THIS SHOULD BREAK IT DOWN PRETTY GOOD........ ENJOY!!!!!! 
PIT BULLS - THE TRUTH
As such, common sense would dictate that if breed of dog was the primary determining factor in all dog attacks, it would stand to reason that the statistics on pit bull bites would be astronomically high. They simply are not.
The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the ruling of the Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama that pit bulls were not inherently dangerous, therefore, allowing four (4) pit bull puppies born in the custody of animal control to be released for adoption.
City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack, et al. (2003)
Supreme Court of Alabama
The Court affirmed the lower courts ruling that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous.
State of Ohio v. Cowan (2004)
Supreme Court of Ohio
The Court determined that the statute that penalizes owners of dangerous dogs who fail to buy liability insurance and properly confine their dogs was unconstitutional for failure to provide due process.
Dr. I. Lerh Brisbin, Ph.D as well as other experts, testified that pit bulls do not have locking jaws. Based on actual dog dissections and measurements of their skulls, the evidence demonstrated that pit bull jaw muscles and bone structure are the same as other similarly sized dogs.
No evidence was presented to demonstrate that a pit bull’s bite is any stronger than other dogs of its size and build.
Dr. Brisbin testified that contrary to information relied upon and perpetuated by earlier case law and law review articles, assertions that a pit bull can bite with a “force of 2,000 pounds per square inch” have absolutely no basis in fact or scientific proof. The testing of dog bite strength has never been done and would be difficult, if not impossible, to perform. Toledo v. Tellings, 2006 WL 513946 (Ohio App. 6 Dist), March 2006
Dr. I. Lerh Brisbin, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist with Savanna River Ecology Laboratory and University of South Carolina professor; Expert in behavior, training and handling of pit bull terriers and their anatomy)
There is no scientific evidence showing pit bulls to have a stronger bite than other large dog breeds. In fact, when Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic (Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force, 8/18/2005) measured the bite forces of three dog breeds (Rottweiler, German Shepherd Dog and American Pit Bull Terrier) using a computerized bite sleeve, the American Pit Bull Terrier generated the least amount of pressure out of the 3 dogs tested.
|
Toledo v. Tellings
Birth to New Legal Standing?
On March 3, 2006, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, in and for Lucas County, issued an opinion in the case of City of Toledo v. Paul Tellings. This case is monumental to the fight against BSL as it found breed specific legislation to be unconstitutional and it rendered expert testimony that was both relevent and up-to-date, dispelling many of the past notions on pit bulls and BSL. Below are several general quotes taken from the March 3, 2006 Opinion of the Court.
As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's to the early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. FN1.
These cases, due in part to (1) unavailable, scientifically based evidence or (2) expert testimony about the breed, branded all pit bulls as vicious on the basis of what was known or believed at the time. FN2
Extensive, competent and credible evidence was presented by the experts [on both sides] which showed many of the beliefs and "myths" about pit bulls to be simply untrue and unsupported by now accepted scientific, genetic, medical or canine behavior principals. FN3
Although Dr. Wright testified [on behalf of the city of Toledo] that pit bulls have some sort of "trigger mechanism" which makes their behavior unpredictable, he acknowledged that he had done no studies, had no scientific data, proof or other evidence in support of his theory. FN4
FN1 Opinion p.20; State v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St.3d 168, 566 N.E.2d 1224, citing to Singer v. Cincinnati (1990), 57 Ohio App.3d 1, 566 N.E.2d 190; State v. Robinson (1989), 44 Ohio App.3d 128, 541 N.E.2d 1092; Hearn v. Overland Park (1989), 244 Kan. 638, 772 P.2d 758; American Dog Owners Assn., Inc. v. Dade Cty. (S.D.Fla.1989), 728 F.Supp. 1533, 1537; and State v. Peters (Fla.App.1988), 534 So.2d 760.
FN2 Id.
FN3 Opinion, p. 20-21
FN4 Opinion, p. 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Terms - Definitions
The following terms are used in the below section on the unconstitutionality of breed specific legislation. In order to make sound, intelligent arguments, its necessary to understand these basic concepts of constitutional law.
