CO-Denver Considers Repealing Pit Bull Ban

[Vicki]

Pit bull ban repeal eyed
Madison works on ordinance OK’ing dogs, with stipulations

Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer
Monday, August 3, 2009


A City Council member is working on an ordinance change that would allow pit bulls in Denver.

But repealing the city’s 20-year-old ban on pit bulls would come with many stipulations, such as requiring temperament testing, muzzling the dog, and requiring special licensing and insurance fees, to name a few proposed restrictions.

Councilwoman Carla Madison — who identifies herself as a “dog lover†who is opposed to the city’s breed-specific legislation — said the idea is only in very preliminary stages, being discussed with fellow Council members, the mayor, animal control officials and city attorneys.

“For me personally, it’s not about the dogs, but about the people who own the dogs,†said Madison.

Being called the Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Act, support for the ordinance change is growing with a national pro-pit bull group based out of California called ROVERlution. Founder of the group, David Edelstein, said the city could help close its $120 million budget shortfall if it only repealed the breed ban.

“They’re spending about a quarter of a million dollars per year (on enforcing this ban). But has it alleviated dog bites in Denver? No, not even close,†said Edelstein.
City officials were unable to present the Denver Daily News with a cost analysis of how much it costs to enforce the ban, stating that there is no specific line item for the enforcement, and that the cost is part of overall animal control costs.

But Meghan Hughes, spokeswoman for the Department of Environmental Health, said ROVERlution never contacted her office in conducting its cost analysis. Records provided by Hughes show that 2,011 pit bulls have been euthanized by the city.
Regardless, Edelstein says the city can both save and make money by repealing the ban and then issuing fines and fees related to an ordinance change.

“Now is the perfect time to use home rule for something productive and in the name of public welfare,†he wrote to city officials. “This law and its authority has been abused long enough.â€

Mayor considering it

​

Mayor John Hickenlooper told the Denver Daily News that his office is considering Madison’s proposal.

“This is something we will certainly look at carefully,†he said. “In the end, we want to do what’s best to maintain a safe city for everyone.â€

Hughes was unable to say with certainty whether a ban on pit bulls has made the city safer.

“I don’t know that there’s one single answer to that. I think it all depends on the way you look at it,†she said. “Technically, there hasn’t been any serious bites since the ban was put into place; however, it’s hard to tell when you really don’t know how many dogs are out there.â€

Denver actually has a higher than normal rate of dog hospitalizations than any other area of Colorado, despite the ban, according to the National Canine Research Council.

Does ban work?

​

Several other towns and cities in Colorado — including Englewood and Lakewood — have examined dog bite data and decided breed-specific legislation does not work.
Ban advocates, however, point out that there has not been a serious pit bull attack in Denver since the 1989 mauling of Rev. Wilbur Billingsley, who was left with more than 70 bites and two broken legs. The incident resulted in the City Council banning pit bulls from the city.

Local ban foes declined to comment on Madison’s proposal, saying it is too premature.
Meanwhile, three former Denver residents have filed a lawsuit to overturn the ban. In May, a federal appeals court in Denver gave the go-ahead to challenge the law in court. The three-judge panel overturned a March 2008 decision by a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

Looking to save money

​

Facing budgetary pressures, sources — who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press — said city officials have expressed an interest in finding a fast compromise to squash the lawsuit and stop mounting legal fees. A compromise could include fast-tracking the Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Act.
But supporters are sure to come across opposition, including from inside the city attorney’s office. Kori Nelson, a Denver assistant city attorney who led the city’s fight to re-enact its ban in 2004, has on numerous occasions told the Denver Daily News that pit bulls are a unique breed with inherently dangerous characteristics.

“It’s designed to prevent maulings and death attacks by pit bulls,†he said of the ban.
City attorneys are still trying to determine whether the ban must first be repealed before it can be changed, said Madison.

Madison seeks input

​

The councilwoman says she has been receiving letters concerning her proposal from across the nation, but very few from Denver citizens. She is asking for Denverites to send her their opinions so that she and the rest of Council can make an informed decision.

“I’m just a dog lover, and I have had pit mixes and have known pits that are great dogs, and I know people that have had to leave the city because of their dog,†said Madison. “But, ya know, people snap. Some people say that pit bulls have this internal negative thing that they can just all of a sudden be nice family dogs and then one day just snap. But I think that could happn to anyone at any time.â€

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=5166

 

[spiderbitten]

Well, I certainly hope something good comes out of this. Friends of mine actually did move out of Denver because of their pittie...

 

[Vicki]

Councilwoman Proposes Bringing Pit Bulls Back

Aug 3, 2009 9:57 pm US/Mountain

An expensive legal battle over Denver's pit bull ban may lead to a change in the law. A Denver City Council member has issued a proposal to bring the breed back.

