Albany, Georgia May Pursue Breed-Specific Ordinance
Editor’s note: Again, what is a “pit bull” because “pit bulldog” is not a breed. The slang term “pit bull” can be used to describe countless actual breeds, their mixes, and lookalikes. In other words, “pit bull” is anything you want it to be which is why statistics on “pit bulls” and so-called “pit bull” attacks are notoriously inaccurate, skewed and therefore worthless, which the CDC itself has repeatedly acknowledged. In addition, constant containment for specific breeds is animal cruelty and more likely to bring about the very behavior the ordinance would be looking to curb. Commissioner Tommie Postell’s statement that Albany’s ordinance “should apply to all dangerous dogs, including poodles” is absolutely spot on. Please contact the Albany, Georgia City Commission here and politely inform them that breed-specific ordinances are ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.
From the Albany Herald:
Pit bull owners will have more restrictions placed on their animals under a proposed new city ordinance.
Albany City Commissioners plan to convene the city’s Citizens Advisory Committee to discuss a new dangerous dog ordinance that would come with more teeth.
Ward IV Commissioner Roger Marietta proposed adding an element to the city’s current ordinance that puts restrictions specifically on owners of the pit bulldog breed.
“That is a breed that has a proven propensity to bite,” Marietta said. “We haven’t seen a whole lot of it around here, but there are news items from all over the country of little kids being mauled by pit bulls.
“I have constituents who feel they have a legitimate safety concern, and they’ve asked us to look into doing more to protect them from these dangerous dogs.”
City Attorney Nathan Davis said the city’s current ordinance categorizes an animal as a “dangerous dog” if it bites someone or causes injury. He said he’s already begun work on an updated ordinance that would, among other things, require pit bull owners to register their animals, provide specific enclosures for them and require the owner to maintain insurance or a surety bond against the possibility of a pit bull attack.
“The (state) Legislature has authorized (local governments) to enact more stringent ordinances against dangerous dogs,” Davis said.
The commission voted to approve Ward V Commissioner Bob Langstaff’s suggestion that the Citizens Advisory Committee discuss the issue and make a recommendation. Marietta asked if the language of any new legislation should mention specific breeds.
“It should apply to all dangerous dogs, including poodles,” Ward VI Commissioner Tommie Postell said…
Related Posts By Category
- Royal Oak, Michigan Will Not Pursue Breed-Specific Ordinance
- Albany, Georgia Considers BSL, But What Would MLK Do?
- Sturgis, South Dakota May Consider Breed-Specific Ordinance for “Pit Bulls”
- Waxhaw, North Carolina May Consider Breed-Specific Ordinance for “Pit Bulls”
- Livingston County, Kentucky to Pursue Breed-Specific Ordinance Regulating “Pit Bulls,” Rottweilers, Bull Terriers, and American Staffordshire Terriers in July