Please Post informational links regarding breed bans and what we as animal owners can do to prevent it. Your commits are greatly appreciated.
Please download our broucher and distribute
Full Version: Breed Bans
GOOD NEWS FOR MICHIGAN DOGS--AND THEIR HUMANS!
It's official! As announced last month by Michigan's Office of Insurance and Financial Services, homeowners' insurance companies may not deny, cancel or non-renew a policy based on the insured's possession of a particular breed of dog. Comments Jill A. Buckley, Esq., ASPCA Western Regional Government Affairs Associate, "We believe that the recent Michigan Insurance Department Bulletin may set a precedent and cause departments in other states to take a closer look at this issue than they have in the past. Insurance companies should make decisions regarding nonrenewal or denial of coverage based upon the specific claim history, and not based solely on the breed of dog owned."
It's official! As announced last month by Michigan's Office of Insurance and Financial Services, homeowners' insurance companies may not deny, cancel or non-renew a policy based on the insured's possession of a particular breed of dog. Comments Jill A. Buckley, Esq., ASPCA Western Regional Government Affairs Associate, "We believe that the recent Michigan Insurance Department Bulletin may set a precedent and cause departments in other states to take a closer look at this issue than they have in the past. Insurance companies should make decisions regarding nonrenewal or denial of coverage based upon the specific claim history, and not based solely on the breed of dog owned."
That is great news about the insurance! It is one small step in the correct direction.A bit later i will try to find some of my old favorite links against BSB and BSL. (first i'm going to try to get some rest though... see e-mail ...i'll try to not forget.
Personally i think it is no different than being racist
or having negative race related laws.I feel even better being reminded that KBAF is anti BSL.
FATAL DOG ATTACKS"
The Stories Behind the Statistics
by Karen Delise
THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *
The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.
Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances
Number of Dogs
68% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by a single dog
32% was the result of a multiple dog attack
Victim Profile
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old
The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).
The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).
Boys aged 1 - 12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victim of a fatal dog attack than girls of the same age.
Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
Reproductive Status of Dogs
Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.
From 2000-2001 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. Of these, 28 were attacks by a single dog and 13 fatalities were caused by multiple dogs.
Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001;
26 were males and 2 were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were found to be intact (the reproductive status of the remaining 5 males dogs could not be determined).
States with the Most Fatalities - 1965-2001
California, 47; Texas, 32; Alaska, 26; Florida, 22; New York, 19; Michigan, 18; Illinois, 18; North Carolina, 17; Georgia, 16.
While at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases were the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim).
This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events.
The preceding information and statistics are excerpts from the book:
* "FATAL DOG ATTACKS: The Stories Behind the Statistics", by Karen Delise
The Stories Behind the Statistics
by Karen Delise
THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *
The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.
Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances
Number of Dogs
68% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by a single dog
32% was the result of a multiple dog attack
Victim Profile
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old
The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).
The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).
Boys aged 1 - 12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victim of a fatal dog attack than girls of the same age.
Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
Reproductive Status of Dogs
Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.
From 2000-2001 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. Of these, 28 were attacks by a single dog and 13 fatalities were caused by multiple dogs.
Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001;
26 were males and 2 were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were found to be intact (the reproductive status of the remaining 5 males dogs could not be determined).
States with the Most Fatalities - 1965-2001
California, 47; Texas, 32; Alaska, 26; Florida, 22; New York, 19; Michigan, 18; Illinois, 18; North Carolina, 17; Georgia, 16.
While at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases were the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim).
This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events.
The preceding information and statistics are excerpts from the book:
* "FATAL DOG ATTACKS: The Stories Behind the Statistics", by Karen Delise
There is an online version of the packet for those who would like to read it online, or print out a copy at home. Any input or suggestions for improving the content of the packet will be greatly appreciated.
Here is the link:
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSLPacket...ss_pack_low.pdf
This is the website the packet is featured on. Great info for fighting BSL!:
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/
Here is the link:
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSLPacket...ss_pack_low.pdf
This is the website the packet is featured on. Great info for fighting BSL!:
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/
This is a Yahoo Group for MI people that are anti BSL
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nobslmi/
I don't know much about the group, as i ran across it last night while looking up some info. I thought it may be appreciated here.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nobslmi/
I don't know much about the group, as i ran across it last night while looking up some info. I thought it may be appreciated here.
Here is the link, hope you like it!
FIND THE PITBULL
You must have the Flash 6 Player or above, to view it. If you cannot see the
game, download the Flash Player here:
down load flash player
-Diana
FIND THE PITBULL
You must have the Flash 6 Player or above, to view it. If you cannot see the
game, download the Flash Player here:
down load flash player
-Diana
Communiqué from Nationwide Insurance
We are pleased to announce that, effective June 22, 2004, new business
customers owning one of the previously ineligible breeds will be accepted,
provided the animal has successfully completed the Canine Good Citizen®
program (CGC), which is supported by the American Kennel Club (AKC). The
CGC®Program is certification process that stresses responsible pet ownership
for owners and basic good manners for dogs.
