The breed-specific anti-pet ordinance was driven by residents upset by the fact that new neighbors who own “pitbulls” moved into the area. The dogs have not bitten anyone, however, neighbors are not happy and petitioned the town to pass a ban.  Mashpee residents will vote on the ordinance on October, 19th at a live townhall meeting.  A copy of the proposed ordinance is below:

Article 17

Proposed Pit Bull Regulation

Town of Mashpee

Section 1. Purpose

Dogs known as “pit bulls” have generally-exhibited traits such as (i) powerful instincts for
dominance which naturally result in a proclivity for fighting; (ii) a strong prey drive, which
inspires a natural chase instinct that often results in their aggressive pursuit of cats, rabbits, other
dogs, and human children; (iii) a stubbornness that results in sustained, unyielding
aggressiveness once an attack begins; (iv) powerful jaws capable of crushing bones and hanging
on to victims even while the animal withstands infliction of injury or pain; and (v) a combination
of stamina, agility, strength, and “gameness” (the will to successfully complete a task). Judicial
and legislative bodies have reacted by noting that the classification of pit bulls as dangerous
animals has a rational basis in fact and that adopting controlling measures in order to reduce the
likelihood of human injury bears a rational relationship to the governmental objectives of
preserving public health, public safety, and public welfare. The Town of Mashpee believes it is
necessary to regulate, subject to certain exceptions with certain restrictions, pit bulls in order to
fulfill its primary mandate to protect human health, safety, and welfare within the Town.

Section 2. Definitions

PIT BULL – Any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrie, American Staffordshire Terrie,
Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog of mixed breed displaying the majority of the physical
traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing
characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel
Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds, such characteristics being identifiable
as an element of its breeding by a licensed veterinarian, by the animal control officer, or by any
other qualified person, or any dog registered or licensed as a pit bull. Specifically excepted from
this definition is any dog with proof by American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club papers or
by a written certification or written notice from a veterinarian licensed in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts that the dog does not contain in its lineage any American Pit Bull terrier,
American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire Bull Terrier. As per an animal DNA lineage test

TOWN – The Town of Mashpee

OWNER – Any person who owns, possesses, keeps, exercises control over, maintains, harbors,
transports, or sells a pit bull:

KEEPER – Any person who possesses, keeps, exercise control
over, maintains, harbors, transports, or sells a pit bull whether or not that person is an owner;

HOUSEHOLD – All persons residing in one dwelling unit in the Town of Mashpee whether
such persons are related by blood or by marriage or are unrelated.

ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER – The Animal Control Officer of the Town of Mashpee

MUZZLE – A restraining appliance made of metal, plastic, leather, cloth or a combination of
these materials that, when fitted and fastened over a pit bull’s snout/mouth/head, prevents the pit
bull from biting but allows room for the pit bull to breather/pant;

SECURE TEMPORARY ENCLOSURE – A secure enclosure used for purposes of transporting
a pit bull and which includes a top and bottom permanently attached to the sides except for a
securable door used for the ingress and egress of a pit bull. Such enclosure must be of such
material, and such door closed and secured in such a manner, that the pit bull cannot exit the
enclosure without human assistance.

HEARING OFFICER – The Town of Mashpee Board of Selectmen or the Town board or Town
official designated by the Town Board of Selectmen to conduct hearings required by this by-law.

Section 3. Pit Bulls Prohibited

It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, house,
harbor, transport, or sell within the Town any pit bull, subject only to the exceptions set forth in
sub-paragraphs (b)-(g), below.

The owner or keeper of a pit bull that is registered and licensed with the Town Clerk as of the
date of enactment of this by-law may apply for a pit bull license in accordance with the
requirements of section 4, below, such license to be the subject of annual renewal. Any owner or
keeper who has applied for and received a pit bull license in accordance with this sub-paragraph
and who maintains the pit bull at all times in compliance with the pit bull license requirements of
section 4, below, and all other applicable requirements of this Section…may keep a pit bull
within the Town.

Any person who is not covered by sub-paragraph (b), above, shall be entitled to apply for one
annual pit bull license in accordance with the requirements of section 4, below. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, no household in the Town shall be occupied at any one time by more than one
owner or keeper of a pit bull licensed under this sub-paragraph (c) and in accordance with this
Section

The Town Kennel may temporarily harbor and transport any pit bull for purposes of enforcing
the provisions of this Section

Any humane society operating an animal shelter which is registered and licensed by the Town
may temporarily hold any pit bull that it has received or otherwise recovered, but only for so
long as it takes to contact the Town Kennel and either turn the pit bull over to the Town Kennel
employees or to receive permission to destroy or to have destroyed the pit bull pursuant to the
provisions of sections 5 and 6, below, if applicable.

A person may temporarily transport into and hold in the Town a pit bull for the sole purpose of
showing such pit bull in a place of public exhibition, contest, or show sponsored by a dog club
association or similar organization, provided that the sponsor have received written permission
from the Town’s Board of Selectmen, have obtained all other permits or licenses required by bylaw,
and furnishes protective measures adequate to prevent pit bulls from escaping or injuring
members of the public. The person who transports and holds a pit bull for showing shall at all
times while the pit bull is being transported within the Town keep the pit bull confined in a
secure temporary enclosure.

Failure by the owner to keeper to comply or remain in compliance with all of the terms of an
applicable exception set forth above shall subject the pit bull to immediate impoundment and/or
disposal pursuant to section 5 and 6, below, and shall operate to prevent the owner or keeper
from asserting such exception as a defense in any proceeding under sections 5, 6 and 7, below.

Section 4. Pit Bull License Requirements

The owner or keeper of any pit bull who is allowed to apply for an annual pit bull license under
section 3(b) or section 3(c) above, shall at the time of application for the annual pit bull license
comply with or otherwise provide sufficient evidence that the owner or keeper is in compliance
with all of the following regulations:

The owner or keeper of the pit bull shall keep current the license for such pit bull through annual
renewal. Such license is not transferable and shall be renewable only by the holder of the
license. A pit bull license tag must be obtained by the owner or keeper at the time of issuance of
the license. Such license tag shall be attached to the pit bull by means of a collar or harness and
shall not be attached to any pit bull other than the pit bull for which the license was issued. If the
pit bull tag is lost or destroyed, a duplicate tag may be issued upon the payment of a twenty
dollar ($20) fee;

(a) The owner or keeper must be at last 21 years of age;

(b) The license application form to be completed by the owner or keeper and presented to the
Town Clerk shall require (i) the complete legal name of the pit bull’s owner and/or
keeper and presentation of a positive form of government-issued picture identification
(no photocopies) for the owner and/or keeper, and the Animal Control Officer shall make
a copy of such identification and attach it to the application; (ii) the complete residential
address of the pit bull’s owner and/or keeper; (iii) the complete address where the pit bull
will be primarily housed/sheltered; (iv) the telephone number of the pit bull’s owner or
keeper; (v) the complete details of the pit bull’s physical identification, including but not
limited to breed, sex, weight, color, markings, and any other distinguishing physical
characteristics, all provided by the owner and/or keeper; (vi) a photograph of the pit bull
that is not more than thirty (30) calendar days old; and (vii) the complete details of the pit
bull’s documented identification, including but not limited to the pit bull’s registration
and/or license number as issued by the Town and true and accurate copies of the pit bull’s
rabies vaccination and a copy of the pit bull’s health record as prepared by a veterinarian
which shall not be dated more than thirty (30) calendar days from the application for
registration of the pit bull under this sub-section;

(c) The owner or keeper shall present to the Town Clerk proof that the owner or keeper has
procured liability insurance in the amount of a 1 million/2 million policy, covering any
damage or injury which may be caused by a pit bull during the twelve-month period
covered by the pit bull license. The policy shall contain a provision requiring the
insurance company to provide written notice to the Town Clerk not less than fifteen (15)
days prior to any termination of the policy and not less than five (5) days subsequent to
cancellation or expiration of the policy;

(d) The owner or keeper, at the owner’s or keeper’s own expense, shall have had the pit bull
spayed or neutered and shall present to the Town Clerk in connection with the license
application documentary proof from a licensed veterinarian that this sterilization has been
performed. This requirement shall be waived upon a written statement from a licensed
veterinarian that the procedure should not or cannot be performed for reasons of the
health or age of the animal.

(e) Upon the owner’s or keeper’s successful application, the Animal Control Officer shall
provide to the successful owner or keeper registering a pit bull (i) a pit bull license tag;
(ii) a complete copy of the application for registration and license as submitted by the
owner or keeper; (iii) a written summary of all methods for contacting the Animal
Control Officer, including but not limited to the Animal Control Officer’s telephone
number during business hours, the Animal Control Officer’s telephone number during
non-business hours, the telephone number of the Town Police Department, and the 24-
hour helpline or hotline for the Town; and (iv) a legible copy of this Section
(f) The license tag issued by the Animal Control Officer pursuant to this section shall be
attached to the pit bull by means of a collar or harness and shall not be attached to any pit
bull other than the pit bull for which the license tag was issued. If the pit bull license tag
is lost or destroyed, a duplicate may be issued by the Animal Control Officer upon the
owner or keeper’s application and payment of a fee in the amount of twenty-five dollars
($25.00);

(g) The Animal Control Officer and the Town Clerk shall each maintain a file containing the
license numbers, pit bull tag numbers, and the names and addresses of the owner or
keepers. The owner or keeper shall notify the Animal Control Officer and the Town
Clerk in writing of any change of address;

(h) At all times when a pit bull is at the property of the owner or keeper, the owner or keeper
shall keep the pit bull confined, either in a secure temporary enclosure or within the
premises of the owner or keeper or within a fenced enclosure from which the dog cannot
escape. At all times when a pit bull is away from the property of the owner or keeper, the
owner or keeper shall keep the pit bull either securely leashed and muzzled or in a secure
temporary enclosure;

(k) The owner or keeper shall not sell or otherwise transfer the pit bull to any person resident
in the Town except a member of the owner’s or keeper’s immediate family who will then
become the owner or keeper and will be subject to all of the provisions of this section
The owner or keeper shall notify the Town Clerk within five days in the event that the pit
bull is lost, stolen, dies, or has a litter. In the event of a litter, the owner or keeper (i)
must deliver the puppies to the Town Kennel for destruction or (ii) shall permanently
remove the puppies from the Town and provide sufficient evidence of such removal by
the time the puppies are weaned. In no event shall the owner or keeper be allowed to
keep in the Town a pit bull puppy born after the date of enactment of this Section that is
more than eight weeks old. Any pit bull puppies kept contrary to the provisions of this
subsection are subject to immediate impoundment and disposal pursuant to this Section

(l) The owner or keeper shall have posted at each possible entrance to the owner’s or
keeper’s property where the pit bull is kept a conspicuous and clearly legible sign. Such
sign must be at least eight and one-half (8 ½) inches by eleven (11) inches in rectangular
dimensions and shall contain only the words “WARNING – PIT BULL DOG” in
lettering which is not less than two inches in height and which is in sharp contract with
the background of the sign.

Section 5. Impoundment

(a) Any pit bull found by the Animal Control Officer or any member of the Town Police
Department to be on the loose, at-large, or unconfined, or which has been observed by the
Animal Control Officer or any member of the Police Department to have mauled, bitten,
attacked, threatened, or in any way menaced another animal or human shall be presumed
to be in violation of this by-law and shall be subject to immediate impoundment;

(b) The Animal Control Officer is authorized to immediately impound any Pit Bull which is
in violation of this by-law and which does not fall within the exceptions listed therein.
The Animal Control Officer is authorized to house and/or dispose of any impounded Pit
Bull at his/her sole professional discretion.

Section 6. Impoundment Procedure and Enforcement

(a) The Animal Control Officer is empowered to make whatever inquiry or investigation is
deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this by-law. The Animal
Control Officer is empowered to seize and impound any pit bull found to be in violation
of this by-law or any pit bull for which the owner or keeper has failed to comply with the
provisions of this Section

(b) The Animal Control Officer shall not release a pit bull from impoundment unless the
owner or keeper (i) provides proof of registration and license satisfactory to the Animal
Control Officer, (ii) provides adequate proof that any violations of this by-law have been
corrected in a manner satisfactory to the Animal Control Officer, (iii) remits payment to
the Animal Control Officer of all fines issued pursuant to violations under this by-law;
and (iv) remits payment to the Animal Control Officer for the costs associated with the
impounding of the pit bull and the term of impoundment of the pit bull;

(c) The Animal Control Officer and the Town Police Department shall each have the
authority and shall cooperate with each other to the greatest extent possible to enforce the
provisions of this by-law. The Town Police Department shall notify the Animal Control
Officer of any location or address at which a pit bull is observed;

(d) A pit bull found in violation of this by-law shall be subject to immediate impoundment;

(e) Any violation of this Section shall be subject to a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for
the first offense, and a fine of one hundred dollars ($100) for each additional offense. In
addition, upon any violation of this Section the owner’s or keeper’s pit bull shall be
subject to impoundment. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate and
distinct violation.

Section 7. Appeal Procedure

(a) The owner or keeper of a dog that has been impounded pursuant to this by-law or that has
been the subject of a citation for a violation under this by-law may dispute the
classification of such a dog as a pit bull or whether the provisions of this by-law for
enforcement have been complied with by filing a written petition with the Animal
Control Officer for a hearing concerning such classification no later than seven (7)
calendar days after the date of impoundment or citation. A petition shall include, but not
be limited to, (i) the complete legal name and social security number of the pit bull’s
owner and/or keeper; (ii) the complete residential address of the pit bull’s owner and/or
keeper; (iii) the complete address where the pit bull is primarily housed/sheltered; (iv) the
telephone number of the pit bull’s owner and/or keeper; (v) the complete details of the pit
bull’s documented identification, including but not limited to the pit bull’s registration
and/or license number as issued by the Town; and (vi) a summary of the facts that the
petitioner wishes to introduce for consideration in support of the petitioner’s appeal. The
written petition shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

(b) The hearing will be held before the hearing officer. Any facts which the petitioner
wishes to be considered shall be submitted under oath or affirmation, either in writing or
orally at the hearing. The hearing officer shall make a final determination of the
petitioner’s appeal. Such final determination shall be considered a final action by a
municipal board. If the dog is found to be a pit bull and the impoundment or the citation
is in compliance with this by-law, the pit bull shall be destroyed unless the owner or
keeper produces evidence deemed sufficient by the hearing officer that the pit bull is to
be removed permanently from the Town and the owner or keeper pays the cost of
impoundment. If the dog is found not to be a pit bull or the impoundment or citation is
determined by the hearing officer not to have complied with this by-law, the dog shall be
released to the owner or keeper with no impoundment fee imposed unless the dog was
impounded as a result of the provisions of Section

Submitted by Petition

The Board of Selectmen does not recommend approval by a vote of 4-0, one absent.
The Finance Committee does not recommend approval by a vote of 5-0, one abstained, one
absent.

