Public reacts to proposed pitbull ordinance
Councilman says city will have limits
A report on how the city could handle animal problems may be a month away, but elected officials have already received plenty of feedback from the public. Auburn City Councilman Kevin Hanley has asked city staff to look at ways to address problems with fighting-breed dogs such as pitbulls. His possible proposals to either ban the breed completely from city limits or impose restrictions drew reaction from people on both sides of the issue. “I’ve received probably a dozen or more e-mails a day and a lot of cell phone calls,” Hanley said Wednesday. “I’ve been receiving a lot of phone calls from both residents concerned about pitbulls and what to do about them and lots of suggestions.” Hanley’s request for what actions the city can take came after a September incident during which a 17-year-old Weimar resident was attacked and severely injured by four pitbulls in a Downtown Auburn parking lot. On Wednesday, Auburn City Manager Bob Richardson said the city attorney and police chief are taking the lead on compiling information for a report on what possible actions the city council can take regarding pets and their owners. “We’ve got out work cut out for us to get that report together,” Richardson said. He estimated that the report would be before the council in about a month. Councilman Bill Kirby said he thinks it’s a good time to take a look at the city’s current laws and whether they can be improved. “I think we need to examine carefully how the rules against violent pets and owners who are irresponsible are enforced and look at our legislation and our ordinances to see if we need to anything to improve that,” Kirby said. Hanley added that over the course of e-mail and phone conversations he has learned that state law prohibits Auburn from outright banning a breed from the city. He said the law outlines that cities can only enact ordinances related to mandatory spay-and-neuter breeding requirements. “We are restricted as far as the city of Auburn in what we can do,” Hanley said. In a letter to the editor, Nevada County attorney Susan Wallace said that city officials should not hurt the breed and rather should focus on the pet owner. “State Law does not allow this councilman’s quick-fix proposal to become law and he likely knows it, or should,” Wallace wrote. “But it makes a nice sound bite at the expense of great animals (pitbulls) and gives him lots of kudos for appearing to solve a problem that isn’t solved by outlawing a specific breed of dog.” Hanley said he’s received a number of e-mails from pitbull-related organizations. He said that he hopes to continue the “courteous” exchange about the issue. “I do appreciate residents when they give me their opinion,” Hanley said. “Everybody has been courteous so that’s a good way to approach a public policy issue I think.” Jenifer Gee can be reached at jeniferg@goldcountrymedia.com.
----------
‘Vicious’ pitbull decision pending The city of Auburn has yet to receive a judgment on its petition to declare four pitbulls as vicious. On Wednesday, Auburn Police Capt. John Ruffcorn said the city still hasn’t received a decision from Judge Joseph O’Flaherty after he presided over a hearing involving four dogs that attacked a teen in Downtown Auburn Sept. 16. The hearing, held Oct. 16, was held to present evidence as to whether or not the four dogs should be declared as vicious. The vicious designation means the animals could then be euthanized.
----------
|
Change Location:
|
Just get something with some bite to it! Something you can sink your teeth into. You know... more bite than bark!
The city should instead go after the morons who breed these dogs to fight, and the other morons who let them get free in a pack. Guaranteed other breeds when in a pack could have done the same thing.
I wonder why Joe's so slow???
As a responsible pit bull owner, I'm in total agreeance with Susan Wallace that the focus should be on the owners instead of the breed. Not only is breed-specific legislation illegal in California, it's very expensive to enforce and has not increased the public's safety in Denver or other cities in which it exists. Here's an article with more information about it: http://www.ilovedogs.com/blog/?p=3265
Actually, Susan Wallace, state law DOES allow for local ordinances.
What should be done is if your dog attacks and injures someone you should be held fully accountable with criminal charges. The owners of the 4 pitbulls should be charged with attempted murder
That's quite a dilemma that breed-specific legislation isn't allowed, when the problem is that specific dog breeds have the genetic potential to be vicious weapons, and realize that potential regularly. At great expense to the victims. How is it, then, that insurance companies can discriminate against owners of certain dogs?