Animals with a bite history, as well as trained attack or guard dogs, will
remain ineligible.
What will it look like and what do I need to do?
In order for new business to be eligible, the dog will need to have
completed the CGC program, which is a certification program designed to
reward dogs who have good manners at home and in the community. At the time
of binding, eligible customers will be required to produce the certificate
that is issued by the American Kennel Club upon passing the CGC program and
evaluation. The document must be submitted to the Service Center as a
trailing document. If the certificate is not submitted, the policy will be
rejected.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Why is Nationwide changing its position on ineligible dogs?
Nationwide's new position allows policyholders to preserve coverage, while
retaining the company's responsibility to adequately price its products
according to the risk each customer presents. Prospective Nationwide
customers possessing a disqualified dog must meet general underwriting
guidelines and additionally demonstrate the dog's successful completion of
the American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen program.
Q. Will we write a new business customer that owns a Rottweiler?
Yes, provided that the customer can produce, at the time of binding, a
certificate validating that the Rottweiler and the dog owner have
successfully completed the American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen
certification program.
Q. A prospective customer's Doberman has gone to obedience training and
received a certificate
of completion from the local Humane Society. Is that acceptable
documentation?
No. The only documentation that is acceptable is certification from the
American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen Program, which must be submitted
to the service center at the time of binding.
Q. Is a letter from the veterinarian assessing the dog's temperament
sufficient?
No. The Canine Good Citizen certificate is the only acceptable proof of
completion. Canine Good
Citizen is a two-part program that stresses responsible pet ownership and
appropriate training for the dog.
Q. The customer's Pit Bull is just enrolled in the Canine Good Citizen
Program with a trainer
certified by the AKC. Can I bind the business?
No. The owner must demonstrate that the dog has successfully completed the
Canine Good Citizen
program to bind coverage. The certificate must be presented by the customer
and submitted to the
service center as a trailing document.
Q. Do existing policyholders that acquire (in the future) or currently
possess an ineligible dog
need to get AKC CGC certification?
No. CGC certification is not required in order to renew the policy.
INFO ON THE AKC'S CANINE GOOD CITIZEN PROGRAM AT:
http://www.akc.org/love/cgc/index.cfm
We are pleased to announce that, effective June 22, 2004, new business
customers owning one of the previously ineligible breeds will be accepted,
provided the animal has successfully completed the Canine Good Citizen®
program (CGC), which is supported by the American Kennel Club (AKC). The
CGC®Program is certification process that stresses responsible pet ownership
for owners and basic good manners for dogs.
Animals with a bite history, as well as trained attack or guard dogs, will
remain ineligible.
What will it look like and what do I need to do?
In order for new business to be eligible, the dog will need to have
completed the CGC program, which is a certification program designed to
reward dogs who have good manners at home and in the community. At the time
of binding, eligible customers will be required to produce the certificate
that is issued by the American Kennel Club upon passing the CGC program and
evaluation. The document must be submitted to the Service Center as a
trailing document. If the certificate is not submitted, the policy will be
rejected.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Why is Nationwide changing its position on ineligible dogs?
Nationwide's new position allows policyholders to preserve coverage, while
retaining the company's responsibility to adequately price its products
according to the risk each customer presents. Prospective Nationwide
customers possessing a disqualified dog must meet general underwriting
guidelines and additionally demonstrate the dog's successful completion of
the American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen program.
Q. Will we write a new business customer that owns a Rottweiler?
Yes, provided that the customer can produce, at the time of binding, a
certificate validating that the Rottweiler and the dog owner have
successfully completed the American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen
certification program.
Q. A prospective customer's Doberman has gone to obedience training and
received a certificate
of completion from the local Humane Society. Is that acceptable
documentation?
No. The only documentation that is acceptable is certification from the
American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen Program, which must be submitted
to the service center at the time of binding.
Q. Is a letter from the veterinarian assessing the dog's temperament
sufficient?
No. The Canine Good Citizen certificate is the only acceptable proof of
completion. Canine Good
Citizen is a two-part program that stresses responsible pet ownership and
appropriate training for the dog.
Q. The customer's Pit Bull is just enrolled in the Canine Good Citizen
Program with a trainer
certified by the AKC. Can I bind the business?
No. The owner must demonstrate that the dog has successfully completed the
Canine Good Citizen
program to bind coverage. The certificate must be presented by the customer
and submitted to the
service center as a trailing document.
Q. Do existing policyholders that acquire (in the future) or currently
possess an ineligible dog
need to get AKC CGC certification?
No. CGC certification is not required in order to renew the policy.