Councilwoman Carla Madison says her proposal focuses on responsible ownership, rather than a particular breed of dog. The mayor's office is considering the plan and says safety is its top priority.

"It would still be illegal to have a pit bull in Denver unless you go through these basically hoops," Madison said.

Pit bull owners would have to pay $50 for a permit, get temperament testing and own liability insurance of $100,000. There would also be a home inspection and mandatory obedience and ownership responsibility classes. Owners must be at least 21 years old. It would also possibly require muzzling in public.

Lingering lawsuits since 2007 against the city may go away if the pit bull ban is reworked. Legal fees are mounting.

Karen Breslin is the attorney suing the city.

"Lifting a ban is absolutely a step in the right direction," Breslin said. "It could make it go away, absolutely, but I'd have to see the ordinance first. I'd have to know what the proposal was."

Councilman Michael Hancock is not interested in changing the ordinance. He was attacked by a pit bull when he was 9 years old.

"I was bit by a pit bull and it took several men and a water hose and a 2-by-4 to get the pit bull off my ankle," Hancock said.

The issue is still in the very early stages of discussion and nothing has been formally written or proposed yet.

The pit bull ban in Denver was passed 20 years ago.

Madison says she's hearing from people all over the country on the issue.

A "dangerous dog ordinance" is also being considered. Owners of dogs that display aggression, regardless of breed, would be required to take classes.

Councilwoman Proposes Bringing Pit Bulls Back - cbs4denver.com

 

[Vicki]

Pressure mounts to euthanize Denver’s Pit Bull ban

August 18, 2009
By: Jennifer Fiala
For The VIN News Service


There’s a showdown brewing in Denver with its 20-year-old Pit Bull ban at the center, under attack from all sides, even from within the city’s own government as well as critics in veterinary medicine.

Renewed pressure to kill what some consider America’s harshest breed ban can be contributed to several factors, including new veterinarian-backed dog-bite statistics, lawsuits and political unrest. The impetus to rewrite or repeal the ordinance that’s spelled death for thousands of dogs in Denver also comes from costs tied to enforcing the law and fighting its legal challengers. Such spending — a total that city officials say hasn’t been tallied — attracts scrutiny as Denver faces a $120-million budget deficit.

Various Pit Bulls restrictions have cropped up in cities from California to Florida in recent years, with supporters arguing that such laws protect residents from dogs that are capable of killing people, especially children.

But perhaps nowhere in the United States has a breed-specific ordinance been more polarizing than in the Mile High City, where animal control officers reportedly have seized and euthananized nearly 2,000 Pit Bulls — or dogs considered to be Pit Bulls — since the ban’s enactment.

While Denver city councilwoman Carla Madison says she’s looking to relax the ordinance by providing loopholes for owners, a group of protesters gear up for an Aug. 25 demonstration in front of the Denver City and County Building.

Their goal: to push for change and fight breed-specific legislation.

“What I’m looking at doing is putting in place a responsible Pit Bull ownership act,†Madison tells the VIN News Service. “I would just like to see something happen.â€

So would veterinarians like Dr. Susan Barden, a Denver practitioner and Veterinary Information Network (VIN) member who notes that with Pit Bulls migrating to the city’s Metro-area communities, there’s been no reported surge in suburban attacks.

“I was surprised when the city did this,†she says. “I’m a strong advocate for writing laws that hold owners responsible for their animals and don’t ban breeds.

“There are rare individuals in Denver who still have Pit Bulls or Pit Bull-type dogs, but I never see them in practice.â€

Denver’s resolve to rid the city of Pit Bulls was born in the mid-1980s, following a brutal attack by a Pit Bull on a 54-year-old minister and the fatal mauling of a 3-year-old boy. Despite some resistance, city lawmakers passed an ordinance in 1989, that made it illegal to own, posses, keep, exercise control over, maintain harbor, transport or sell any dog found to posses “the majority of physical traits†associated with Pit Bulls — a brand often applies to the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier as well as American Bulldogs, in some cases. A later amendment to the ordinance implemented a grandfather clause, which allowed some banned dogs to remain in the city if their owners carried additional liability insurance that covered the animals.

Almost immediately, the legality of Denver’s ordinance came into question with a lawsuit that claimed the ban was too vague, unconstitutional, an abuse of the city’s police power and irrational. After all, categorizing a dog as a Pit Bull is at the city’s discretion.

For two years, the case traveled through the Denver’s legal system, stopping at the Colorado Supreme Court, where on Nov. 12, 1991, justices ruled in the city’s favor.

The ordinance held strong for more than a decade before Colorado legislators passed a law in 2004, which prohibited breed-specific restrictions statewide, effectively suspending Denver’s ban.

