ban was 3-0, with Heagel, Buck Leake and Joe Ryan voting in favor of the ban. Council members Lon Badker and Ron Post were absent.

mirrit
mirrit

Council Bluffs, Iowa

Pit bulls are not only problematic in large cities; they threaten mid-sized cities and small towns as well. Located in the heartland, Council Bluffs, Iowa has about 60,000 citizens. 

After a series of devastating attacks, beginning in 2003, Council Bluffs joined over 600 U.S. cities and began regulating pit bulls. 

The results of the Council Bluffs pit bull ban, which began January 1, 2005, show the positive effects such legislation can have on public safety in just a few years time:1

Council Bluffs: Pit Bull Bite Statistics

Year Pit Bull Bites % of All Bites
2004 29 23%
2005 12 10% (year ban enacted)
2006 6 4%
2007 2 2%
2008 0 0%
2009 0 0%
2010 1 1%
2011 0 0%

mirrit
mirrit

The pit bull type dog kills and mauls more severely than all other breeds combined. So far this year all fatal mauling in the USA have been due to pit bull attacks.


https://www.facebook.com/ProtectChildrenFromPitBulls

PETER ANTEVY, pediatric E.R. physician, Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital.
Dr Antvey sees at least five dog-bite victims a month in his emergency room. Unfortunately, he said, "the biggest offender is the pit bull."

SHERYL BLAIR, Tufts Veterinary School symposium - Animal Aggression: Dog Bites and the Pit Bull Terrier.
The injuries these dogs inflict are more serious than other breeds because they go for the deep musculature and don't release; they hold and shake.

MICHAEL W. FOX, veterinarian, animal behaviorist.
"I spent 20 years studying the behavior of dogs and it's not in their nature. Man, has created a monster, If you wish...These dogs were selectively bred to fight, they have greater propensity to fight than other animals, which is brought out in training."

"They can attack people, and because the attitudes of Pit Bulls it is more likely they will attack people. The worry is the power of the dogs jaw...to bite and not let go. It's quite sufficient to crush right through a child's arm or leg."

mirrit
mirrit

No link between owners, aggressive dogs: Study.

Nanaimo Daily News [Nanaimo, B.C 24 May 2012.

More proof that is the breed not the owner, it is nature not nurture that creates a mutant undog killer like a pit bull.

People who love tough dogs may be as misunderstood as the animals themselves, if a new academic study is any indication.

Reporting in the journal Anthrozoos, researchers from Canadaand the U.K. find an affinity for breeds perceived as aggressive - think Staffordshire bull terriers and boxers - isn't linked to delinquent behavior, despite stereotypes of such people as gang bangers, criminals and garden-variety dirt bags.

The only cliche that held true was one of anti-social tendencies: folks who were suspicious, unfriendly or competitive were likelier to desire an intimidating dog than their more affable counterparts.

Credit: News Services.

Copyright CanWest Digital Media May 24, 2012.

smdrpepper
smdrpepper topcommenter

It is not the breed that makes a dog dangerous, but the people who mistreat and train the animal.  I have worked in Humane Societies in two states and I will tell you this..I have never dealt with a pit that was truly vicious all on its own.  You can turn a lapdog into a far nastier animal than your standard pit.  

How about finding out how many OTHER breeds have attacked people?  The pit gets all the attention because it is a scary looking dog that bad people like to get their hands on, but there are a LOT of other breeds that can be far worse.

