Banning pit bulls in Ohio

[seedcorn]

Quote:
That's about what I suspected any actual law would be. No certain breed is mentioned. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned any dog that's what's described in that law cannot be destroyed fast enough.

(1)(a) "Dangerous dog" means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to division (A)(1)(b) of this section, has chased or approached in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack, or has attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person, while that dog is off the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer and not under the reasonable control of its owner, keeper, harborer, or some other responsible person, or not physically restrained or confined in a locked pen which that has a top, locked fenced yard, or other locked enclosure which that has a top.

Joe, I agree w/you on this one. In fact anyone that doesn't worries me.........

So if the pit people think this describes their pits, they should be worried about getting their "pets" destroyed.

 

[flakey chick]

I noticed that link did include

Belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog.

but that part had been crossed through. What isn't crossed out is

Beginning ninety days after the effective date of this section, no person shall own, keep, or harbor a dog that belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.

That is not reasonable.​

 

[Guitartists]

I wish it did not include any specific breed, but did indeed mention Pit Bulls twice, all though, I am having a hard time figuring out why one has been crossed out but the other left at the beginning. BSL is not a new concept. Denver was successful and many family pets were siezed and destroyed. Some were lucky and were taken out of city limits to shelters where new homes could be found for them. Unfortunately some people think this will stop the wrong people from owning pit bulls, but it only hurts responsible dog owners. Lawless people care not for BSL or any law... they will continue to do what they want. If you thought Pit Bulls had it bad before... just wait until the only ones left are in the hands of unscrupulous and criminal people.

 

[spook]

Unfortunately pitt bulls have been breed to fight. Its a hard wire, like your roo. I have known pit bulls, would have one if I could, but, we know what they are and have been bred for, just like the english game roos, they are used in cock fighting. Horrible thoughts, but true.
I have had experience with a husky, a family pet that was let out side to do its business, ran 2 miles, played 6 pregnant ewes to death.
An example of not keeping your pet worked. We are built to work, move, get tired for the end of the day. If we do not, then its usually when idle hands are the devils playground.
And we find mischeif to entertain us.
Basically, and unfortunately, its perhaps not the pit bulls that are to blame...but its the only way they can save children from the jerks that want gaurd dogs.
Speaking of gaurd dogs, many years ago, as we look at dobermin pinchers, those are pussy cats until you cage one or leave it alone. A stranger or in this particular case the 9 year old girl (one of the family members) went out to feed him...it took 150 (151 or 152 can't recall exact) stitches to close her mouth, head, arms. They refused to put the dog down, saying it was their pet, it had never been vicious before.
3 weeks later, it attacked the father that made excuses for it. He was lucky, only 30 stitches up the hand that was reaching to bring him in the house with all the kids.
Dogs are unpredictable. They are trained, yet some people don't train their dogs well and it is a loose cannon.
I do not believe in banning any one thing, yet the ones that need training are the owners and you know the reputation of a pit bull...that is why they are owned, to fill someones need for power.
The only way most states can stop the "training" of these fighting animals is to ban them. Ban the dog and then they can find who is mistreating them.
I watch those wicked sad shows on Animal planet and its just pitiful. The other route these states can go is by having them Registered, like a gun. Then if its not "registered" or a scan bar in its neck (what ever you call them) that officers can put a wand over, then the person walking with the dog and dog are taken away, dog euthinized and a major fine.
Good luck.

 

[Guitartists]

I'm all for registering pit bulls and requiring criteria to be met in order to keep one. I don't know of any responsible pit owner who is not. You have to realize too though that not all bully lines have been bred for power and aggression. Many people are breeding the aggression OUT of them. They were not always like this. They used to be the family dog. As popular in their day as any other breed could possibly be! They were mascots and tv sidekick. It's sick what humans will do.

Plus, most BSL laws include any dog that even resembles a pit bull. I've seen so many mixed breed dogs that look pittish, even those that had no pit in them... boxer, bulldog and other breed mixes. Plus there are a few full-blood breeds out there that are often confused with pit bulls as well.