INFO ON THE AKC'S CANINE GOOD CITIZEN PROGRAM AT:
http://www.akc.org/love/cgc/index.cfm
In a 4-3 decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio struck
down as unconstitutional a state statute that imposed criminal
penalties on owners of vicious and dangerous dogs who fail to buy
liability insurance and take special steps to restrain and confine
their animals. The decision upheld a ruling by the 11th District
Court of Appeals that the law violated a dog owner's procedural due
process rights by not providing for an administrative hearing at
which the owner could contest a dog warden's determination that her
animals were "dangerous or vicious" and thus subject to special
restrictions.
The case arose from an October 2001 incident in which Margaret Maurer
of Ravenna was attacked and severely bitten in the driveway of her
home by two dogs that her husband identified to the local dog warden
as the German shepherds owned by a neighbor, Janice Cowan. When the
warden went to Mrs. Cowan's home to investigate, she denied that her
dogs had been out of their own yard. The warden advised Mrs. Cowan
that she believed the Maurers' version of events, and believed that
Mrs. Cowan's dogs were "dangerous" as that term is defined in state
law. The warden then gave Mrs. Cowan a verbal warning and printed
information about the state law (R.C. 955.22) that requires owners
of "dangerous and vicious dogs" to have liability insurance and take
special measures to confine and restrain their animals or face
criminal prosecution.
In November 2001 and again in January 2002, the dog warden received
new complaints from neighbors that Mrs. Cowan's dogs were running
loose in the neighborhood. Upon investigation, the warden found the
dogs in Cowan's yard but not restrained in accordance with the
statutory requirements. In response to the third complaint, the
warden filed charges against Mrs. Cowan in Trumbull County Municipal
Court for violations of the statutory restraint, confinement and
insurance requirements applicable to owners of dangerous or vicious
dogs.
After a trial during which Mrs. Cowan claimed innocence on the basis
that her dogs had not attacked Mrs. Maurer and therefore did not meet
the statutory definition of "vicious and dangerous," a jury found her
guilty of all charges and the court imposed penalties including fines
and a jail sentence. The court also ordered Mrs. Cowan to either post
a bond or surrender the dogs to the dog warden. Bond was not posted
and the dogs were subsequently seized by the warden and later
destroyed when an alternative home could not be found for them.
On review of the municipal court's decision, a three-member panel of
the 11th District Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to vacate Mrs. Cowan's
convictions on the ground that R.C. 955.22 was unconstitutional
because it did not provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard
on the issue of whether her dogs were "dangerous and vicious" prior
to the imposition of significant expenses and restraints on her
property.
Writing for the majority in today's decision, Justice Francis E.
Sweeney Sr. affirmed the 11th District's holding that R.C. 955.22
violates constitutional due process rights and is therefore
unenforceable.
Justice Sweeney cited federal and state supreme court decisions which
have held that "at its core, procedural due process under both the
Ohio and United States Constitutions requires, at a minimum, an
opportunity to be heard when the state seeks to infringe a protected
liberty or property right. … Further, the opportunity to be heard
must occur at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."
In this case, he observed, the dog warden made her decision that Mrs.
Cowan's dogs were "dangerous or vicious" based on the unsupported
word of the complaining parties, and the law provided Mrs. Cowan with
no opportunity to present contrary evidence before substantial
regulatory burdens were placed on her property. Justice Sweeney
rejected arguments advanced by the state that Mrs. Cowan's due
process rights were met because she had the opportunity to challenge
her dogs' classification at her trial, and agreed with Mrs. Cowans'
argument that delaying this challenge until she faced criminal
charges "does not offer her a meaningful opportunity to be heard
before her property rights have been infringed by state action."
"Once the dog warden made the unilateral decision to classify
appellee's dogs as vicious, R.C. 955.22 was put into effect and
restrictions were placed upon appellee and her dogs," wrote Justice
Sweeney. … "We find it inherently unfair that a dog owner must defy
the statutory regulations and become a criminal defendant, thereby
risking going to jail and losing her property, in order to challenge
a dog warden's unilateral decision to classify her property."
The majority opinion was joined by Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul
E. Pfeifer and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton. Chief Justice Thomas J.
Moyer and Justice Terrence O'Donnell entered separate dissenting
opinions, both of which were joined by Justice Maureen O'Connor.
In an extensive dissent, Chief Justice Moyer said the statute in
question "is not unconstitutional either on its face or as applied,"
and disputed the majority's implication that it is the determination
by a dog warden that a dog is "vicious or dangerous" that triggers an
owner's duty to comply with the statutory restraint, confinement and
insurance requirements. "R.C. 955.22 does not vest a dog warden with
authority to conclusively label any particular dog as vicious or
dangerous," wrote the Chief Justice. "(The statute) does not even
mention dog wardens … (n)or does it establish any procedural
framework, let alone an unconstitutional one."
Instead, he wrote that the vicious dog statute like state traffic
laws imposes certain duties on certain property owners under pain of
criminal prosecution whether or not a law enforcement officer has
previously issued them a warning or placed their name on a watch list
for future scrutiny. "The majority states that it is unfair for a dog
owner to be put in a position where he or she `risk[s] going to jail
and losing her property, in order to challenge' a dog warden's
decision that a dog is vicious," wrote the Chief Justice. "However …
That is the nature of every law enforcement warning. In every
criminal prosecution some person initially determines that the
accused has violated a statute … and makes a charge in accord with
that determination."
