 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Release The Dogs: Creating A Social Remedy to the Dog Fighting Epidemic
Part IV - Breed Specific Legislation Not The Answer Breed ban laws are a popular method for local governments to address the problem of aggressive dogs throughout the community.84 Breed ban laws are a type of breedspecific legislation (BSLs), which are laws, ordinances, or policies which pertain to only specific dog breeds.85 BSLs are usually designed to protect the public from breeds that are inherently aggressive.86 Currently, an estimated two hundred counties throughout the United States ban pit bulls.87 Although there is both great support and substantial opposition to BSLs, BSLs are not effective strategies to curtailing dog fighting. Supporters of BSLs, specifically pit bull bans, argue that a pit bull’s physical prowess and inherent characteristics are evidence of the need for local municipalities to ban these types of dogs.88 Another stance is that the safety of the community trumps an individual’s right to own a dog.89 But bans are based on the assertion that dangerous dogs are breed-specific, a contention that is based almost entirely on myth. Denver legislature, for example, states that a pit bulls “powerful jaws” are “capable of crushing bones” and pit bulls also have a “strong fighting instinct.”90 However, opponents arguethat statements that a pit bull has superior jaw strength to that of other breeds or that its musculature makes it more fit for competition are completely false.91 Opponents of these types of breed bans, especially responsible pit bull owners who see their pit bulls as an integral member of their family rather than a threatening animal, believe that the policies behind pit bull bans are random and illogical and the law is inconsistently enforced.92 Opponents suggest that an alternative to a sweeping law mandating pit bulls are dangerous is to judge offending dogs and people on a case-bycase basis such as when a dog attack occurs.93 It is also argued that with consistent enforcement of current dog laws coupled with community education about dog ownership, BSLs are not necessary and may even be unconstitutional.94 The constitutional rights which prohibit a state from depriving a person of “life, liberty or property without due process of the law” are derived from both federal and state constitutions.95 Where a statute under evaluation by the court does not pertain to a fundamental right, the proper level of scrutiny is the “rational basis test.”96 Under this test, laws enacted are valid if they bear a real and substantial relation to the ultimate goal, specifically the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public, and are not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable.97 Opponents of breed-ban laws have asserted that such laws are arbitrary because pit bulls pose no greater threat to the public than other breeds. A current case, City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007), depicts the most recent ambiguity to this theory. In City of Toledo v. Tellings, Paul Tellings was cited for violating a city ordinance that limited ownership of pit bulls to one per household. He entered a plea of not guilty and moved to dismiss the charges against him, claiming that Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 (a) and state statutes R.C. 955.22 and 955.11 were unconstitutional because the pit bull was categorized as a “vicious dog.” The trial court found that pit bulls are no more dangerous than other breeds but that evidence supported the legislation on the claim that pit bulls increase the dangers in an urban setting. The trial judge upheld the constitutionality of the challenged law as a reasonable exercise of police power but the 6th District Court of Appeals reversed citing State v. Cowan, 101 Ohio St.3d 372 (2004)98, and held the provisions unconstitutional in that they denied pit bull owners of procedural due process of the law and equal protection. They were also deemed unclear because they lacked an accurate definition of the types of dogs that qualify as “pit bulls.” The city appealed and the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, distinguishing the facts of Cowan, and rejected both Tellings’s substantive due process and equal protection claims. However, Justice O’Conner, who agreed only with the opinion of the court, wrote in her concurrence: “Almost all domestic animals can cause significant injuries to humans, and it is proper to require that all domestic animals be maintained and controlled. Laws to that effect are eminently reasonable for the safety of citizens and of the animal…[but]rational legislation should focus on the owner of the dog rather than the specific breed that is owned.”99 Regardless of the reversal in Tellings, however, some cities have begun removing breed specific ordinances for fear that the language of such legislation may be unconstitutional as vague and arbitrary. The removal of such bans for fear of lawsuits is an indicator that breed specific legislation may be a mere quick-fix solution to solving a deep-rooted social problem embedded in local communities.100 Rather than blaming the dogs for their inherent disposition by banning them from neighborhoods entirely, local governments can train police forces to better detect dangerous activities of dogs in general and to educate the community about proper dog ownership, as the vicious nature of a particular dog comes not from the mere fact that the dog is a pit bull, but rather by the treatment of the animal by its owner. Further, communities should be encouraged to implement safe alternatives to vicious activities such as dog fighting, which will protect the community from the dangers of aggressive dogs in general, and not just a particular breed that has been unfairly labeled as unsafe.
Part V - Preventative Solutions - click here Part I - The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act - click here
Show Your Strength and Help Us Knock Out Dog Fighting
|
| Knock Out Dog Fighting is a program of the 501(c)3 organization For Pits’ Sake, Inc. |
Powered By Inikosoft |