The reprieve proved to be short-lived. Almost immediately, officials challenged the new law with Kory Nelson, senior assistant city attorney, leading the fight to keep Denver's ordinance.

Nelson, who could not be reached for comment, has repeatedly asserted his belief that Pit Bull's are dangerous, even comparing them to grenades. In a recent interview with the The Denver Daily News about the effectiveness of the city's ban, he made the following statement:

“I don’t know anyone who argues that Pit Bull bans or restrictions are designed to prevent all dog bites. It’s designed to prevent maulings and death attacks by Pit Bulls. ... Once a grenade goes off, the damage is already done."

On April 7, 2005, Denver District Court Judge Martin F. Engelhoff ruled from the bench in the city’s favor, finding that the state could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no rationale for Denver’s Pit Bull ban, meaning they couldn’t prove that such dogs didn’t have a higher propensity to bite or attack humans.

It also was verified that Colorado’s constitution supports a municipality’s home-rule rights, upholding Denver’s authority to impose local control on Pit Bulls despite the state's new law deeming otherwise.

By May 2005, city animal control officials had warned residents that they would seize any Pit Bull found within the city’s limits and started rounding up outlawed animals. While Denver’s animal control authorities did not return VIN News Service interview requests, local media reports state that to date, authorities have euthanized roughly 1,800 dogs branded with the Pit Bull tag.

It’s an estimate that is corroborated by leaders in veterinary medicine.

“At one point, they killed around 1,200 in one year,†says Ralph Johnson, executive director of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA).

Reflecting on the initial Pit Bull seizures, Denver practitioner Barden says: “The sad thing is there was no recourse. We couldn’t help them.â€

Those opposed to breed-specific legislation, including the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), have long argued that attacks by Pit Bulls are rare. Furthermore, breed bans are an inappropriate and ineffective approach to protecting public safety, says Dr. Gail Golab, head of AVMA’s Division of Animal Welfare.

That’s now corroborated by recent statistics from the Coalition of Living Safely with Dogs, a group backed by CVMA.

The coalition supports the view that Pit Bulls are victims of bad public policy based on false stereotypes. In fact, when it comes to the 2,000 dog bites studied in Colorado between July 2007 and June 2008, research shows Pit Bulls are not top attackers.

That title goes to Labrador Retrievers.

“It makes sense, seeing how widely represented the breed is,†CVMA head Johnson says. “So without a census of the composition of dog breeds, it’s unfair to any breed to identify it as a dangerous biter until you compare it to the census.

“To our knowledge, nobody has done that.â€

Not even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has that kind of information. For more than a decade, CDC has reigned as the nation’s premier source for dog bite information, tracking dog bite reports and fatal cases. The agency purports that by age 12, nearly half of all children will have experienced a dog bite, and that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans each year.

In 2006, more than 31,000 dog-bite victims underwent reconstructive surgery to repair their injuries. Children between ages 5 and 9 are most at risk of being severely injured, CDC contends.

But it’s the CDC’s study on fatal dog attacks from 1979 to 1998, that points the finger at Pit Bulls and Rottweilers as the breeds most responsible for fatal attacks.

“That’s what happens when you try to extract breeds and not look at the study as a whole,†contends AVMA’s Golab, who co-authored a related CDC report. “People extracted one sentence and ran with it.â€

What got lost, she says, is the fact that dog bite numbers largely correlate to a breed’s popularity, hence the more dogs of one breed, the more bites attributed to them.

While that detail has failed to convert backers of Denver’s ordinance, dog owners now suing the city hope to change that.

Last May, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals breathed new life into Dias v. Denver, a case filed by two Pit Bull owners who were forced to sell their homes and leave the city to avoid losing their dogs, and one owner whose dog was seized by animal control authorities.

The three-judge appeals panel gave the go-ahead to proceed with the case, following a federal judge’s dismissal of it in March. A trail date has not been set.

Sonya Dias, the plaintiff for whom the lawsuit is named, describes her dog as lovable with Pit Bull-like characteristics and recalls racing to sell her turn-of-the-century loft in 2005, when Denver’s ban was reenacted.

“For nine months, I had to get up at 4:30 in the morning to walk him; I had to hide my dog,†she says. “I had a contingency plan for if I ever ran into an animal control officer.

“In Denver, owning a Pit Bull is about the equivalent of someone running a meth lab. They are quite literally knocking on people’s doors rounding up good family dogs.â€

Dias estimates that the lawsuit, funded by donations, has cost more than $100,000 in legal fees to date. The civil rights action calls for an unspecified amount in damages and attorneys fees, including compensation for â€otional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life and other pain and suffering ...â€

“I just can’t believe that in 2009, this is as far as we’ve come; that Denver says this is the best it can do,†Dias says of the ban. “It’s crazy.â€

http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=13623