Justice Moyer described the role of the dog warden in this case as no
different than that of a police officer who warns a vehicle owner
that her car's muffler does not meet legal standards, and
later issues a citation to that motorist upon finding that the
offending muffler has not been repaired or replaced. "Certainly the
officer would not be required to provide the motorist with an
administrative hearing prior to `classifying' her as the driver of a
statutorily noncompliant vehicle and informing her of the requirement
of the law even if the driver thereafter must expend her financial
resources to repair or replace the muffler to avoid the risk of
prosecution," he wrote.
In a separate dissent, Justice O'Donnell wrote that it was the
judgment of a jury after due process, and not a unilateral
determination by the dog warden, that resulted in Mrs. Cowan's loss
of property. "… (N)othing prevented Cowan from seeking a temporary
order or other stay of any determination of the dog warden pending
trial … Here, Cowan had a full opportunity at trial to contest
charges that she owned vicious dogs. And prior to trial, she had the
opportunity to contest allegations regarding the confinement of her
animals had she chosen to do so. She did not," wrote Justice
O'Donnell.
"Requiring these dogs to be secured pending trial is not denial of
due process, but rather a reasonable measure designed to maintain
neighborhood safety pending trial," he concluded. "Accordingly I
would reverse the judgment of the appellate court."
Contacts
Victor V. Vigluicci and Pamela J. Holder, 330.297.3850, for the state
of Ohio.
Erik M. Jones, 330.376.7500, for Janice Cowan.
Please note: Decision summaries are prepared by the Office of Public
Information for the general public and news media. They are not to be
considered headnotes or syllabi of Supreme Court opinions. Full court
opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the
Reporter of Decisions: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/documents
down as unconstitutional a state statute that imposed criminal
penalties on owners of vicious and dangerous dogs who fail to buy
liability insurance and take special steps to restrain and confine
their animals. The decision upheld a ruling by the 11th District
Court of Appeals that the law violated a dog owner's procedural due
process rights by not providing for an administrative hearing at
which the owner could contest a dog warden's determination that her
animals were "dangerous or vicious" and thus subject to special
restrictions.
The case arose from an October 2001 incident in which Margaret Maurer
of Ravenna was attacked and severely bitten in the driveway of her
home by two dogs that her husband identified to the local dog warden
as the German shepherds owned by a neighbor, Janice Cowan. When the
warden went to Mrs. Cowan's home to investigate, she denied that her
dogs had been out of their own yard. The warden advised Mrs. Cowan
that she believed the Maurers' version of events, and believed that
Mrs. Cowan's dogs were "dangerous" as that term is defined in state
law. The warden then gave Mrs. Cowan a verbal warning and printed
information about the state law (R.C. 955.22) that requires owners
of "dangerous and vicious dogs" to have liability insurance and take
special measures to confine and restrain their animals or face
criminal prosecution.
In November 2001 and again in January 2002, the dog warden received
new complaints from neighbors that Mrs. Cowan's dogs were running
loose in the neighborhood. Upon investigation, the warden found the
dogs in Cowan's yard but not restrained in accordance with the
statutory requirements. In response to the third complaint, the
warden filed charges against Mrs. Cowan in Trumbull County Municipal
Court for violations of the statutory restraint, confinement and
insurance requirements applicable to owners of dangerous or vicious
dogs.
After a trial during which Mrs. Cowan claimed innocence on the basis
that her dogs had not attacked Mrs. Maurer and therefore did not meet
the statutory definition of "vicious and dangerous," a jury found her
guilty of all charges and the court imposed penalties including fines
and a jail sentence. The court also ordered Mrs. Cowan to either post
a bond or surrender the dogs to the dog warden. Bond was not posted
and the dogs were subsequently seized by the warden and later
destroyed when an alternative home could not be found for them.
On review of the municipal court's decision, a three-member panel of
the 11th District Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to vacate Mrs. Cowan's
convictions on the ground that R.C. 955.22 was unconstitutional
because it did not provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard
on the issue of whether her dogs were "dangerous and vicious" prior
to the imposition of significant expenses and restraints on her
property.
Writing for the majority in today's decision, Justice Francis E.
Sweeney Sr. affirmed the 11th District's holding that R.C. 955.22
violates constitutional due process rights and is therefore
unenforceable.
Justice Sweeney cited federal and state supreme court decisions which
have held that "at its core, procedural due process under both the
Ohio and United States Constitutions requires, at a minimum, an
opportunity to be heard when the state seeks to infringe a protected
liberty or property right. … Further, the opportunity to be heard
must occur at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."
In this case, he observed, the dog warden made her decision that Mrs.