The breed-specific anti-pet ordinance was crafted by Mark. D. Clark  and Susan Riggs, acting City Attorneys,of the law firm Spilman Thomas & Battle at the request of Mayor Mullens.  A copy of the proposed ordinance is below:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 505 OF  THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH CHARLESTON REGARDING DANGEROUS DOGS IN THE CITY LIMITS.

WHEREAS, the City of South Charleston has determined that dangerous dogs, including, but not limited to Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Presa Canaries, pose a threat to the well-being of persons and property of citizens of South Charleston and the keeping of dangerous dogs within the city limits must be regulated in order to manage and minimize harm to the inhabitants of and visitors to the City of South Charleston; and

WHEREAS, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Presa Canaries, as breeds of dog, have certain characteristics that have been selectively bred into or are otherwise commonly found, and these characteristics may be intensified by improper treatment and/or training; these generally~exhibited traits included, but are not limited to, (i) powerful instincts for dominance which naturally result in a proclivity for fighting; (ii) a strong prey drive, which inspires a natural chase instinct that often results in their aggressive pursuit of cats, other dogs, and humans; (iii) a stubbormiess that results in sustained, unyielding aggressiveness once an attack begins; (iv)powerful jaws capable of crushing bones and hanging on to victims even while the animal
withstands infiiction of injury or pain; and (v) a combination of stamina, agility, and strength; and

WHEREAS, the combination and evolution of these characteristics in Pit Bulls,
Rottweilers and Presa Canaries, and other dogs deemed dangerous by this section, and the exhibition of these characteristics and encounters injurious to humans and other mammals have served to evidence their dangerousness; judicial and legislative bodies have reacted by noting that the classification of Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Presa Canaries as Dangerous Dogs has a rational basis in fact and that adopting controlling measures in order to reduce the likelihood of injury to persons and their pets bears a rational relationship to the governmental objective of preserving public health, public safety, and public welfare; and

WHEREAS, the mere presence of Dangerous Dogs poses a significant threat to the health, welfare, and safety of the inhabitants of and visitors to the City of South Charleston; and

July 13, 2009

Mr. Brent Howard
President, Whitehall City Council
360 S. Yearling Rd
Whitehall, OH 43213
RE: “PIT BULL” BAN – OPPOSED

Dear President Howard and Respected Members of the Whitehall City Council:
The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over a Whitehall breed ban ordinance.

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has devoted significant time and resources in educating the public on dog bite prevention and safety around dogs. Our highly specialized knowledge and expertise in dogs is derived from literally hundreds of years of collective canine experience in matters of training, behavior and sound temperaments.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to any breed-specific ordinance, AKA Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance and to any other bill creating breed specific legislation for “pit bull dogs” or any other breed or “type” of dog.

As outlined in detail below, as such legislation is dangerous and irresponsible. In addition, breed-specific ordinances – AKA a Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance:

 Criminalizes dog ownership
 Deprives dog-owing citizens of Due Process
 Creates a proxy for warrantless searches and seizures
 Set the stage for mass extermination of innocent dogs and in the end
 Fail to protect the public health and safety

The Duty To Protect The Public Health & Safety

Protecting the public health and safety – especially that of innocent children and the elderly – is and always has been the top priority of The American Rottweiler Club, a priority which the Great State of Whitehall, Ohio no doubt shares and which may be the very reason A Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance may have been intended.

Recent news reports about dog bite incidents in Whitehall, Ohio have heightened awareness about the dangers of loose running or uncontrolled dogs, an issue responsible for the vast majority of dog bites in the U.S.

However, we feel it our duty to advise the Whitehall City Council that breed specific legislation is a failed policy in the prevention of dog bites or fatalities, and that the enactment of a Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance will not only fail to protect the public but may actually increase the risk of dog bites or fatalities.

Breed specific policies pose a danger to public health.

The American Rottweiler Club bases its position on official information from The Centers For Disease Control (CDC), the country’s highest authority on matters of public health and safety.

As you are aware, the CDC is the federal agency charged with overseeing the public and safety for the United States, and as such is the official governmental repository for dog bite data, which is collected from public health offices on an annual basis.

In terms of a WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, we must advise the Whitehall City Council that the Centers For Disease Control, as well as the American Veterinary Medical Association, both strongly oppose breed specific legislation and have stated their respective official positions for the public record.

