The city of Clay recently passed an ordinance which bans
“vicious” or “dangerous” dogs, and specifically includes language banning any
and all pit bull breeds, whether a particular pit bull dog is vicious/dangerous
or not. Upon reviewing the ordinance,
which you can read here, several issues jump out.
First and foremost is the outright
banning of pit bulls dogs, without regard for the nature of a particular
dog. There are two schools of thought on
the safety of pit bulls. Some believe
that pit bulls have an innate, natural tendency to be vicious. Certainly, news reports would lead one to
believe that a high percentage of dog attacks involve pit bulls. Others believe that any dog can be made to be
vicious if treated improperly, and any dog, including pit bulls, can be made to
be well-behaved if treated with love and proper training. There are certainly countless pit bulls that
have never exhibited improper, unprovoked aggression.
Another
problem with the ordinance is the manner in which dogs falling under the
classification of “violent” or “dangerous” must be kept. The ordinance incorporates a “grandfather”
clause which, to some extent, exempts currently
present pit bulls or “dangerous” dogs from the ban. However, these dogs must be registered with
the city, and are subject to strict requirements. For instance, these dogs must be either kept
indoors or must be held in pens or structures outside. A regular fence will not do. The ordinance specifically requires the
structure to have a roof or other secure top, and either a secure bottom or
sides that extend at least two feet into the ground. The door must lock with either a key or
combination lock. The owner must place a
sign on the property stating “Beware of Dog.”
The city must be provided with color photographs of the dog and any
puppies born of such a dog must be removed from the city, within six weeks of
birth. Remember, these are not
requirements for a dog that has bitten or attacked someone. These are requirements for any pit bull.
Most people
would agree that keeping residents of Clay safe from a dangerous dog is
extremely important. It’s an issue that
needs to be addressed, and laws aimed at effectively
accomplishing this should be enacted.
Most cities have “leash law” ordinances which require dogs to be on
leashes when not secured inside a house or fence. These are generally good laws, wisely aimed at
protecting the citizens from wandering dogs.
Opponents of this particular ordinance, as adopted by Clay, argue that
it fails to accomplish this same interest as narrowly as it could.
Clay city
attorney Alan Summers has presented some alternatives, the most important of
which is to remove the breed-specific language from the ordinance. Such a change would effectively limit the ban
to “dangerous” or “vicious” dogs only, with some guidance on establishing
whether a particular dog fits the bill.
