Clay, Alabama Passes “Pit Bull” Ban after Free-Roaming Dog Incident

June 5, 2013 update: According to WBRC in Birmingham, Alabama, the Sheriff who was supposedly surrounded by a “pack” of “pit bulls” (and there’s that reference to “packs” again) which is what supposedly brought about the “pit bull” ban in Clay, is now claiming the dogs in question were actually Rottweilers!   Sheriff Mike Hale said he “was approached by a pack of aggressive dogs. He does say he believes those dogs were Rottweilers, not pit bulls.”   So, it sounds like Clay had intended to ban “pit bulls” and “pit bull” mixes all along; they were just looking for an excuse.   Or maybe they fabricated one.  

Editor’s note: So residents were given merely a week to publicly comment on Clay’s breed-specific ordinance proposal?   And how exactly did Clay come up with their breed-specific legislation (BSL) so quickly?   Hmm?   I smell a rat, and more precisely the stink of misinformation that tends to waft from   So does the “Humane” Society of the United States just push breed-specific legislation on the back channels now via lapdogs like, or is Kory Nelson’s lap dog, or both?   It’s so hard to keep track of the villains these days. But one thing is for sure.   The  agenda of radical animal rightists to end domestic animal ownership   — no matter who is playing puppet master and who is playing puppet — has not changed:

We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding. Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the United States, Animal People, May, 1993.

And while the HSUS claims to be humane, you have to wonder why they would push breed-specific legislation in the first place, especially if that BSL includes provisions for constant containment and muzzling for “pit bulls,” which is cruelty to animals.   Now the dog lobby is left to wonder if the HSUS just has their little lap dogs like pushing their BSL for them so they can publicly claim to not support BSL.    

So, did Clay, Alabama unwittingly get caught up in a radical animal rights political ploy?   Either way, Clay has a free-roaming dog issue, not a “pit bull” problem.   Yet they passed a “pit bull” ban anyway.   Regardless, Clay is looking at the wrong end of the leash.   Instead of passing additional legislation, a breed ban, that has been proven the world over not to work, why not start with enforcing a simple leash law?   Again, requiring owners of that non-existent “breed” “pit bull” to constantly keep their dogs contained and/or muzzled is not only animal cruelty, but it is likely to bring about the very behavior the city is trying to curb.   Please send your opposition letters to the Clay City Council here and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation in any form is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From the Trussville Tribune:

The Clay City Council on Monday passed a vicious dog ordinance, virtually banning pit bulls in city limits.

Existing pit bull dogs, or any of their variations, must be registered with the city, no new pits may be brought into the city, and any newborn pit puppies will need to be removed from the city limits within a certain amount of time.

These dog breeds must be confined indoors or kept in a locked, outside pen. If taken for a walk, the dogs must be leashed and muzzled at all times. Within 10 days of registration, owners must post Beware of Dog signs in easily seen locations on their property.

Owners are also required to carry $50,000 in public liability insurance for their pets. In case of the death of a pet, the birth of puppies or a change of address within the city limits, owners have 10 days to notify city officials.

Violators of this ordinance will face between $200 and $500 in fines as well as up to 30 days in jail.

Last Tuesday, Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale was confronted in his front yard by four dogs described as acting aggressive and looking like pit bull breeds, said Jefferson County Sheriffs Office Chief Deputy Randy Christian. Hale fired a warning shot in the ground and then a second shot containing bird shot that grazed one dog, Christian said.

That turned them away, Christian said. Animal control was called to the scene and took control of the dogs that at the time were still roaming the neighborhood. The owner was identified and is facing a charge of allowing dogs to run at large.

This incident prompted the city council to pass the ordinance…

[google-map-v3 width=”350″ height=”350″ zoom=”12″ maptype=”roadmap” mapalign=”center” directionhint=”false” language=”default” poweredby=”false” maptypecontrol=”true” pancontrol=”true” zoomcontrol=”true” scalecontrol=”true” streetviewcontrol=”true” scrollwheelcontrol=”false” draggable=”true” tiltfourtyfive=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkerlist=”Clay, Alabama{}4-default.png{}Clay, Alabama Passes Pit Bull Ban after Free-Roaming Dog Incident” bubbleautopan=”true” showbike=”false” showtraffic=”false” showpanoramio=”false”]


One response to “Clay, Alabama Passes “Pit Bull” Ban after Free-Roaming Dog Incident”

  1. This is illegal plain and simple!

    Huntsville, Alabama police raided a dog-fighting arena on Feb 28, 2002 and seized 10 pit bulls. The citys attempt to legally euthanize four pit bull puppies, never trained to fight, was stopped by Madison County Circuit Court Judge Joe Battle, who ruled that the pit bull puppies were not dangerous by virtue of their genetics alone (AP Wire; Apr 6, 2002). Huntsville appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which affirmed (City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack et al., 1010459, S.C. Alabama; Aug 30, 2002) the Circuit Court opinion by a 6-2 vote; the written dissent addressed procedural matters of legal status of the parties, not the nature of the dogs. The puppies were adopted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *