Denver considers possible repeal of Pit Bull Ban

For several years now, Denver's controversial ban on 'pit bulls' has been under attack. The ordinance was originally adopted in the ban in the late 1989. However, after several legal challenges, the ban stood dormant until 2005 when it was re-enacted.

The city has endured several court cases on the ban -- and is in the midst of yet another legal case that was revived back in May. The city has also endured advertising campaigns against the city's breed ban by groups like Roverlution, as well as an entire website  entitled denverkillsdogs.com

Through all of that, authorities in Denver have stubbornly stood beside their ban - -and have done so without any evidence that the ban has actually improved public safety. In fact, the city admitted as much last November in an article by the Colorado Springs Gazette:

As director of Denver's Animal Care and Control, which has euthanized nearly 2,000 pit bulls in three years, Doug Kelley has to play the bad guy in the pit bull debate. But even he is not a strong advocate for the pit bull ban.

"You'll never see a more controversial ordinance," Kelley said.

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people "a false sense of security."

In spite of the lack of success of the ordinance in improving public safety and in spite of growing financial burdens of defending their breed ban in court, the city has stubbornly stood by its failed ordinance.  They have done so in spite of other embarrassing and costly situations -- including killing over 2,000 pit bulls over the past 3 years-- many of which were family pets,  holding down a former military officer at gunpoint while they confiscated her dog, a child killed by a non-pit bull type dog, andthe highly publicized incident where a dog named Forrest was confiscated from his owner, deemed not aggressive, but the breed ban prevented the dog from going back to his owner and thus he had to be shipped out of state.

But that might be changing.

For the past few months, Councilwoman Carla Madison has been working on a proposal that would end the city's ban on pit bulls. Apparently the city is looking to save some money -- in efforts to close its $120 million shortfall.  The city apparently is looking to repeal the ban, in part, because they are looking for a compromise to help squash the legal costs associated with defending their law and stop the mounting legal fees. A cost calculator put together by Best Friends Animal Society puts the cost of enforcing the city's BSL at about $803,170 annually....and I can gurantee their litigation costs that they have figured in don't even come close to covering Denver's bill.  It appears as if Madison at least may have the support of the mayor as well.

The idea of repealing the city's breen ban is certainly great news. It is way past time the city drops its draconian, and ineffective policy that is doing little besides wasting animal control resources killing people's pets for no reason other than what those dogs look like.

However, the way the current proposal looks, it isn't much better. While it would allow people the possibility to own pit bulls in the city, the current working proposal still has very tight restrictions on 'pit bulls' including:

1) Mandatory purchase of an annual $50 pit bull permit

2) Mandatory passing of the AKC's Canine Good Citizen Test or American Temperament Test Society's Temperament Test

3) $100,000 Liability Insurance Policy

4) Mandatory Spay/Neuter

5) Mandatory Microchipping

6) Mandatory Home Inspection

7) Limit of no more than two pit bulls

8) Mandatory Obedience or Responsible Dog Ownership Class

9) Adequate Fencing (which is pretty vague)

10) No one under the age of 21 allowed to own or walk the dog off the owner's property

11) Mandatory background check for criminal record.

Yikes.

On January 1 of this year, the city of Omaha, NE began enforcing their ordinance that is somewhat similar to this proposal. In the first four months of this year, Omaha saw an 81% increase in dog bites.  See, the problem in Omaha is that the ordinance forced all of the people who were good, responsible dog owners in the first place, to jump through a series of hoops and expenses in order for them to be able to keep their dogs. However, these people were not a problem in the first place. So instead of spending time on the owners whose dogs WERE problems, they spent time and resources on dogs and dog owners that weren't.

That doesn't makes sense.  And is essentially the failure of all breed-specific legislation.

The dogs are not the problem. The owners are. Most of the major dog and dog bite problems come from a small percentage of irresponsible dog owners.  And laws should be designed to focus on these problem owners and these owners only. By focusing laws on dogs that aren't problems and have never shown signs of problems, we dilute animal control resources by having them spend time on non-problem dogs and dog owners.  Which makes the laws ineffective.

Congrats to Denver for at least taking the first step of admitting that their breed ban has been a failure and an extremely expensive use of taxpayer dollars. However, I really hope they really reach out and listen to listen to the expert groups in their community to come up with a less stringent proposal that really focuses the limited resources where they need to be focused...and not on good dog owners who should be left alone.

For more information:

Past KC Dog Blog articles about Denver

National Canine Research Council Overview of Denver.

Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs (Co)  Dog Bite Study Key Findings in Colorado Dog Bite Study

 

Comments

[Janiece]

This is such great news for Denver! I live in Whitehall, Ohio and we have been fighting really hard to prevent something like this happening in our town. We have 2 council members who are trying to pass a breed specific ban. This article will help me spread the word. Thanks!!

[EmilyS]

another tiny little crack? With enough of them, this wall will fall!

(though of course as you note, the actual contents of this proposal are absurd; hardly better than the existing law ... except that it doesn't mandate that all pit bulls DIE)

[Nichole]

I'm not sure how changing their law will net them any savings. Who is going to enforce all of those other things?

[Brent Toellner]

Nichole, I agree with you. This won't be easier for them to enforce. But I think they think they can avoid the lawsuit by allowing pit bulls in the city -- which would save them a ton of money to not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending their ban in court every year.

And yes Emily, the walls are cracking everywhere. It is becoming harder and harder to defend even for the most staunch supports. 20 years later, and people still don't have a success story to point to and more and more cities are seeing the problems of the ordinance and repealing it.

[selwyn marock]

If you beleive any thing that Doug Kelley says
then you also must beleive in the tooth fairy,the expression "Hunting with the hounds
and running with the hares"fits him like a glove.
I am now totally convinced that BSL has very little to do with the dogs but rather with failing politicos who are not achieving on real issues.What I find very noticeable is wherever BSL becomes a major issue very little is done
if anything re the dog-fighting rings.It is just too easy to go after family pets,for the politicos,animal-control,police and judges also very much safer.
Solution start voting politicians out of power,select the ones who are pro-BSL and
publicly canvass against them,most politicians have only 2 interests power and
raiding the proverbial cookie jar.
smarock10@yahoo.com

[selwyn marock]

Is it election year in Denver?????This could be why Madison has suddenly discovered she
is a dog-lover,just too many "MAYBE's"in that article,even the Mayor who normally hides under his desk and leaves everything to that lying Doug Kelley has made an inference "he may consider it"Notwithstanding that Denver
has the highest incident of dog-bites in Colorada(categorically proved) they still are not willing to admit after MURDERING more than 2000 dogs,mostly family pets their BSL is a total failure.
Vote the whole bunch out of power at the next election.
Roverlution is doing a great job in Denver.

[MichelleD]

This will be more expensive to enforce...what I think they're doing is proposing this bullshit so it can be chipped away so something "reasonable".

How much failure and death do people need before they realize BSL is a COMPLETE and UTTER FAILURE?

Good question on the election...I'm betting yes. That and the city's reputation may very well be suffering - would like to see the tourism dollars coming in.

[esbee]

"He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls"

does this mean there are still pit bulls in denver? then the ban has not worked
and do not all dogs have teeth? If the ban is to also stop dog fighting, that will not work either... when all big dogs are banned those people will use chihuahuas as fighting dogs. It is the person not the breed that is the problem.