According to the CDC, the vast majority of 800,000 dog bites that occur annually in the United States are minor in nature. Fewer than 24 fatalities occur each year due to dog attacks, and are extremely rare events, according to the CDC, is .000578 rated next to human and dog populations in the U.S.

Dog bite incidents are highly preventable through basic dog bite prevention education of children, parents and elderly populations, as unsupervised children and the elderly are often victims of loose, roaming dogs, or because they fail to recognize when a dog feels threatened or is ill, or aggressive canine behavior and respond appropriately.

The American Rottweiler Club works with communities across the nation to educate the public and policy makers about simple measures that yield large results, such as strict enforcement of local leash laws, educating parents about the importance of never leaving children unsupervised around dogs, and community dog bite prevention education.

Correcting The Myth – CDC Dog Bite Facts

With regard to A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, the presumption of the bills’ author is that “Pit Bulls” are inherently dangerous animals. This is a myth that must be corrected.

We therefore advise the Whitehall City Council that the CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association conducted an extensive study of dog bites and fatalities in the United States, covering a period of over 20 years of data.

Published in the Journal of American Veterinary Medicine, the study concluded that no one single breed of dog is inherently dangerous, (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf), and that other breeds or types of dogs may bite at a higher rate.

In addition, it was found that other factors – especially owner behavior – were more predictive than breed. The CDC thus concluded that the breed of dog was not relevant in tracking or preventing dog bites and fatalities.

The CDC study also concluded that breed bans and other laws aimed at specific breeds or types of dogs are not effective in the prevention of dog bites or attacks; and such laws actually places the public at greater risk of harm due to a false sense of security these laws create.

Upon completion of the study, the CDC and the AVMA issued a joint report entitled A Community Approach To Dog Bite Prevention, which outlines in detail sound public health policy in the prevention of dog bites and fatalities and strongly advises local governments against the enactment of breed specific laws and measures, warning of the dangers of breed specific legislation.

For your reference and convenience, we have attached a copy of A Community Approach To Dog Bite Prevention as well as a warning letter from the American Veterinary Medical Association regarding any misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the data.

We strongly recommend that the Whitehall City Council act to protect the public by following the public safety guidelines set forth by the Centers For Disease Control.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Criminalizing Dog Ownership

A primary flaw of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is criminalization of the ownership of dogs and the attempt to regulate “pit bulls”.

We advise you that no such breed of dog exists, and a “Pit Bull” is not recognized by any registry anywhere in the world.

It should be known that the term “Pit Bull” is a slang term coined by the media and inappropriately applied to describe a collection of dogs that “look” a certain way.

In recent years, the term “Pit Bull” has been used indiscriminately used by the media to sensationalize and inflame news stories concerning dog bites or attacks, which are relatively rare occurrences in contrast to human and canine populations.

The misuse of this slang term, “pit bull”, has led to widespread issues with breed identification or rather breed “misidentification – so much so that the Centers For Disease Control, the country’s top dog bite experts, stopped collecting dog bite data by breed in 2004.

We must point out that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE carries a provision that defines a “vicious” animal as:

“Any animal, whether wild or domestic, which by virtue of its species, physical attributes, temperament and other characteristics presents a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons.”

This discriminatory language and its intent are in direct contradiction to the findings of the Centers For Disease Control, and automatically makes criminals of dog owners simply for owning the “wrong breed” of dog.

Interference With Lawful Activities

By criminalizing dog owners, the State Of Whitehall, Ohio, will, under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, unnecessarily interfere with the normal and lawful activities of all dog owners, dog clubs and dog registries that organize and participate in lawful, sanctioned dog events and other legal activities.

 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize dog shows & dog sports and other canine activities
 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize the breeding of dogs
 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize the sale or transfer of dogs
 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize the transportation of dogs

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Breed Identification Issues

It is of the very greatest concern that the language of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is so broad and so extremely vague that if enacted, would encompass more than 30 breeds of dogs – literally a multitude of breeds and mixed breed dogs would be incorrectly deemed “illegal” as “Pit Bulls”.

The language below could be used to inappropriately, subjectively and arbitrarily indentify dogs as the mythical “Pit Bull”:

“Any animal, whether wild or domestic, which by virtue of its species, physical attributes, temperament and other characteristics presents a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons.”

The danger in this language is that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE could be interpreted to include almost any mixed breed dog or any dog of unknown parentage.

Again – there is no such breed as a “Pit Bull”.

Next, it seems A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE leaves breed identification of dogs solely to county or local officials, or shelter workers, none of whom have the training, skill or depth of experience to appropriately identify specific breeds of dogs against a set breed standards, let alone a non-existent breed termed “pit bull”.

In practice, the identification of purebred dogs, matching a dog against breed standards, takes years of training and education in order to appropriately identify breeds within the context.

The identification of mixed breed dogs, or shelter dogs whose background or parentage is not known, is not based in any science whatsoever.

