Dangerous Dog Legislation - DE

[SaschasPet]

While I know we are a rottie site I fear this will only trickle down to us. As if times are not bad enough with our flailing economy and the stress of whether we will have jobs in the next month or week for that matter. Now we have to worry whether our beloved pet could be banned and / or put on an "aggressive dog" list.


Ban Pit Bulls: Local City May Be Next
By TAMARA VOSTOK
Updated 9:00 AM EST, Thu, Jan 29, 2009
Related Topics: Wilmington (Delaware) | Culture and Lifestyle | Dogs | Pets

Are we surprised? Following a pit bull attack of a 9-year-old boy in Wilmington, Del., city officials are debating a city ban of “aggressive” breeds.
Pit bulls are a vicious dog breed, which should not be allowed on our city streets or in our homes.
If you believe them to be passionate, kind beings, think again—their genes and inherent aggressive nature will take over at any time.
Sound familiar?
This is the type of description you are likely to hear from some city officials, legislators, and many city residents when it comes to dog attacks and pit bulls.
"Ban the breed" is the mentality of many. It may become the mentality of Wimington, Del.
But, despite current events, we must take a step back and realize it is not the breed, which should be punished, but the irresponsible owners allowing any dog to take charge.
Following a pit bull attack of a 9-year-old boy in Wilmington, Del., January 23, city officials are re-evaluating “dangerous dog” breed legislation and mulling over the idea of a city ban of “aggressive” breeds.
Wilmington currently requires pit bulls to be registered with the city, people under 18-years-old are not allowed to walk pit bulls, and muzzles are required when walking them in public parks.
New Castle County Councilman Jea P. Street will also re-introduce dangerous-dog legislation, which did not pass in 2008, which would require muzzles on specific pit bull breeds and mixes, require pit bull owners to post warning signs on their property, and owners would have to purchase $100,000 worth of liability insurance.
We don’t know if the legislation will be breed specific, but it does seem to be targeting pit bulls, right now—at least it seems to me.
Enforcing laws owners must follow to ensure a city is safe and that dogs are living safe, comfortable lives is important. However, the focus must not be on the breed, but the owners themselves.
Take a look at the owners of those pit bulls who recently attacked the young Wilmington boy. Well, we can’t take a look at them, because no one knows who they are.
That’s a problem right there.
The dogs were roaming unleashed, were not micro-chipped, no tags, no collars. The so-called “owners” of these three pits didn’t “own” them at all. They allowed them to run wild. Allowed them to be intimidators. A responsible dog owner must train and be the dominant force in a household. These “owners” should have never been allowed to own a dog in the first place.
In my opinion, they are to blame for this attack.
The pit bulls were kept at the Kent county SPCA for the three-day waiting period—those crucial three days, which determine their fate.
The owners never came in to claim them.
The pit bulls were euthanized.
What happened to the young boy in Delaware is a tragedy. Children should feel safe to walk through their city without worry of attack, whether by people or animals. It’s also a possibility the young man could be traumatized and maintain a life-long fear of pit bulls and dogs, in general.
The severity of a pit bull attack is what really causes concern. Their strong bodies, their strong jaws are more threatening than the bite or attack of a yorkie, let’s say.
But, the problem here is, when will dog owners take responsibility for the animals they intend to keep?
Wilmington, if you do ban “aggressive” breeds, expect to ban dachshunds and Chihuahuas, as a recent study showed the “weiner dog” as more prone to bites and attacks.
A ban on dachshunds?--That’ll be the day.

[hokisteph5]

I do give the writer credit. She's at least heard about and acknowledged which breeds are currently considered the most aggressive.

[SaschasPet]

Originally Posted by hokisteph5

I do give the writer credit. She's at least heard about and acknowledged which breeds are currently considered the most aggressive.

I'm with you on that. I read her first article several days ago about the attack in Wisconsin (believe that is where it was) and even in that she said it's not the breed but the irresponsible owners. If only more people would educate themselves and realize this.

