Officials in Aurora, CO are once again considering a repeal of the city's law targeting 'pit bull'- like dogs as the law continues to show how ineffective the laws can be.
According to news reports, since the law took effect in 2006, 1,158 dogs of targeted breeds have been systematically killed in the city of Aurora (population 330,000).
Meanwhile, the same media reports that the number of dog bites in the community has remained steady at about 200 per year.
So that makes the score for the breed-targeted law: Dead dogs 1,158, public safety - 0.
It's important to note here that Aurora passed the ban in January 2006. At the time, the city banned 10 different breeds of dogs that accounted for 15% of the total number of dog bites in the community in the previous 3 years.
After passing the ordinance, the number of bites actually increased by about 67% over the next 3 years. Like other communities like Omaha have done, some city officials and the media have used some fuzzy math to try to justify the law, but it doesn't change the reality that the the true result has been that the city has used taxpayer funds in expensive court battles, more than 1100 dogs have been killed, and public safety has not increased.
Due to all the complications, and the reality that the law was failing, in April 2011 the city of Aurora voted to repeal the ban on 7 of the 10 breeds -- but kept the ban on 3. Because that would fix it.
But it hasn't. The lawsuits continue. Dogs continue to die (43 more so far this year) and public safety remains unchanged.
it is one thing to make a mistake in judgment and pass a bad law in the first place. It is quite another to stare at the failure of the law and stubbonly hang onto the notion that is working is spite of the clear evidence that it is no.
Admit it was a failure, repeal it, and move on.
Hopefully the change in BSL laws will be in tandem with good "owner" laws as I suspect the "bad" owners are what got us here in the first place.
Posted by: Randy | November 22, 2013 at 01:04 PM
Agreed...and it was definitely irresponsible owners that caused us to get here....although, in Aurora's case, it was probably more of a fear of "bad owners' that caused the problem...
Posted by: Brent | November 22, 2013 at 01:09 PM
Well said. We agree that it had, and still does have, more to do with the fear of the "types" of owners than the dogs. That and a collective knee jerk reaction of areas surrounding Denver as they hoped to keep "those people" with "those dogs" out of their own communities. What people often don't know is since 2011, dogs with less than 50% pit bull have been allowed in the city limits. Yet we don't see a sudden influx of pit bull mix attacks. It's a funny thing those numbers.....
Posted by: Nancy Tranzow | November 22, 2013 at 09:53 PM
Nancy i agree i was commenting with this bsl advocate but the problem was he had no proof pits are more dangerous. just that bad people owned them and based his thing on that he had some good sites too.
Posted by: Dog hero | November 22, 2013 at 10:48 PM
We unfortunately hear this all to often in many areas of Colorado. I've always insisted that it has much more to do with the 'isms in our communities than the dogs. They are simply a lightening rod for social issues and stereotypes that scare people.
Posted by: Nancy Tranzow | November 25, 2013 at 05:10 PM
Well knowledge's greatest enemy is ignorance. If they cannot understand then we have to make sure they do not spread their ignorance to others like the disease it is.
Posted by: Dog hero | November 25, 2013 at 07:16 PM
they say since the ban, bites have increased. Could this be because of the ban? People know certain dogs are banned so will show fear or lash out causing the dog to protect itself or their owner. I know I have to very docile dogs but would defend me if I was threatened and they are not on the ban list.
They need to get their head out of their butt and get rid of the ban all over, not just in Aurora..which by the way was where my daughter was born 31 years ago. It was a nice town at one time.
Posted by: emma coutant | November 27, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Do you have any idea how much $ they spent enforcing the policy and slaughter innocent dogs?
Posted by: Lauren | December 01, 2013 at 09:44 AM
I have seen a number of 'bad dogs'. However, the problem was never associated with the breed: Much of the time, the problem was in fact the owner. Perhaps if the laws were to target bad owners, safety would increase.
Posted by: Teresa Kuhl | December 01, 2013 at 10:27 AM
I used to think that certain breeds were dangerous .but I have realised its mostly the bad owners there should b heavy sentances for owners found guilty of mistreating,or training their dogs to b violent for any reason its evident these people don't have a clue what they r doing & to just slaughter animals for their breed is outrageous.u should not b in your jobs or b paid for something u know nothing about,shame on u,over halve the idiots in power should b put down
Posted by: sandra quinn | December 02, 2013 at 12:54 AM
This law should be repealed . All breeds can be vicious, but it depends on how the dogs were raised. A breed shouldn't be singled out. Most of the pits in shelters are KILLED because of their breed, which is wrong.
Posted by: Arlene | December 02, 2013 at 06:56 AM
You know i think there should be more studies on pitbulls. I mean even though less than one percent of pitbulls it still seems that they want more no matter what information you give them
Posted by: Dog hero | December 02, 2013 at 06:58 PM