As the Esteemed Members of the City Council would no doubt agree, merely “guessing” at a dog’s breed or parentage by such non-experts as local officials, animal control officers or shelter workers is certainly not the basis upon which to predicate a decision that may cost an owner his or her beloved dog or worse, a cost a dog its life.

Enforcement: Difficult, Expensive & Ineffective

Numerous communities across the country have considered breed specific legislation and made the determination that such laws are ineffective, expensive and difficult to enforce.

Breed specific laws such as A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE can add significant costs to local municipal budgets; dramatically escalate the number of hours police or animal control work, and all without of reducing dog bite incidents, vicious dog complaints or achieving the objective of enhanced public safety.

Cities opting out of breed specific legislation have instead chosen to enforce or strengthen existing laws and address the issue of dangerous dogs following the guidelines set forth by both the CDC and the AVMA.

Increased Surrenders, Overburdened Shelters & Out-Of-Control Budgets

Shelters in cities where breed specific laws have been enacted have seen a sharp spike in owner surrenders, which in turn increases sheltering costs and euthanasia of formerly-owned dogs.

This is directly due to the fact that many dog owners become fearful of new, breed-specific laws, and find it difficult, expensive to comply or cannot afford to move out of town or out of state with their dogs.

The impact of breed specific laws is the swelling of already overburdened shelter populations, budgets that quickly spiral out of control, and the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.

Instead of functioning life-saving stations, local shelters will become death camps for innocent dogs.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Liability Issues

The City of Whitehall must made aware of, and bear the serious liability it will incur under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, for allowing such non-experts as law enforcement personnel or shelter workers to act in any capacity which would result in the unnecessary deaths of innocent animals.

In doing so, the City of Whitehall, Ohio will facilitate the arbitrary seizure, impoundment and destruction of private personal property – thereby depriving a citizen the right to Due Process – all on the basis on a dog’s “looks” and not any behavior.

We respectfully ask you to consider just what qualifications do local police or animal control or peace officers, or shelter workers possess as “breed identification experts”, with the power to seize and kill?

Just as questionable is the use of technologies such as DNA testing to establish canine breed identity, which is not just cost-prohibitive ($65 – $200 per test), but unreliable, as the DNA test accuracy may be as low as 23%.

These low and/or unstable levels of the accuracy of canine DNA identity tests then may leave the door open to significant liability for the municipality, county and the state.

As previously stated, the “pit bull” is a breed which does not exist and is not therefore recognized by any dog registry anywhere in the world.

Therefore, we ask the Esteemed Members of the City Council to consider what personnel at the local or state level will be responsible for identifying dogs as “Pit Bulls”?

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, left to the subjective interpretation of breed identification of local animal control or police, or humane societies will criminalize ordinary dogs and make criminals of dog owners and send innocent dogs to their deaths.

It is the position of the ARC that that the liability incurred under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is an unintended consequence of significant magnitude.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of “targeted breeds” guilty and without recourse.

Under the rules of our judiciary, it is unimaginable to think that local or state government would create a reverse onus – thus shifting the burden of proof from the state to the accused.

Our response is to respectfully remind the City Council Members that our judicial system operates upon the presumption that all citizens in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse.

It is frightening to think that in Whitehall, Ohio the average dog owner will be deemed a criminal by any local authority which will apply a highly subjective interpretation of the term “Pit Bull” and lacks any expertise in canine identification.

Since:

A) “Pit Bulls’ are not a breed of dog, and

B) there is no rational basis in science or law to “prove” any dog is “not a Pit Bull”, and

C) there are no genetic tests that exist to prove or disprove with any accuracy that a dog is “not a Pit Bull”, dog owners and the lives of innocent dogs will be at the complete mercy of local officials, and their respective, if not prejudicial opinions.

Furthermore, it is unclear if there exists a hearing or an appeals process by which may defend themselves against charges.

Under this bill, after a dog owner has had his or her dog seized by local law enforcement, and the loss of presumption of innocence automatically makes dog owners guilty.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE then violates every principle of democracy and mocks our judicial process.

Dog owners are then are subject to the forfeiture of their property – their dog – prior to any hearing or disposition of the “criminal charge”, and then the final insult is to suffer the euthanization – the deliberate killing of their beloved pet by the State of Whitehall, Ohio.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE contains the proxy for warrantless searches and seizures, seriously compromises the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled under the guise of animal protection.

Civil liberties groups and criminal defense attorneys should be alerted to the fact that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is a smokescreen to lower the threshold of evidence needed to support the issuance of search warrants.

We respectfully ask the Committee Members just what constitutes “probable cause” – just a law enforcement officer’s word that a pet is a “Pit Bull or “vicious”?

Lowering Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrant would be highly questionable since:

A) the basis for “probable cause” is nothing more than the subjective and arbitrary opinion of breed identification of alleged “Pit Bull” breed by local animal control or police with no legal or rational basis

B) is done so in the context of reverse onus clause, thereby eliminating the presumption of innocence.

