Vicki
Administrator
A blog by Animal Ark
Since the late 1980's the City of Denver has been at the epicenter of a major dog fight. On one side of the fight are dog owners and advocates. On the other: officials at Denver City Council and Denver Animal Control.
In 1989 Denver City Council enacted an ordinance that banned so-called "pit bulls", reportedly for the purpose of keeping people safe from dangerous dog attacks. Since that time, the ordinance has been challenged repeatedly. A series of courts have overturned decisions by prior courts resulting in the ban being enforced, then not enforced, then enforced again.
Over the years, the legal costs associated with maintaining the ordinance have continued to swell, with no end in sight. One appeal was recently accepted by a district federal court. That is a case that many predict could go all the way to the US Supreme Court.
The challenges to the ordinance have been quite strong. They have focused on many issues. However, one issue keeps coming back in a variety of ways: the law is too broad and too vague to be objectively enforced. Furthermore, dog advocates have argued, there is no rational basis to conclude that the breeds often referred to as "pit bulls" are inherently more dangerous than other breeds. Data from the American Temperament Test Society as well as from the National Canine Research Council has been presented to show that, according to research, the breeds most often called "pit bulls" may be less likely to attack humans, based on their temperaments. But the challenges to Denver's breed ban were only just beginning.
Kevin O'Connell acquired a dog named Dexter in April of 2006 from someone who was moving and who could not take Dexter with them. Since that time, O'Connell had taken Dexter to multiple veterinarians that had each classified the friendly dog as a Boxer mix.
In the summer of 2009, Dexter was taken by Denver Animal Control. It is important to note that Dexter does not have a history of biting. He was not accused of acting viciously. He was simply labeled a "pit bull" by the City of Denver and immediately place on doggie death row, in what could easily be described as a modern-day version of a canine witch hunt.
As is typical, Denver had 3 of their "experts" examine Dexter to determine if they thought he was a "pit bull". They believed he was, and Dexter was scheduled to be destroyed. O'Connell appealed the decision and, in a hearing held on October 2, 2009, provided testimony from three of his own, highly credentialed expert witnesses.
O'Connell's experts agreed that Dexter is predominantly a Boxer, with characteristics of other breeds that are not possible to identify.
During the hearing, the "experts" for the City of Denver acknowledged that the experts provided by O'Connell had stronger credentials and were, therefore, better prepared to evaluate Dexter.
A decision was released October 8. The ruling read, in part:
It is concluded that the dog in question is not a pit bull as defined by Denver's ordinance. IT IS THE FINAL DECISION that the City's complaint against Kevin O'connell is not sustained.
Elsewhere in the ruling, it is written:
The Department bears the burden of proof of pit bull status by a preponderance of evidence.
By making this statement, this ruling begs the question: how CAN the City of Denver, or any City, for that matter, "prove" that a dog is or is not a "pit bull" or a "pit bull" mix? The ruling clearly states that expert testimony can be used. However, when different experts offer different opinions, what then? What credentials qualify a person to evaluate a dog's breed?
This decision, the implications of which may take a while to fully materialize, dealt a devastating blow to the City of Denver. It clearly demonstrates that the criteria and methodologies used by the City are flawed and calls into serious question the ability of the City to enforce the ban.
This loss comes on the heels of a recent report indicating that human hospitalizations due to dog bites in Denver have gotten worse since the ban, relative to other Colorado cities that do not have bans.
Collectively, these recent developments are causing more and more people in Denver to ask the question, "What is the point of all of this?"
In addition to the skyrocketing legal expenses, Denver has had to step up its animal control budget to round up the dogs. But, the costs don't stop there. Legal experts estimate the City has caught and killed more than 4,000 family pets since the ban went into effect, likely costing the City nearly a $1 million just to house, kill and dispose of the bodies.
Naturally, the most tragic waste are the lives of the dogs, and the emotional damage done to the families who lost their beloved pets. How can one ever begin to measure that?
For all of these reasons, it should come as no surprise that people in the Denver City Council have begun talking about rolling back the ban. Some want to loosen it. Some just want it gone, which is ironic because Denver officials have been largely responsible for working behind the scenes in other communities to promote similar laws.
When Denver's ban falls (and it will) a network of other bans in other communities will begin to unravel, too. The lives of countless dogs will be spared. When it happens, we will owe a big "thank you" to a friendly little Boxer mix named Dexter and his human dad who wouldn't sit back and let his dog be killed.