How about trying to make sure that assholes who would mistreat any animal cannot get their hands on any?  

baker1017
baker1017

This is a great move for the  safety of the public.Since owners of this breed have failed to control their dogs citizens have no choice. The pit advocates can cry a river but until You have stopped the mauling and killing You have done nothing for the only breed of animal You claim to love.The pit bull type dog kills and mauls more animals and humans than all other breeds combined. If You want to save You breed stop the breeding and take control of the breed.

noah.huggins
noah.huggins

@baker1017 Gog you are such an idiot baker.. LMFAO at you. 3 kids die everyday due to their parents abuse, so should we ban having children now too. that is how stupid the poin tyou just tried to make is. WTF is wrong wiht you uneducated nutjobs?

jenn.bubel
jenn.bubel

@baker1017 first... A crib that killed 2 children in a matter of 39 hours would not be banned (unless it was the EXACT same crib being used)... A type of crib wouldn't even be banned if it killed 2 children in 24 hours... A rash of deaths associated with the SAME KIND of crib would warrant a review of the product. So let's review the product... Ask some questions. Did the parents assemble the crib wrong? Or in the case of pit bulls, did the owner raise it improperly? If this is not the case, does the event have to do with a particular brand of crib? Maybe the company in general has a marked history, or maybe just a specific set that were produced in the same factory were faulty. What percent of the population of dogs in our country fall into the category "pit bull?" What does that term even mean? How many mixed breeds have some kind of "pit bull" in them? What is the national percentage of dog attacks, how does this relate to percentages, and what sort of variables were considered in labeling an attack specifically a "pit bull" attack when reported? How many dog attacks go unreported? What breeds are those and why? What research has been done regarding dog attacks, behavior, and breeds? Where are my sources getting their information?

I implore you... Before you judge a breed or who you think the "typical" owner is... ask some questions. Find REAL, unbiased stats, get the story from BOTH sides of an opinion.

No one can blame someone for wanting to protect their loved ones... Whether that loved one is a child, grandparent, or loyal pet.

- respectfully, an second year medical student, two-time dog-attack victim (first a chow, then a lab)... "Mother" of 2 incredible dogs who just so happen to be considered "pit bulls" (canine good-citizen certified)

Zak-has-three-letter
Zak-has-three-letter

@baker1017 
A dog is not a manufactured product. It's reasonable to assume that a factory-made product like a crib with a high defect rate is unreasonably dangerous. Every dog is different.


Certain breeds do tend to appeal to certain kinds of owners though. Aggressive prosecution of dog fighting and other forms of abuse would be a much better way to reduce the risk of dog bites. That's not a quick band-aid though, so it's harder to sell.

francoughlin
francoughlin

@mirrit  Don't believe it as to many places worldwide have removed their bans due to documented evidence bans did NOT reduce dog bites.  Italy has banned or restricted 98 before they ended their end because of FACTS.   One of you jokers came on a Canadian site awhile back and said "pit bulls" killed 100 kids in Canada.  Meanwhile there has NEVER been a single documented case of a child in Canada EVER being killed by one of these dogs thought 48 children have died from dog attacks in Canada since 1961.  Does the BULL humans spew when they have an agenda never end? 

freedomfighter
freedomfighter

@mirrit Ok so let me kill my dog just couse you are afraid of it... you wanna help  me?? I got two pitbulls ready to be kill... Come and help me...

csunbean
csunbean

@mirrit That would be wonderful. The killing and dog fighting would END. This would be a sane, HUMANE solution.

smdrpepper
smdrpepper topcommenter

@baker1017 For every irresponsible owner, there are many more who are responsible and never have any issues with their dogs.  Unless they are trained or mistreated, pit bulls are just like any other dog.  And you can turn that tiny teacup poodle into a viscous dog just like you can with a pit.  The real challenge is just making sure douchebags do not get to maltreat animals rather than trying to exterminate and entire breed of dog because they look scary.

clayhund
clayhund

You sound like a fear monger. Everything you claim is bunk

csunbean
csunbean

@smdrpepper We exterminate over one million pitbulls now in shelters. Most pitbulls have three uncommitted owners before being brought into shelters voluntarily by their owners. Bans are the only way to stop this inhumane continual extermination. Dog fighters promote the fad and the overpopulation as it makes it impossibly to find and prosecute them. If you want to end the exterminations you want a ban. PETA is for a ban on pitbulls to stop the killings. Don't be a pawn for the wealthy dog fighters lobby. Would you be opposed to a ban on ferret breeding and ownership if we were killing over one million ferrets a year?

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...