According to Gallipolis City Code 505.14, “It is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull dog within the City.”
The ordinance then goes on to explain the ordinance recognizes pit bulls as any dog categorized as an American pit bull terrier, bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier. The ordinance also lists “any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding” with the previous dogs listed as also being banned from city limits.
Burgett assumed privilege of the floor and addressed the commission in regards to owning two dogs that allegedly violate the ordinance.
“I’d like to talk about an ordinance I didn’t know was in effect until last night,” Burgett said to the crowd. “I was wondering if I could suggest that the section D that limits pit bulls in the city limits be removed. There is nothing wrong with a vicious or dangerous dog ordinance itself, but singling out a single breed is just a bad way to do things. It gives the entire breed a bad reputation and goes with the stereotype that they are a dangerous dog when they’ve been removed on state levels on the ‘dangerous’ dog list.”
 |
| Pictured are Randy Burgett's "pit bull" breed dogs, save his dog Scar in the background. The one on the left is named Princess and the dog on the right is named Dozer. The pit bull was removed from Ohio's vicious dog list in 2012. Community bans were not affected in the law's passing, however. |
Steven Wallis, city commission president, thanked Burgett for addressing the commission and said the city would consider Burgett’s request.
“It was about 1:30 or 2 in the afternoon (Monday). My fiancèe saw someone walking in our yard. I didn’t know who it was, so I got up and went to the door. It was an officer. My dogs greeted him,” Burgett said. “(The officer) said, ‘Man, I hate to do this, but I got a report that there is a pit bull living in this house and right there it is.’”
Burgett was unaware of the ban in Gallipolis. He said that he and his fiancèe regard their dogs like their “kids.”
“I’m trying to remain a law-abiding citizen,” Burgett said. “I want to make sure that people get the point that one breed should not be singled out. It’s the same as discrimination.”
Burgess received a notice that said he has seven days to remove his dogs from city limits to avoid prosecution. According to the notice, “failure to comply with this notice will subject you to criminal charges under this ordinance and your dog being impounded. A conviction could subject you to a maximum of $1,000 fine and six months in jail and other penalties.”
Burgess said a conviction could potentially challenge his ability to continue his employment as a truck driver and possibly risk losing his operating license.
Gallipolis Police Chief Clint Patterson said the department would continue to enforce ordinances as written in the city code as the commission deliberates the current pit bull legislation.
“I think an animal has a lot to do (with its behavior) with the way they are raised. I think any animal can be trained to be vicious or a mild-mannered dog,” said Gallipolis city manager Gene Green. He said there was potential he would approach the the issue at the next city commission meeting.
Gallipolis’ pit bull ban ordinance has often been regarded as an answer to a pit bull attack in January 2009.
A 13-year-old girl entered a home of friends when the owners were not present. The girl suffered bites to her arm. The city enacted the ordinance shortly thereafter.
The American Veterinary Medical Association has said there are problems tracking breeds in dog bite-related fatalities. A 2013 study said that of 256 fatalities in the United States during the 2000s, the association was only able to determine that valid breed identification had happened in nearly 17 percent of recorded incidents.
(My Daily Tribune - Sept 3, 2015)
Earlier:
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.