Cowan's dogs were "dangerous or vicious" based on the unsupported
word of the complaining parties, and the law provided Mrs. Cowan with
no opportunity to present contrary evidence before substantial
regulatory burdens were placed on her property. Justice Sweeney
rejected arguments advanced by the state that Mrs. Cowan's due
process rights were met because she had the opportunity to challenge
her dogs' classification at her trial, and agreed with Mrs. Cowans'
argument that delaying this challenge until she faced criminal
charges "does not offer her a meaningful opportunity to be heard
before her property rights have been infringed by state action."
"Once the dog warden made the unilateral decision to classify
appellee's dogs as vicious, R.C. 955.22 was put into effect and
restrictions were placed upon appellee and her dogs," wrote Justice
Sweeney. … "We find it inherently unfair that a dog owner must defy
the statutory regulations and become a criminal defendant, thereby
risking going to jail and losing her property, in order to challenge
a dog warden's unilateral decision to classify her property."
The majority opinion was joined by Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul
E. Pfeifer and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton. Chief Justice Thomas J.
Moyer and Justice Terrence O'Donnell entered separate dissenting
opinions, both of which were joined by Justice Maureen O'Connor.
In an extensive dissent, Chief Justice Moyer said the statute in
question "is not unconstitutional either on its face or as applied,"
and disputed the majority's implication that it is the determination
by a dog warden that a dog is "vicious or dangerous" that triggers an
owner's duty to comply with the statutory restraint, confinement and
insurance requirements. "R.C. 955.22 does not vest a dog warden with
authority to conclusively label any particular dog as vicious or
dangerous," wrote the Chief Justice. "(The statute) does not even
mention dog wardens … (n)or does it establish any procedural
framework, let alone an unconstitutional one."
Instead, he wrote that the vicious dog statute like state traffic
laws imposes certain duties on certain property owners under pain of
criminal prosecution whether or not a law enforcement officer has
previously issued them a warning or placed their name on a watch list
for future scrutiny. "The majority states that it is unfair for a dog
owner to be put in a position where he or she `risk[s] going to jail
and losing her property, in order to challenge' a dog warden's
decision that a dog is vicious," wrote the Chief Justice. "However …
That is the nature of every law enforcement warning. In every
criminal prosecution some person initially determines that the
accused has violated a statute … and makes a charge in accord with
that determination."
Justice Moyer described the role of the dog warden in this case as no
different than that of a police officer who warns a vehicle owner
that her car's muffler does not meet legal standards, and
later issues a citation to that motorist upon finding that the
offending muffler has not been repaired or replaced. "Certainly the
officer would not be required to provide the motorist with an
administrative hearing prior to `classifying' her as the driver of a
statutorily noncompliant vehicle and informing her of the requirement
of the law even if the driver thereafter must expend her financial
resources to repair or replace the muffler to avoid the risk of
prosecution," he wrote.
In a separate dissent, Justice O'Donnell wrote that it was the
judgment of a jury after due process, and not a unilateral
determination by the dog warden, that resulted in Mrs. Cowan's loss
of property. "… (N)othing prevented Cowan from seeking a temporary
order or other stay of any determination of the dog warden pending
trial … Here, Cowan had a full opportunity at trial to contest
charges that she owned vicious dogs. And prior to trial, she had the
opportunity to contest allegations regarding the confinement of her
animals had she chosen to do so. She did not," wrote Justice
O'Donnell.
"Requiring these dogs to be secured pending trial is not denial of
due process, but rather a reasonable measure designed to maintain
neighborhood safety pending trial," he concluded. "Accordingly I
would reverse the judgment of the appellate court."
Contacts
Victor V. Vigluicci and Pamela J. Holder, 330.297.3850, for the state
of Ohio.
Erik M. Jones, 330.376.7500, for Janice Cowan.
Please note: Decision summaries are prepared by the Office of Public
Information for the general public and news media. They are not to be
considered headnotes or syllabi of Supreme Court opinions. Full court
opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the
Reporter of Decisions: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/documents
PLEASE CROSSPOST!!!!!!
Thank You Marcy Setter for your hard work and
sharing of information!!!!
Now if everyone can please crosspost this to all contacts they have in the
Chicago area.
If you are in the chicago area please , call, fax, email, and snail mail
each council member!
Contact information for the City Council is below:
O R D I N A N C E
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:
Section 1. Chapter 7-12 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended
by adding a new Section 7-12-387 as follows:
Section 7-12-387 Restrictions on Pit Bulls
(a) For purposes of this section only the following definitions apply:
"Pit Bull" means any pit bull terrier, which shall be defined as any
American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire
Terrier breed of dog, or any mixed
breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of
American Pit
Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Bull
Terrier.
(
It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, transport, carry,
own, keep or otherwise possess any live pit bull within the city. The
provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the following:
(1) any person who import transports, carries, owns, keeps or otherwise
possesses any pit bull for zoological, educational, medical or scientific
purposes if the person has
obtained all applicable licenses or permits and has provided notification
to the executive
director; or
(2) any person who is not a resident of the city transporting a pit
bullll through the city limits for a period of less than one hour.
© Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be fined
not less than $100.00 nor more than $1,000.00 or may be incarcerated for a
period not to exceed six (6)
months, or both. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a
separate and
distinct offense.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its passage and
approval.
------------------
Chicago City Council:
Complete listing and contact information may be found here:
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webport...rogramAction.do?
programId=536879154&channelId=-536879035&topChannelName=Government
RuGAI is in favor of this bill!!!!!!!!! Make sure she hears your
voice!!!!!!!!!
Alderman Virginia A. Rugai
Office: 10444 S. Western Ave
Chicago IL 60643
3017 West 111th Street
Chicago, IL 60655
vrugai@cityofchicago.org (@cityofchicago.org)
Phone: 773-238-8766 (Western)
Fax: 773-238-9049 (Western)
City Hall Office: 121 N. LaSalle Street
Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
City Hall Phone: 312-744-3072
Rosemary Hurley, owned and bullied by Wee Bairn Shelties, Adopted Mom to the
famous 'Applesauce' of Houston and a couple nakey Chinese Cresteds - Chicago
Thank You Marcy Setter for your hard work and
sharing of information!!!!
Now if everyone can please crosspost this to all contacts they have in the
Chicago area.
If you are in the chicago area please , call, fax, email, and snail mail
each council member!
Contact information for the City Council is below:
O R D I N A N C E
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:
Section 1. Chapter 7-12 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended
by adding a new Section 7-12-387 as follows:
Section 7-12-387 Restrictions on Pit Bulls
(a) For purposes of this section only the following definitions apply:
"Pit Bull" means any pit bull terrier, which shall be defined as any
American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire
Terrier breed of dog, or any mixed
breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of
American Pit
Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Bull
Terrier.
(
It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, transport, carry,own, keep or otherwise possess any live pit bull within the city. The
provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the following:
(1) any person who import transports, carries, owns, keeps or otherwise
possesses any pit bull for zoological, educational, medical or scientific
purposes if the person has
obtained all applicable licenses or permits and has provided notification
to the executive
director; or
(2) any person who is not a resident of the city transporting a pit
bullll through the city limits for a period of less than one hour.
© Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be fined
not less than $100.00 nor more than $1,000.00 or may be incarcerated for a
period not to exceed six (6)
months, or both. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a
separate and
distinct offense.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its passage and
approval.
------------------
Chicago City Council:
Complete listing and contact information may be found here:
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webport...rogramAction.do?
programId=536879154&channelId=-536879035&topChannelName=Government
RuGAI is in favor of this bill!!!!!!!!! Make sure she hears your
voice!!!!!!!!!
Alderman Virginia A. Rugai
Office: 10444 S. Western Ave
Chicago IL 60643
3017 West 111th Street
Chicago, IL 60655
vrugai@cityofchicago.org (@cityofchicago.org)
Phone: 773-238-8766 (Western)
Fax: 773-238-9049 (Western)
City Hall Office: 121 N. LaSalle Street
Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
City Hall Phone: 312-744-3072
Rosemary Hurley, owned and bullied by Wee Bairn Shelties, Adopted Mom to the
famous 'Applesauce' of Houston and a couple nakey Chinese Cresteds - Chicago
Breed Ban IQ Test
1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas were disproportionally involved in more accidents than any other model, would you (a)ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one, or ( arrest the drivers responsible for those accidents?
2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would (a) inconvenience the fewest number of people, ( be the more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and © be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?
3. If your answer to Question 1 was (a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers of confiscated Toyotas were perpetrating further accidents by driving, say, Hondas, would you then ban Hondas? If not, why not?
4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too, dammit, something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these brands are pretty much bred for the same purpose? If not, why not? If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the SOUND of "a," such as Chevrolet?
5. Are you beginning to understand (a) that because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way; ( that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy -- as personal tools of terrorism; © that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of time (and, therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing jaywalking laws; (d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that is, those inconvenienced, harrassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the 99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people; and (e), most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?
Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses. Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?"is not: Ban bicycles.
Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you -- not the dog -- should be responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws already exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties against lawbreakers.
Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA
1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas were disproportionally involved in more accidents than any other model, would you (a)ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one, or (
arrest the drivers responsible for those accidents?2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would (a) inconvenience the fewest number of people, (
be the more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and © be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?3. If your answer to Question 1 was (a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers of confiscated Toyotas were perpetrating further accidents by driving, say, Hondas, would you then ban Hondas? If not, why not?
4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too, dammit, something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these brands are pretty much bred for the same purpose? If not, why not? If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the SOUND of "a," such as Chevrolet?
5. Are you beginning to understand (a) that because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way; (
that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy -- as personal tools of terrorism; © that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of time (and, therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing jaywalking laws; (d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that is, those inconvenienced, harrassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the 99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people; and (e), most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses. Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?"is not: Ban bicycles.
Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you -- not the dog -- should be responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws already exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties against lawbreakers.
Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA
Pit bulls Toledo's vicious-dog law declared 'unreasonable'
Celebrating the court victory yesterday are, from left, Jody Offenburg with Paul Tellings and Ms. Offenburg's daughter, Alexandra, 2; Justice, a bulldog; Mr. Tellings; Chance, a pit bull, Ms. Offenburg's sister Zita Offenburg, 17; Paul, Jr., 5; and seated, Jasmine, 6.
( THE BLADE/JETTA FRASER )
Zoom | Photo Reprints
By ERICA BLAKE
BLADE STAFF WRITER
Toledo's vicious-dog ordinance restricting pit bull ownership was struck down yesterday as "unreasonable" by a 2-1 vote of the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals.
Judge William Skow, who wrote the majority opinion for the three-judge panel that decided the case, also deemed unconstitutional portions of the Ohio Revised Code upon which the Toledo law was based.
The city ordinance allowed residents to own only one dog considered vicious. It relies on the state definition, which defines a vicious dog as one that has bitten or killed a human, has killed another dog, or "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog."
"Since we conclude that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious, then the city ordinance limitation on ownership is also arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory," Judge Skow wrote. "If a citizen may own more than one nonvicious dog of a particular breed, then ownership of more than one nonvicious pit bull has no rational, real, or substantial relationship to a legitimate government interest."
Judge Arlene Singer joined
Judge Skow in the 2-1 ruling; Judge Dennis Parish dissented, but filed no written opinion with the court. He could not be reached for comment last night.
Acting City Law Director John Madigan said the city will appeal the appellate court's decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. He declined to speculate how yesterday's decision would affect state law.
The appellate ruling is a long-awaited victory for pit bull owners and supporters, who have advocated punishing the deed of an individual dog, not the breed. It overturns a 2004 ruling by Toledo Municipal Court Judge Francis Gorman that said the city's vicious-dog law may be unfair but is not unconstitutional.
For Paul Tellings, the East Toledo resident who brought the case to court, the ruling meant that he could take his dogs - two pit bulls and an American bull dog - for a walk yesterday without breaking the law for the first time in years. He said that pit bulls are like any other dog and will be vicious only if raised or trained that way.
"If you have somebody who is beating a dog, or neglecting a dog, that's when dogs get a temperament," said Mr. Tellings, 31, who has two small children in the home with his dogs. "My dogs are spoiled. If you treat your dogs like family, they'll act like family."
The decision is a blow for the Lucas County dog warden's office, which enforced Toledo's ordinance. Yesterday, deputies were given instructions to no longer cite owners who have multiple pit bulls, who do not have insurance on the animals, and who do not have them properly contained whether in their yard or while walking them.
Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, an advocate for breed-specific legislation, said that the decision all but takes away his ability to protect the public from vicious dogs.
"We're not in the pit-bull business anymore. We're not in the vicious-dog business anymore," Mr. Skeldon said. "They've taken away our ability to enforce containment, whether it's a German shepherd or a pit bull, whether it has bitten somebody or not."
He added that the recent case where a Presa Canario and American bulldog mix attacked a 12-year-old Oregon girl would not be affected by the ruling. Both breeds have been determined to be "commonly known as a pit bull" in separate rulings in Toledo Municipal Court.
The dog attacked the neighbor girl Tuesday as she was standing by a cage its owner was trying to place it in. The attack, witnesses said, was unprovoked.
Mr. Skeldon said the dog was surrendered to him by the owner and will be destroyed after it is determined it does not have rabies.
The victim, Nicole Brown, was in fair condition yesterday at St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center. The dog warden said her legs were severely bitten in the attack.
After reading the appeals court ruling, Rebecca Zietlow, a law professor at the University of Toledo, said Toledo's law "failed to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on whether a dog is vicious or dangerous."
"If Toledo wants to limit the ownership of vicious dogs, it would have to enact another law that doesn't have these procedural problems and that doesn't single out pit bulls," she said.
Glen Bui, the vice president of American Canine Foundation, said his organization supported Mr. Tellings and his attorney, Sol Zyndorf. He said his organization has long advocated for stricter laws against dogs that have proven themselves vicious but has fought laws throughout the country that point to all pit bulls as dangerous.
Mr. Bui called yesterday's ruling "monumental." He said attempts to create breed-specific legislation have "gotten out of control" across the country.
"This is the first time ever in the United States that a published opinion has ruled that breed-specific legislation is unconstitutional," he said.
Mr. Skeldon said pit bulls who are collected by his office because they are running loose will still be subject to an additional $100 fee beyond fees charged other dog owners. That fee was approved by the county commissioners, the dog warden said, and will continue to be collected until the office is legally told otherwise.
In spite of yesterday's setback, Mr. Skeldon said he still intends to travel to Ontario tomorrow to testify on behalf of breed-specific legislation.