When it comes to BSL..... it's NOT about whether or not pit bulls are good or bad dogs..... it's about OUR RIGHTS!!!! The government wants to remove YOUR right to decide which breed of dog you can own. They are using it also as a means to gain entry. I understand how people would see this as a way to stop dog fighting.... but it really only hurts the responsible dog owner. There are other sanctions they could put into place that would allow them the same abilities to crack down on dog fighters. It's really not about that. I truly believe they want to put an end to a breed of dog, plain and simple. This is just how they "sell" it.

Once you allow laws like this to be put into place.... once you allow your rights to be taken away... you open the door to government to begin dictating when, how, where and who. It seems so innocent, like a good deed law. Seems like something that is to "help" the people. But it's not. Once you lose your rights, once you allow them to be stripped away.... you will most likely NEVER get them back. There are better laws, but they require people to keep them in place, make visits, make rounds, keep up with what's happening.... no city has the time, money or resources to do this... so they figure it easier to "round up" all of them and kill them instead of looking for better solutions.

And what happens when the pit bulls are gone, and people get fearful again of the other breeds that have been the "MONSTERS" of decades past? They too will be added to BSL laws. Soooo easy to add another breed once BSL has been put into place. Who will oppose it? Who, aside from politicians will even KNOW of it? And don't think it's just power breeds... there are many others that will be tartgeted for their "wolf-dog" attributes and heritage. Dog owners, veternarians and even the AKC oppose BSL! Why? Because they understand that not only is it NOT a solution.... but that it threatens dog breeds everywhere!

 

[seedcorn]

I'm all for registering pit bulls and requiring criteria to be met in order to keep one. I don't know of any responsible pit owner who is not.

When I mentioned this about 6 months ago, I received hate emails plus the insults on this website. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd look up the thread.

No doubt the person who wrote that was uninformed and that's why certain lines were crossed out so that it included "dangerous" dogs regardless of breed. Again, all "dangerous" dogs, especially those w/history of violence, need to be put down--no questions asked. They are an animal.

 

[Guitartists]

I too believe that vicious dogs should be euthanized regardless of breed. This includes small and medium sized dogs as well. However, I also feel that many "vicious" dogs are that way because of lack of human pack leadership. So, it's a fine line.... what defines vicious or dangerous? I do agree that any dog found running at large that has shown aggression toward humans needs to be seized and euthanized especially if there has been multiple offenses. The fact that it is aggressive AND running at large shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the human.... and sure, you could attempt to rehabilitate and adopt out these dogs, but with so many dogs already in the system, I personally do not agree with the idea of trying to save every animal. It is an unfortunate thing that any dog should have to be euthanized... but realistically something must give somewhere.

Maybe you did receive hate mail.... but it certainly was NOT from me. I've been following the BSL trend for 3 years now and have met many wonderful pit bull owners along the way that also support the limiting of ownership. Some things are unreasonable... like having to carry $100,000. worth of insurance on each dog. If the dog has never shown any aggression or had any problems this shouldn't even be a concern... it's strongarming. But requiring evaluations and licensing for them, and requiring them to be kept in homes or kennels as oppossed to at large or on chains, I agree is a great idea. It solves a majority of the problems, allows local government to seperate the responsible owners from the irresponsible ones and you could still allow for sections that would give police the authority in certain situations to search and seize if inhumane treatment or dog fighting is suspected. Plus ALL pit bulls not registered and approved as breeders should have to be spayed or neutered! No exceptions. Part of the problem with not only pit bulls but all dog breeds is the unscrupulous breeding of dogs to turn a quick buck! Backyard breeding is a real detriment. Unless we are willing to do as other cultures do and view dogs as a food source, then this really needs to stop. There are too many poorly bred dogs that will never find homes and many well bred dogs that will also suffer. I know, I'll probably get my share of hate mail as well.

It is not easy to stand in the middle. With two opposing sides fighting tooth and nail for their goals, it is difficult to find reason and common ground where none seems to prevail. There are concerns with power breeds! I am first to admit this, but it is not black and white, and the currently suggested BSL laws do not solve the problems, but merely create more hate and less common ground for which to find answers and resolutions. It mirrors so many other issues and ongoing battles in the US today.