In contemplating the enforcement of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, there exists any number of situations that would be the basis for bypassing Due Process.

For example:

SENARIO A: Warrantless Search of Premises

The mere possession of a “Pit Bull or vicious dog” constitutes a criminal act OR the word of a law enforcement office that an animal is in need of food or water allows access to the premises.

EX: A police officer drives by a home and sees a dog in the yard. The officer (subjectively) identifies the dog as a “Pit Bull”, the presence of which is “illegal”. The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now may access the premises and bypasses the need for a search warrant.

SCENARIO B: Warrantless Searches – Traffic Stops

Driving with a “Pit Bull” dog in a car constitutes a criminal act in that possession of a “Pit Bull” is an illegal act and transporting a “Pit Bull” is an illegal act.

EX: A police officer on highway patrol or traffic duty sees a car with a dog inside. The officer has no probable cause for a traffic stop (speeding, seat belt or other violations).The officer (subjectively) identifies the dog as a “Pit Bull”, the presence of which is “illegal”.

The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now has “cause” for a traffic stop.

Establishment Of Unequal Protection

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE also sets the stage for Unequal Protection, in that owners of “targeted breeds” or mixed breed dogs that “display the physical traits of any one or more of those breeds”, are held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, which is then subjectively and/or arbitrarily applied.

Does the City of Whitehall, Ohio seek to criminalize the ownership, possession, transfer, transport or sale of Golden Retrievers or Labradoodles as well?

The provisions of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE are completely without merit, as the State of Whitehall, Ohio has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE begs the question, “Are owners of a certain type of dog entitled to any fewer Constitutional protections than owners of Golden Retrievers or Labradoodles”?

Selective Enforcement & Racial Bias

We urge you to reconsider and reject this ordinance, since it is already quite clear that should A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE become law, it could only be enforced selectively and subjectively.

Under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, almost any medium or large dog from more than 30 different purebred dog breeds and almost any medium or large mixed breed dog could be subjectively identified by local officials as an illegal “pit bull dog”.

However, there is an even greater risk in A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE as it relates to Unequal Protection, which is where race or ethnicity comes into the equation, and may hold the potential for the abuse of our justice system.

There is a pervasive myth, perpetuated throughout the media, that the majority of dog owners of alleged “pit bull dogs” are “gang members, criminals, and drug dealers”. This notion is completely unsubstantiated and without merit.

However, this viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in the minority community. It then becomes a question of which dog owners will be selectively targeted for enforcement and prosecution by local authorities and to what extent will law enforcement engage in racial profiling.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE leaves to the door open to abuse of powers by local law enforcement officials and creates a number of questions. For instance:

• Will minority or poor dog owners be targeted for enforcement over non-minority or middle class dog owners?
• Will owners of multiple dogs or breeders be targeted for enforcement? • Will A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause and create a proxy to bypass due process?Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE presents a multitude of civil rights issues and constitution challenges, including but not limited to unequal protection, violation of due process, removal of the presumption of innocence, selective enforcement, and the taking of private property.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or mixed breed dogs are thus arbitrarily and subjectively held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, for which the State of Whitehall, Ohio has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis.

And since dogs are considered private and valuable property, violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments are of concern, as outlined in the attached report by the Centers for Disease Control and the AVMA.

Expensive Legal Challenges

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, with its many issues and potential infringements of civil rights and constitutional protections, would place the State of Whitehall, Ohio, and the counties and municipalities in the state in a position of defending against what could be a multitude of lawsuits brought on behalf of dog-owning citizens.

The American Rottweiler Club respectfully points out that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is fraught with issues not only with regard to public safety, but issues that make A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE a potential minefield of expense, legal issues, unintended consequences and a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing a breed of dog which does not exist, and the erosion by proxy laws of the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of public safety or animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that a Whitehall Breed Ban/Pit Bull Ban Ordinance would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect public health & safety
• Allow dogs to be arbitrarily seized and killed
• Create a proxy for warrant search & seizure under the guise of animal protection
• Deprive citizens of Due Process
• Violate 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments
• Incur liability for local, county and state governments
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

The American Rottweiler Club urges the City of Whitehall, Ohio and the Esteemed Members o the City Council to act appropriately and responsibly to protect the public safety of its citizens by adopting and enforcing strong breed-neutral laws as recommended by the American Kennel Club, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Centers For Disease Control.

It is our further recommendation that the City of Whitehall, Ohio focus efforts on dog bite prevention and public education efforts, as well as the effective enforcement of existing animal cruelty and animal control laws, with an emphasis on loose running dogs.

We urge the Committee Members to reject A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE in its entirety, and not allow this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well- intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, rip families apart from their beloved pets, deprive people of their civil rights and create untold heartbreak for the dog-owning citizens of the City of Whitehall, Ohio.

