Dover, Arkansas Moving Forward with “Pit Bull” Ban
The Dover, Arkansas City Council is moving ahead with their breed-specific ordinance proposal to ban all “breeds” of “pit bull” at their next meeting August 6 at Dover City Hall, 6 p.m. As noted in a prior post about Dover’s BSL proposal, Dover’s “pit bull” ban would include American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Bull Terriers (which isn’t a breed, at least not according to the AKC who registers them), and American Bulldogs. Does it not follow that if the ordinance has to define four breeds as if they were one that statistics on “pit bulls” might be massively skewed and therefore meaningless? In other words, there is no such “breed” as a pit bull” and in fact, the slang term “pit bull” can encompass any number of breeds. To put that anther way, “pit bull” can be anything they want it to be.
Nor does BSL make the community safer as Dover’s City Councilmen have said:
“I get that it’s a controversial issue,” [Mayor Pat] Johnson said. “But we’ve had a couple of incidents involving pit bulls in the past, and it’s just a matter of time before there is another one. I feel that we’re better off doing something about it now rather than later, because I’d hate for something to happen and then have to deal with it.”
Alderman Roger Lee said he stands against any action which takes freedom away from the people, but at some point, decisions have to be made for the betterment and safety of a community.
“The safety of the people of Dover is my primary concern,” Lee said. “I don’t hold anything against pit bulls or their owners, but the statistics speak for themselves. I feel that by moving forward with this decision that we have to put these rules in place.”
Dover Marshal Rodney Pfeifer said from a security standpoint, pit bulls are one of the biggest issues in his city that needs to be addressed.
“I’m in agreement with the push to ban pit bulls,” Pfiefer said. “It’s not anything against the breed. I don’t have anything personal against them, and in reality, pit bulls do get a lot of bad publicity, but regardless, it is still an issue of public safety.”
Gosh, it’s almost as if someone coached them to keep saying the word “safety” over and over. First, as already noted, “pit bull” is not a breed, and when you define at least four actual breeds, their mixes, and lookalikes as so-called “pit bulls,” statistics are skewed and therefore completely worthless. So, yes Mr. Lee, statistics absolutely do lie.
Second, BSL has proven ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional nationwide resulting in its repeal in many areas, which is why it offers nothing but a false sense of security and does not keep communities safer. For instance, Annapolis, Missouri repealed their breed ban in July 2013 when they saw it was unfairly targeting responsible owners, and Osawatomie, Kansas repealed their two-decades long breed ban on June 5, 2013, after one of their residents proved that a dog the city had deemed a “pit bull” was actually a Boxer mix.
Likewise, Toledo, Ohio’s BSL was ruled unconstitutional in January 2010 as it went well beyond the purview of state law and violated home-rule doctrine. Additionally it was determined that Toledo’s Animal Control Officer could not properly identify what was a “pit bull” based on their own ordinance. The Ohio legislature then went on to remove the archaic dangerous dog designation for “pit bulls” in 2012.
Also, on March 9, 2011, Midwest City, Oklahoma was ordered to stop enforcing their “pit bull” ban as it was ruled unconstitutional. Rockville Centre, New York also repealed their BSL July 23, 2010, citing its unconstitutionality, and Topeka, Kansas repealed their BSL September 28, 2010, citing its ineffectiveness.
These BSL repeals illustrate perfectly how and why BSL doesn’t work: It’s unconstitutional, it’s ineffective, and it’s unjust, seeing as how many Animal Control Officers cannot even tell what is and is not a “pit bull” as defined by their own ordinances. Indeed, making proper breed determinations is a considerable problem with any breed-specific provision — whether a ban or breed-specific restrictions — particularly with mixed breeds or breeds that have the same appearance as the restricted breeds. It is difficult even for experts to properly determine breed at times, especially with mixed breeds, which is why such bans/restrictions have been found to be a violation of due process afforded every American under the 14th amendment.
For example, in the 2004 case of Margolius v. The City of Denver, it was shown that Mr. Margolius’ due process rights were violated when Denver’s own Animal Control Officers could not discern what was and was not a “pit bull” as defined by their own ordinance. Denver violated dog owners’ due process rights again when The Denver Daily News reported that in January 2011 (and in 2009) Denver’s Animal Control officers could not tell the difference between a Boxer mix and what Denver’s ordinance defined as a “pit bull.” The findings in these cases are a wake-up call for those who claim that Denver’s “pit bull” ban has been successful.
A well-enforced leash law for all dogs, a non-breed-specific dangerous dog (owner) law which places the responsibility squarely on the owner with escalating fines and penalties, and adequate Animal Control personnel are more than enough to police irresponsible dog owners no matter what the breed. The Dover, Arkansas City Council will discuss their “pit bull” ban proposal at their next meeting, August 6 at Dover City Hall, 6 p.m.
Related Posts By Category
- Dover, Arkansas “Pit Bull” “Breeds” Ban Passes First Reading
- Dover, Arkansas Inexplicably Passes Antiquated “Pit Bull” Ban
- Dover & Dardanelle, Arkansas Have 2nd and 1st Reading of “Pit Bull” Ban Proposals
- Livingston County, Kentucky Meeting to Discuss Breed-Specific Ordinance Tonight
- Watertown, Wisconsin Inflexible on “Pit Bull” Ban; Resident Gets Frosty Reception