[Katoman]

I don't understand how breeds could just be banned in certain cities, if a ban was put in place, what would happen to the owners that had these "aggressive breeds." Would they just try to take your dog away? What about all the Delta Society dogs, the talented breeders like so many of yourselves whose dogs are winning shows and whatnot? And what about the owners like myself who don't have a show dog but just a well-behaved loving pet? Is it really realistic to ban?

[Mich]

I had thought a lot of places already placed a ban on pits

They have banned them in our entire province. Only dogs that were alive and with an owner when the ban was passed were allowed to live, all of them had to be registered and S/N

It's illegal to have them outdoors without a leash or muzzle, it's illegal to breed them, you can't import them even if they are S/N, iirc even if someone has a pup it can be confiscated and euthanized people can't even vacation here and bring their pit if they have one.

I'd love to be left alone with owners that allowed their dogs to become so bad they get banned.

[SaschasPet]

Katoman - I'm not sure how that would work but I was able to find the following information in regards to Denver's pit bull ban. If I'm reading it correctly you had to have applied for and received a license for said pit bull before the ordinance was put into effect and you had to apply for a new license and receive it before January 1990. And of course be in compliance with all terms of the ordinance. I'm terrible at posting links so hopefully this works.

http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/245...855pitbull.PDF

[Katoman]

Thanks sashaspet...so this essentially states that you have to obtain an annual license ($50), proof of rabies vacc, which is understandable. Then it says, all must be spayed/neutered, you must obtain $100,000 worth of insurance and when the dog is not confined it must be leashed AND muzzled, amongst other things. Strict rules.... :-/

[SaschasPet]

Originally Posted by Katoman

Thanks sashaspet...so this essentially states that you have to obtain an annual license ($50), proof of rabies vacc, which is understandable. Then it says, all must be spayed/neutered, you must obtain $100,000 worth of insurance and when the dog is not confined it must be leashed AND muzzled, amongst other things. Strict rules.... :-/

Well these are the Denver ordinances for Pit ban but I imagine any where they do this the rules are probably they same or very similar.

[shaddoc]

Where I live in Council Bluffs, Iowa there is a "pit-bull ban." They are required to buy $100,000 (not sure if that amount is correct), spay or neuter the dog, have a dangerous dog sign up, a 6' foot fence, muzzled if off property. It even goes as far as to say people can not drive thru the city with that type of dog. Once their dog dies they CAN NOT replace that dog with that breed. Plus of course license the dogs which is for every breed.

When this started a few years ago according to the city there were over 100 "pitbulls" registered in the city. (Not saying there aren't more not licenesed) Now there are less than 50. If they city dog catcher picks any running at large they are held 3 days then euthenised. They are not even allowed to be adopted. I do not agree with this law at all. So far that is the only breed and any mixes of it that is touched. Across the river in Omaha, Neb they did not ban them but made laws that the dogs must be muzzled off the property, 4' leash and insurance. But they also made it so they can have CGC but those dogs have to have the vest and be tested by the Humane Society and wear that vest at all times off property.
Nebraska (Omaha) also made it so NO dog can be tied out longer than 15 minutes unattended. I am not familiar with all of their parts of their law as I live in Iowa.

[LunaBelle]

Thats terrible! Here in South Africa the possibility of BSL was considered some years ago. It was, however, not viable since the strong possibility of it being against our constitution. It is deemed racist.:-)

[SaschasPet]

It is truly a sad day indeed when responsibile dog owners are made to suffer because of the irresponsible ones. Not only do we suffer but our pets do as well. I just can't fathom the idea of how many poor souls are put down because of these bans. How many of those could have been saved if allowed to be adopted / rescued by responsible loving people. I'll be keeping an eye on this one in DE. This time it's the pit, next time it could be the Rottie or the Doberman. Scary thoughts.

[shaddoc]

Yeah it is. I attended every meeting even though I don't live right in the city (I live outside the city limits). We even spoke at the city council meetings to try to prevent it. I wish they would allow the dogs to be adopted out but no they won't. Also the AKC
Dog show that used to be held in our city is no longer doing that because this ban affects the Staf terrier and others.