Procedural Due Process is based upon the concept of "fundamental fairness." Among the rights ensured is the right of individuals to be heard with respect to proceedings against them. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property arbitrarily and without the opportunity to effect the result.
Substantive Due Process: If the right at issue is considered a fundamental right, the government is prohibited from infringing that right unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. The concept of a 'compelling interest' has never been well defined, but generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. The concept of 'narrow tailoring' essentially means that the restrictions must fit the goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. Finally, even if the government intrusion is narrowly tailored, it still cannot be more restrictive than other effective means of achieving that interest.
Equal Protection is a guarantee under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It provides that no state shall deny to any person equal protection of the law - meaning state governments cannot deprive citizens of rights guaranteed by federal law, i.e., the Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UNconstitutionality of Breed Specific Legislation
The following are quotes taken directly from Court Opinions and other relevant sources.
On September 22, 2004, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the [state] statute "violates procedural due process insofar as it fails to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether a dog is 'vicious' or 'dangerous'" Tellings, citing State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 814 N.E.2d 846, 2004-Ohio-4777
Toledo v. Tellings, March 3, 2006 Opinion, pp.16-23
The constitutional rights which prohibit a state from depriving a person of "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" are derived from both the federal and [state] constitutions.... Where a statute under review does not affect a fundamental right, the appropriate level of scrutiny is the "rational basis" test. FN1. Under the "rational basis test," laws enacted...are valid if they bear a real and substantial relation to the object sought be be obtained, namely the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public, and are not arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable. FN2.
Citizens enjoy the property right to own dogs, and the Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized the special relationship that often exists between owners and dogs. FN3. ...[m]ost dog owners consider their pet to be more than a mere thing, and the ownership of it constitutes a valuable right. FN4. Regardless, however, of this possible, strong sentimental attachment, dog ownership is not a fundamental right. FN5. Consequently, when reviewing statutes which regulate dogs and ownership, we must apply the "rational-basis test" to any due process or equal protections claims. FN6.
The object and purpose of all vicious dog laws...is obviously protection -- to prevent injuries to persons and property by dogs.
We agree that the protection of property and people from injuries by dogs is clearly a legitimate governmental interest. Nevertheless, this interest must bear a rational or "real and substantial relationship" to the conduct being regulated...in this case, the mere ownership of pit bulls...Since the trial court found that the pit bull, as a breed, is not inherently dangerous or vicious, then the interest in protecting the health and welfare of citizens is no more rationally related to pit bulls than it is to any other breed.
What remains is a regulation and limitation on a specific breed for reasons unrelated to that breed, but rather related to human misconduct or negligence in ownership of the breed.
Once the finding is made that a specific breed does not inherently represent a greater danger than any other breed, a law that regulates that breed on the basis of mere ownership is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.
Therefore, we conclude that [the statutes], which relied on the now disproved presumption that pit bulls, as a breed, are inherently dangerous, are unconstitutional since they lack a rational or real and substantial relationship to legitimate government interest.
FN1 Clements v. Flashing (1982), 457 U.S. 957, 963, 102 S.Ct.2836, 73 L.Ed.2d 508; Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 351, 354, 639 N.E.2d 31
FN2 Stave v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 664 N.E.2d 926
FN3 |
|
|
BSL and the Cost to Taxpayers
1. Cost of additional animal control offers to enforce the ban or restrictions. **Remember, most cities do not have sufficient animal control departments to enforce leash laws, which if enforced would reduce many of the problems that lead to bite incidents.
2. Kennelling.
3. Veterinary care of the animals. (Hope you don't think the animals are confiscated and immediately euthanized).
4. Legal fees, court costs, etc., associated with responsible owners lawsuits against ineffective and unconstitutional laws.
5. Baltimore, Maryland estimated (in 2001) that it cost over $750,000 a year to enforce their breed specific legislation, and they were still unable to enforce the law effectively.