::sigh:: This isn't an issue that people will ever agree on, and I DO see it from both sides. But, like other issues, we can't begin to find real solutions until we can meet in the middle and really get to the truth of things.

edited to add..... yeah, I too have been known to fall into an extreme opinion once in awhile.... but in the face of fact and reason, I usually tend to find my footing. And, there are some things that are indeed one or the other... not all issues or concerns CAN have middle ground. So, it goes on.........................

 

[Guitartists]

To amend section 955.11 and to enact section 955.111 of the Revised Code to prohibit the owning, keeping, or harboring of pit bull dogs beginning ninety days after the effective date of the act and to require specified officers to seize all pit bull dogs after that date.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:
Section 1. That section 955.11 be amended and section 955.111 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:
Sec. 955.11. (A) As used in this section:
(1)(a) "Dangerous dog" means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to division (A)(1)(b) of this section, has chased or approached in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack, or has attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person, while that dog is off the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer and not under the reasonable control of its owner, keeper, harborer, or some other responsible person, or not physically restrained or confined in a locked pen which that has a top, locked fenced yard, or other locked enclosure which that has a top.
(b) "Dangerous dog" does not include a police dog that has chased or approached in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack, or has attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person while the police dog is being used to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.
(2) "Menacing fashion" means that a dog would cause any person being chased or approached to reasonably believe that the dog will cause physical injury to that person.
(3) "Police dog" means a dog that has been trained, and may be used, to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.
(4)(a) "Vicious dog" means a dog that, without provocation and subject to division (A)(4)(b) of this section, meets any either of the following:
(i) Has killed or caused serious injury to any person;
(ii) Has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person, or has killed another dog.
(iii) Belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog.
(b) "Vicious dog" does not include either of the following:
(i) A police dog that has killed or caused serious injury to any person or that has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person while the police dog is being used to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties;
(ii) A dog that has killed or caused serious injury to any person while a person was committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog.
(5) "Without provocation" means that a dog was not teased, tormented, or abused by a person, or that the dog was not coming to the aid or the defense of a person who was not engaged in illegal or criminal activity and who was not using the dog as a means of carrying out such activity.
(B) Upon the transfer of ownership of any dog, the seller of the dog shall give the buyer a transfer of ownership certificate that shall be signed by the seller. The certificate shall contain the registration number of the dog, the name of the seller, and a brief description of the dog. Blank forms of the certificate may be obtained from the county auditor. A transfer of ownership shall be recorded by the auditor upon presentation of a transfer of ownership certificate that is signed by the former owner of a dog and that is accompanied by a fee of twenty-five cents.
(C) Prior to the transfer of ownership or possession of any dog, upon the buyer's or other transferee's request, the seller or other transferor of the dog shall give to the person a written notice relative to the behavior and propensities of the dog.
(D) Within ten days after the transfer of ownership or possession of any dog, if the seller or other transferor of the dog has knowledge that the dog is a dangerous or vicious dog, he the seller or other transferor shall give to the buyer or other transferee, the board of health for the district in which the buyer or other transferee resides, and the dog warden of the county in which the buyer or other transferee resides, a completed copy of a written form on which the seller shall furnish the following information:
(1) The name and address of the buyer or other transferee of the dog;
(2) The age, sex, color, breed, and current registration number of the dog.
In addition, the seller shall answer the following questions, which shall be specifically stated on the form as follows:
"Has the dog ever chased or attempted to attack or bite a person? If yes, describe the incident(s) in which the behavior occurred."
"Has the dog ever bitten a person? If yes, describe the incident(s) in which the behavior occurred."
"Has the dog ever seriously injured or killed a person? If yes, describe the incident(s) in which the behavior occurred."
The dog warden of the county in which the seller resides shall furnish the form to the seller at no cost.
(E) No seller or other transferor of a dog shall fail to comply with the applicable requirements of divisions (B) to (D) of this section.
Sec. 955.111. (A) Beginning ninety days after the effective date of this section, no person shall own, keep, or harbor a dog that belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.
(B) Not later than ninety days after the effective date of this section, a person who owns, keeps, or harbors a pit bull dog on the effective date of this section shall surrender the dog to the dog warden. Not later than ten days after receiving the dog, the dog warden shall euthanize the dog.
(C)(1) Beginning ninety days after the effective date of this section, if an officer has probable cause to believe that a dog is a pit bull dog, the officer may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a search warrant. The court shall issue a search warrant for the purposes requested if there is probable cause to believe that a dog is a pit bull dog.
(2) After obtaining a search warrant, an officer shall seize the pit bull dog and surrender the dog to the dog warden. Not later than ten days after receiving the dog, the dog warden shall euthanize the dog.
(D) As used in this section, "officer" has the same meaning as in section 959.132 of the Revised Code.
Section 2. That existing section 955.11 of the Revised Code is hereby repealed.