I guess licensing requirements, which are barely enforced now anyway, can't discriminate either - such as charging a different amount for statistically dangerous dogs and enforcing licensing. I don't know if Wildfire13's idea is possible, but it is really stupid, in my opinion, to have to go that route when there are simpler, more direct and honest ways to approach this. If we can and must hold owners criminally accountable, then so be it. An owner can be "responsible" with his weapon/terrorist, and pursuit of criminal charges could be used when it's proven that the owner did not do everything in his power to prevent the attack.
I have known pits that were big sweet babies and I have known some that I wouldn't get within 50 feet of without a firearm, some goes for Rottweilers and other breeds that were bred for guarding or attack. Also, more people are bitten by smaller dogs than large. Jack Russell Terriers are well known for having aggressive lines in the breed. Like every human, each has its own basic personality. An aggressive dog can be trained to be civil - but it takes time and dedication. To just ban the breed is simplistic and frankly short sighted. If a dog attacks a person, whether in a pack or otherwise, the burden is on the owner to prove its safe. If they can't, then the dog should be put down. Either way, the owner has to be financially (and possibly criminally) responsible for the damages caused. One size fits all solutions rarely fit anyone.
This is not a dog breed issue, any powerful breed has the potential to harm people. The dog owners is where the accountability must be placed, all dog owners. Once of which am I.
Sooo!! Where will people with pitbulls live in Auburn if they can't have the dogs in the city limits?? Could it be a placer county issue? Are those nieghborhoods going to get a down pouring of pitbulls and their owners new neighbors? The city will deal with the problem buy making it someone elses problem. How classy!!
No matter what happens current laws should be enforced Dogs must be on a leash, no barking and defication on other peoples lawns and property. There are so many people especially women with young children and older people who are walking are streets these days. And when they see a loose dog no matter what breed they are scared. I have seen my street allmost totaly empty of people walking and running just because a neighbors stupidity not keeping there dogs from running loose. And they were labe. but people don't trust any dog large or small if it is loose anymore. And it took over a year before people started coming back after the threat was removed.
Can’t discriminate against a breed? Surely you can limit the number of pets within a household. 4 of any combination of 4 legged pets is more than should be allowed in a minimum sized city lot. Even two is too many, but allows for a cat and a dog, 2 dogs, or 2 cats. A vicious pet, once it has attacked anyone, or anyone’s pet, needs to be dealt with immediately, whether put down or severe penalties imposed upon its owner, especially if running loose. The 4 pitbulls in question need to be removed from the City limits. If the City does not deal with these 4 pitbulls, and they attack again, doesn’t that put the City in a position of liability and its citizens as taxpayers at risk? Limit the number of pets by lot size; make an ordinance that penalizes the pet owner for the action of its pets. California’s three strikes law encourages repeat criminals to leave the state. Perhaps a two strikes law for a vicious pet may do the same.
German Shepards are some of the most powerful dogs, this is why they are police dogs... These dogs have the ability to do great damage or even kill. But never the less they are trained. I think after you get one large breed dog there should have to apply for the second one and your residence where it is kept should be checked out. If any one adult is getting more than one large breed dog there is potential for problems.
Smith278 articulated this very well - this type of ordinance would be very reasonable. No one needs more than one, let alone FOUR, large, powerful dogs within city limits. The only good reason would be if you have a large ranch with livestock to guard, but you won't find large ranches within city limits.
I don't understand why the officials in Auburn and the rest of California don't go after the breeders? They keep pumping dogs out at record speed. These people pay no taxes because they have no oversight. No one knows who they are because they don't have to register with anyone or get any permits. If our governor, et al. would like to bring more money to California, they should all get together and make breeders register, get permits, get inspected (since so often their breeding facilities -- sheds, basements, etc. -- are horrible and should be inspected!) and make them pay taxes, just like the rest of us. They fight any kind of spay/neuter legislation because they don't want anyone to know how many dogs they sell and how much money they make. And of course they don't spay and neuter the dogs they place. They don't care what happens to them once they collect their thousands of dollars. They don't screen anyone so anyone can buy pit bulls, for example, and train them to be fighters. Pit bulls are great dogs. It's the breeders and the people who ruin them who should be watched and fined and perhaps even inprisoned (if their dogs attack someone). The dogs are not the ones who should be punished for humans' greed and stupidity.