Since the late 1980's the City of Denver has been at the epicenter of a major dog fight. On one side of the fight are dog owners and advocates. On the other: officials at Denver City Council and Denver Animal Control.
In 1989 Denver City Council enacted an ordinance that banned so-called "pit bulls", reportedly for the purpose of keeping people safe from dangerous dog attacks. Since that time, the ordinance has been challenged repeatedly. A series of courts have overturned decisions by prior courts resulting in the ban being enforced, then not enforced, then enforced again.
Over the years, the legal costs associated with maintaining the ordinance have continued to swell, with no end in sight. One appeal was recently accepted by a district federal court. That is a case that many predict could go all the way to the US Supreme Court.
The challenges to the ordinance have been quite strong. They have focused on many issues. However, one issue keeps coming back in a variety of ways: the law is too broad and too vague to be objectively enforced. Furthermore, dog advocates have argued, there is no rational basis to conclude that the breeds often referred to as "pit bulls" are inherently more dangerous than other breeds. Data from the American Temperament Test Society as well as from the National Canine Research Council has been presented to show that, according to research, the breeds most often called "pit bulls" may be less likely to attack humans, based on their temperaments. But the challenges to Denver's breed ban were only just beginning.
Kevin O'Connell acquired a dog named Dexter in April of 2006 from someone who was moving and who could not take Dexter with them. Since that time, O'Connell had taken Dexter to multiple veterinarians that had each classified the friendly dog as a Boxer mix.
In the summer of 2009, Dexter was taken by Denver Animal Control. It is important to note that Dexter does not have a history of biting. He was not accused of acting viciously. He was simply labeled a "pit bull" by the City of Denver and immediately place on doggie death row, in what could easily be described as a modern-day version of a canine witch hunt.
As is typical, Denver had 3 of their "experts" examine Dexter to determine if they thought he was a "pit bull". They believed he was, and Dexter was scheduled to be destroyed. O'Connell appealed the decision and, in a hearing held on October 2, 2009, provided testimony from three of his own, highly credentialed expert witnesses.
O'Connell's experts agreed that Dexter is predominantly a Boxer, with characteristics of other breeds that are not possible to identify.
During the hearing, the "experts" for the City of Denver acknowledged that the experts provided by O'Connell had stronger credentials and were, therefore, better prepared to evaluate Dexter.
A decision was released October 8. The ruling read, in part:
It is concluded that the dog in question is not a pit bull as defined by Denver's ordinance. IT IS THE FINAL DECISION that the City's complaint against Kevin O'connell is not sustained.
Elsewhere in the ruling, it is written:
The Department bears the burden of proof of pit bull status by a preponderance of evidence.
By making this statement, this ruling begs the question: how CAN the City of Denver, or any City, for that matter, "prove" that a dog is or is not a "pit bull" or a "pit bull" mix? The ruling clearly states that expert testimony can be used. However, when different experts offer different opinions, what then? What credentials qualify a person to evaluate a dog's breed?
This decision, the implications of which may take a while to fully materialize, dealt a devastating blow to the City of Denver. It clearly demonstrates that the criteria and methodologies used by the City are flawed and calls into serious question the ability of the City to enforce the ban.
This loss comes on the heels of a recent report indicating that human hospitalizations due to dog bites in Denver have gotten worse since the ban, relative to other Colorado cities that do not have bans.
Collectively, these recent developments are causing more and more people in Denver to ask the question, "What is the point of all of this?"
In addition to the skyrocketing legal expenses, Denver has had to step up its animal control budget to round up the dogs. But, the costs don't stop there. Legal experts estimate the City has caught and killed more than 4,000 family pets since the ban went into effect, likely costing the City nearly a $1 million just to house, kill and dispose of the bodies.
Naturally, the most tragic waste are the lives of the dogs, and the emotional damage done to the families who lost their beloved pets. How can one ever begin to measure that?
For all of these reasons, it should come as no surprise that people in the Denver City Council have begun talking about rolling back the ban. Some want to loosen it. Some just want it gone, which is ironic because Denver officials have been largely responsible for working behind the scenes in other communities to promote similar laws.
When Denver's ban falls (and it will) a network of other bans in other communities will begin to unravel, too. The lives of countless dogs will be spared. When it happens, we will owe a big "thank you" to a friendly little Boxer mix named Dexter and his human dad who wouldn't sit back and let his dog be killed.