It most defintely DOES define pit bulls and singles them out. This is BSL. They are attempting to make it appear as a vicious dog law in order to slip it through... not the first time government has tried to slip something into a bill and allow it to ride on the back of something the people DO want.




I do want to note this.... That existing section 955.11 of the Revised Code is hereby repealed. So apparently they have repealed this particular section and it no longer inscludes BSL. I am happy to this. If indeed this is true and the BSL HAS been removed from the bill, then I hope it passes

However, as a note, if it doesn't pass because of the confusion created by the original inclusion of BSL, I hope that their politicians have learned that it is best to do things right and NOT try to piggyback laws like that. It's a sad thing when very good legislation gets turned down because of the inclusion of something dubious... and even worse when dubious legislation is piggy-backed in on the backs of some wonderful legislation.

 

[DuckyBoys]

Denver and other surrounding suburbs hve had a pit bull ban for a few years now. I grew up with pit bulls (Am Staffs) and they were far nicer than the German Shepherds when it came to people, but our's came from actual show breeders, not backyard fighters.

Pit bulls have some issues, as do many other breeds. I could easily see my giant schnauzer being classified as a dangerous dog - he IS aggressive to strangers - but he is suppossed to be. I take a LOT of care not to expose ANYONE to him at the house without proper introductions. At the groomer, dog park, petsmart etc he's fine - but this is his house and he WILL bite you if you come on the property without permission.

I think realistically, when several children are killed by a certain breed of dog (As they have been here), people must take a closer look. And while there are many responsible dog owners, there are many who are not.

Are these laws fair - maybe not - but life isn't fair either.

 

[taratrip]

I hate to even comment about this subject but I am going to.
I think having a pitbull is like having a "wild animal" that you think you can tame. I know several people with this breed and I know they are loving dogs just like any other...but the potential for serious injury of even death is there whether the dog has ever shown aggresion before or not they are known to TURN.
Any animal that has the potential to kill someone should not be allowed to be walked around on the street. it should be caged in a zoo somewhere or just not exist. I know any dog can TURN but the severity of the pitbulls jaws are what makes it so lethal. You could literally be beating one over the head with a baseball bat as it is ripping your childs face off and it still has a lock jaw grip as it is shaking your little child violently from side to side. and the owners are just so surprised because this was a "family pet" and NEVER showed aggresion.
It doesnt matter in my eyes if it has ever shown aggression its the potential this animal has if it snaps. I almost had my face biten off by a St Bernard when I was 3 yo. It was a family pet (my uncles) and it was getting a little on the older side. I was under the kitchen table kising him goodbye with his head in my uncles lap and WHAM he snapped. I received several stitches in my nose and cheek (which I still bear the scars 30 yrs later). But if that were a pit I would probably have been completly disfigured if not worse.
I teach my children all the time to respect all animals but especially be weiry of dogs...not be afraid but be cautious. I like to compare a pitbull to the "tamed" tiger of Sigfried and Roy that they worked with and handled for those several years (maybe even had it as a cub?)...they knew the possibilty was there and look what happened. now imagine if there was a possiblity that the "tame" tiger was able to hop the fence and walk around your neighborhood? Thats the way I look at pits.
Sorry pit owners I know there is a love for the breed but I think special precautions need to be made and I think they should definetly be on the banned list. If you go to any shelter you will see they are over run with pits. It is sad. Lots of people get these dogs and then realize their landlord says no way to having a pit. and like someone else had said earlier it is a power trip of sorts to have a powerful animal like that. and with that being said its the "power" of the pit that I fear and quiver when I see one in a neighbors backyard.