6. Prince George County, Maryland reviewed their existing dangerous dog laws, including a ban on pit bulls. The task force recommended repealing the law and sited these cost factors:
(a) Loss of revenue - since the ban has been in effect, there has been a dramatic reduction in dog show/exhibits in the county. Along with this comes some indirect loss of revenue such as hotel/motels, restaurants, gas stations, veterinarians, pet supply stores, grocery and drug stores, etc.
(b) Director of Animal Management Division estimated the County's cost for maintaining a single pit bull throughout the entire processs for one (1) year was $68,000.
(c) Fees from pit bull registration in 2001-2002 generated approximately $35,000 over the two (2) year period. However, the cost to the Animal Management Division for maintenance of pit bulls over the same period was $560,000. In addition, these figures would be higher but did not take into consideration utilities, manpower and overtime.
(d) It should be noted that these average costs to Prince George County do not include the expenditures of the of the County or Municipal police departments. These cross-agency costs, while significant, could not be fully captured or adequately estimated.
Source: Prince George County TAsk Force Report
Essential Quotes
We've experienced a continuing upward trend of pit bulls impounded since 2001. The ban hasn't ended the popularity of the pit bull breed in Denver. There are still pit bulls, apparently more every year. Doug Kelley, Director of Animal Control - Denver, Colorado
I think it is wrong to generalize a specific breed as vicious because it is often associated with people who break the law. In my experience, vicious dog problems are more about people than dog... Responsible dog ownership addresses the problem far more effectively than picking on a breed. Dr. Shawn Webster (Ohio State Representative and veterinarian) addressing members of the Ohio House Agriculture Committee on May 18, 2005.
very dog is capable of attacking someone... People train [dogs] to fight and attack like in a *** fight. People should treat them with respect and give them some love and affection and kids like me would not get attacked. Ryan Armstrong, courageous 7 year old victim of a dog attack and namesake of Ryan's Law. (*To learn more about Ryan's Law, an exceptional non-breed specific dangerous dog law, please click here).
If you ban pit bulls, I promise another breed will come along as the breed of choice. Dr. Todd Towell, President of the Colorado Veterinarian and Medical Association, addressing the Senate's Local Government Committee, January 25, 2006.
We need to come up with something that takes care of vicious animals, not breeds. Councilwoman Karen Halva, West Union, Iowa, October 18, 2005.
Having this be breed-specific makes about as much sense as me being intimidated by Commissioner (Sam) Bullock here because he's a different race," said Jason Pierce, who is white, referring to Bullock, who is black. "That's all it is, is a different breed. I don't know why we're here talking about this when we should be talking about animal cruelty and animal fighting laws." Commissioner Jason Pierce in response to why he voted against implementing BSL in Battle Creek, Michigan on August 17, 2005.
"It's really about education. It's really about getting out there and letting people know what's responsible pet ownership. Our number one priority is education." Jill Hatfield, Animal Services Superintendent, Fayetteville, Arkansas, October 20, 2005.
Those areas across the country that have pit bull bans or regulations have found that defining and identifying pit bulls can be a subjective, expensive, and time-consuming task. Numerous breeds are mistakenly identified as pit bulls, including American bulldogs, boxers, mastiffs and many other lesser-known breeds. Adam Goldfarb, Issues Specialist with The Humane Society of the United States, October 20, 2005.
I don't care what kind of animal you have, whether it's a pit bull or chihuahua, that owner should be responsible if it has caused damage. Commissioner Bob Haake, in response to why he voted against BSL in Taylor Mill, Kentucky, January 14, 2006.
We had some extensive discussions about [a breed specific law] and decided because of the problems of trying to identify when you say ‘pit bull,' it's very difficult to prove in a court of law. The committee thought it should not be breed-specific. It could be a pit bull, a cocker spaniel, a chihuahua, a Rottweiler, so the ordinance opts to hold owners responsible - not breeds. Patrick Fetherson, Director of Animal Control, Cassopolis, MI, addressing the problems associated with BSL. Cassopolis voted against a pit bull ban.
There is no data to support the idea that a particular breed of dog is vicious, It's the owner's behavior that needs to be addressed." Debora Bresch, legislative liaison for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals addressing the Emporia, Kansas city council