Contact Erica Blake at:
eblake@theblade.com
or 419-724-6076.http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...EWS02/603040406
Celebrating the court victory yesterday are, from left, Jody Offenburg with Paul Tellings and Ms. Offenburg's daughter, Alexandra, 2; Justice, a bulldog; Mr. Tellings; Chance, a pit bull, Ms. Offenburg's sister Zita Offenburg, 17; Paul, Jr., 5; and seated, Jasmine, 6.
( THE BLADE/JETTA FRASER )
Zoom | Photo Reprints
By ERICA BLAKE
BLADE STAFF WRITER
Toledo's vicious-dog ordinance restricting pit bull ownership was struck down yesterday as "unreasonable" by a 2-1 vote of the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals.
Judge William Skow, who wrote the majority opinion for the three-judge panel that decided the case, also deemed unconstitutional portions of the Ohio Revised Code upon which the Toledo law was based.
The city ordinance allowed residents to own only one dog considered vicious. It relies on the state definition, which defines a vicious dog as one that has bitten or killed a human, has killed another dog, or "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog."
"Since we conclude that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious, then the city ordinance limitation on ownership is also arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory," Judge Skow wrote. "If a citizen may own more than one nonvicious dog of a particular breed, then ownership of more than one nonvicious pit bull has no rational, real, or substantial relationship to a legitimate government interest."
Judge Arlene Singer joined
Judge Skow in the 2-1 ruling; Judge Dennis Parish dissented, but filed no written opinion with the court. He could not be reached for comment last night.
Acting City Law Director John Madigan said the city will appeal the appellate court's decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. He declined to speculate how yesterday's decision would affect state law.
The appellate ruling is a long-awaited victory for pit bull owners and supporters, who have advocated punishing the deed of an individual dog, not the breed. It overturns a 2004 ruling by Toledo Municipal Court Judge Francis Gorman that said the city's vicious-dog law may be unfair but is not unconstitutional.
For Paul Tellings, the East Toledo resident who brought the case to court, the ruling meant that he could take his dogs - two pit bulls and an American bull dog - for a walk yesterday without breaking the law for the first time in years. He said that pit bulls are like any other dog and will be vicious only if raised or trained that way.
"If you have somebody who is beating a dog, or neglecting a dog, that's when dogs get a temperament," said Mr. Tellings, 31, who has two small children in the home with his dogs. "My dogs are spoiled. If you treat your dogs like family, they'll act like family."
The decision is a blow for the Lucas County dog warden's office, which enforced Toledo's ordinance. Yesterday, deputies were given instructions to no longer cite owners who have multiple pit bulls, who do not have insurance on the animals, and who do not have them properly contained whether in their yard or while walking them.
Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, an advocate for breed-specific legislation, said that the decision all but takes away his ability to protect the public from vicious dogs.
"We're not in the pit-bull business anymore. We're not in the vicious-dog business anymore," Mr. Skeldon said. "They've taken away our ability to enforce containment, whether it's a German shepherd or a pit bull, whether it has bitten somebody or not."
He added that the recent case where a Presa Canario and American bulldog mix attacked a 12-year-old Oregon girl would not be affected by the ruling. Both breeds have been determined to be "commonly known as a pit bull" in separate rulings in Toledo Municipal Court.
The dog attacked the neighbor girl Tuesday as she was standing by a cage its owner was trying to place it in. The attack, witnesses said, was unprovoked.
Mr. Skeldon said the dog was surrendered to him by the owner and will be destroyed after it is determined it does not have rabies.
The victim, Nicole Brown, was in fair condition yesterday at St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center. The dog warden said her legs were severely bitten in the attack.
After reading the appeals court ruling, Rebecca Zietlow, a law professor at the University of Toledo, said Toledo's law "failed to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on whether a dog is vicious or dangerous."
"If Toledo wants to limit the ownership of vicious dogs, it would have to enact another law that doesn't have these procedural problems and that doesn't single out pit bulls," she said.
Glen Bui, the vice president of American Canine Foundation, said his organization supported Mr. Tellings and his attorney, Sol Zyndorf. He said his organization has long advocated for stricter laws against dogs that have proven themselves vicious but has fought laws throughout the country that point to all pit bulls as dangerous.
Mr. Bui called yesterday's ruling "monumental." He said attempts to create breed-specific legislation have "gotten out of control" across the country.
"This is the first time ever in the United States that a published opinion has ruled that breed-specific legislation is unconstitutional," he said.
Mr. Skeldon said pit bulls who are collected by his office because they are running loose will still be subject to an additional $100 fee beyond fees charged other dog owners. That fee was approved by the county commissioners, the dog warden said, and will continue to be collected until the office is legally told otherwise.
In spite of yesterday's setback, Mr. Skeldon said he still intends to travel to Ontario tomorrow to testify on behalf of breed-specific legislation.
Contact Erica Blake at:
eblake@theblade.com
or 419-724-6076.http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...EWS02/603040406
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.