Very truly yours,

Jeff Shaver
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
jshaver522@yahoo.com
web site) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

ADDENDUM

EXHIBIT A: Centers For Disease Control Special Report: Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998,
JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000

EXHIBIT B: A Community Approach To Dog Bite Prevention, American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

EXHIBIT C: American Veterinary Medical Association Letter Regarding Misuse Of Data To Support Breed Specific Legislation

http://www.snponline.com/articles/2009/07/08/multiple_papers/news/allwhvicio_20090708_1240pm_3.txt

By KEVIN CORVO

Published: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 5:36 PM EDT

An ordinance banning all pit bulls and other dogs deemed vicious in Whitehall received a first reading at the Tuesday, July 7 meeting of Whitehall City Council.

Another ordinance creating an animal control and code enforcement officer also received a first reading.

Councilwoman Jackie Thompson is the sponsor of the former; Mayor John Wolfe and Councilman Bob Bailey are the sponsors of the latter.

Thompson’s initial effort to ban pit bulls was defeated last year 5-2, after which council members voted 6-1 to adopt an ordinance Bailey crafted that placed stricter regulations on the harboring of vicious dogs.

Both new ordinances are scheduled for a second reading at the July 21 council meeting.

Although there was no formal discussion and both ordinances were read only by title, several residents and council members weighed in about canines during respective polling periods.

Patty Manning said residents should be permitted to have more than three dogs if they can demonstrate the ability to properly care for the additional dogs.

Residents are currently limited to three dogs, and city officials have began enforcing the regulation, requiring some residents, like Manning, to get rid of one or more dogs.

Penny Russell told council members her son, while delivering newspapers June 18, was bitten by a dog. Russell said, after great difficulty, the family learned the dog, a German shepherd and collie mix, was licensed and current on shots.

Russell said the experience demonstrated a need to limit the number of dogs a person can own, as some people cannot properly manage even one dog.

Manning concurred that some people cannot take care of any number of dogs, but those who can should not be automatically prevented from doing so.

During council polling, Thompson campaigned for her renewed effort to ban pit bulls.

“We have invited the pit bulls to our city,” Thompson. “We have invited them and now we are suffering the consequences.”

Current legislation is not working for pit bulls, and the miniscule number of pit bulls properly licensed and perhaps not a public threat do not match up against the safety of the city’s 17,000 residents, Thompson said.

“You can’t control these dogs,” she said.

Russell questioned a provision in Thompson’s ordinance that defines a “vicious” animal as, “Any animal, whether wild or domestic, which by virtue of its species, physical attributes, temperament and other characteristics presents a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons.”

Russell called the provision “too broad a power for government.”

“You could use the size or anything to say a dog is vicious,” Russell said.

Thompson also questioned the selection process of members of the city’s vicious dog appeals board and criticized the inclusion of HELP FIDO, a nonprofit organization supporting canine care, in a Whitehall service directory.

HELP FIDO opposed Thompson’s pit bull ban last year, and, according to Thompson, continues to lobby against her effort, considered breed-specific legislation, on its Web site.

Bailey used his council polling to posit that the ordinance he proposed and council adopted last year is working.

“What we have is a mechanism that needs to get on the ground and running,” said Bailey, adding the addition of the animal control and code enforcement officer will “further enhance” the city’s ability to control vicious animal situations.

Bailey said the vicious dog appeals board should determine whether a dog is vicious.

“We can’t penalize (the owners) who are responsible,” Bailey said.

Mr. Neal Williams
Village of Rantoul Mayor
333 South Tanner
Rantoul, IL 61866

Dear Village of Rantoul Mayor Williams,

The American Rottweiler Club (ARC) is the American Kennel Club Parent Club of the Rottweiler in the United States with 1000 members, many of whom live in Illinois.  As the Parent Club, ARC promotes conformation, obedience, rally, agility, herding, carting, therapy, search and rescue, tracking, etc.

We support and encourage efforts to improve public perception of the Rottweiler through proper training, socialization, and participation in programs such as therapy dog work, school education, and other activities that demonstrate positive Rottweiler traits, as well as through publicizing good deeds performed by Rottweilers.

Rottweilers searched the remains of the Twin Towers in New York City and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  Rottweilers are doing classes in responsible dog ownership in elementary schools.  Rottweilers live as members of families.

All the while responsible owners work diligently to protect and preserve the right to own this wonderful companion breed by working to promote laws that are non-breed specific.

The American Rottweiler Club Board and Membership is opposed to the proposed breed specific ban as well as responsible owner limitations per home.

Strategies that can be used in an effort to prevent dog bites include enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws, with an emphasis on chronically irresponsible owners; enforcement of animal control ordinances such as leash laws; prohibition of dog fighting; and school-based and adult education programs that teach pet selection, pet care and responsible ownership.

Please contact me and the American Rottweiler Club Board with any questions that you might have concerning the Rottweiler.  We will be happy to respond in any way to help you.

Sincerely,
Gwen Chaney
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.

email:  GAChaney2@aol.com
www.amrottclub.org