facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up

Sorry, no featured jobs currently.

- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Bill revisits pit bull issue



Published: Sat, January 12, 2008 @ 12:00 a.m.

The lawmaker says pit bulls are no more vicious than any other breed.

VINDICATOR STAFF REPORT

COLUMBUS — A lawmaker from southwestern Ohio hopes to remove pit bulls from the state’s definition of vicious dogs.

Rep. Shawn Webster, a Republican from Hamilton and a longtime veterinarian, told members of the House Infrastructure, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs Committee this week the Ohio Revised Code change is needed because pit bulls are no more inherently vicious than any other breed.

Singling them out in state law, he said, likely is part of the reason the dogs have become so popular among “the criminal element of society — the gang bangers, the drug dealers. That’s their breed of choice. … What has resulted is a proliferation of pit bulls.”

According to an analysis compiled by the state’s Legislative Service Commission, current state law places requirements and prohibitions on the ownership of vicious dogs.

The definition for the latter includes “a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog” — the only specific breed mentioned.

Webster’s House Bill 366 would remove the pit bull section of that definition and allow local governments to adopt ordinances that more broadly define dangerous or vicious dogs.

Webster told committee members that he has worked as a veterinarian for 34 years and is owner of a small animal practice.

He said he frequently (about once a week) treats pit bulls that are family pets. None of the scars he carries from animal bites were inflicted by the breed.

“I can tell you that you’re going to hear all kinds of horror stories about pit bulls,” he said. “… But I’ve got to tell you that I don’t think any breed of dogs is inherently vicious.”

He added, “I think it’s ridiculous to throw a net across Ohio and punish people who have dogs who are really good family pets. … They are no different than any other breed as a family pet.”

In Youngstown, among the requirements for having a legal pit bull is liability insurance of at least $100,000, a state requirement. City officials said there is an escalating problem in Youngstown involving pit bulls, including dogfighting contests and attacks toward people and other pets.

Most of the pit bull terrier legislation approved in September by Youngstown council mirrors state laws on the breed, such as keeping the dogs securely confined, carrying liability insurance and registering each dog with the county dog warden. The city law requires pit bulls to be on a leash no longer than 4 feet but the state allows the breed on leashes no longer than 6 feet.

There has been debate on who will enforce the ban, Youngstown police or the county dog warden’s office.

Ohio cities with pit bull bans include Girard, Lakewood and Warrensville Heights.

Girard has had a ban on pit bull ownership and ownership of any other “vicious” dog for more than a decade. Once the dogs’ owners are notified of the city’s ban, they can either deny that the animal is a pit bull, forcing the city to have a veterinarian determine the dogs’ breed. Or, they can object to the city’s ban and be summoned into court.

U.S. cities with pit bull bans include Denver; Council Bluff, Iowa; and Delta, Utah. There are also county bans in Miami-Dade, Fla., and Prince George’s County, Md.

In August, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a Toledo ordinance restricting one pit bull per one household was constitutional.

mkovac@dixcom.com


Comments

1Dynadobe(2 comments)posted 6 years, 8 months ago

Rep. Webster is SO right on this issue! The mythical powers of the 'pit bull' has been spread by media. Those who want to get a dog to make it mean and dangerous will naturally gravitate to them and make them so. The 'pit bull' is actually a category of dog breeds, as 'retriever', 'spaniel', and 'setters' are also categories. They can include a widely varying number of separate breeds, or anything that even resembles these breeds (including dogs that have no pit bull inthem but resemble them). The number of bites, when a 'category' is used, is naturally higher than compared to any one breed. The statistics are meaningless. The designation as vicious dogs is totally unwarranted, as evidenced by the enormous number of these dogs in the United States that are stable, friendly, family dogs. If these dogs were vicious, there would be hundreds of deadly attacks reported per day. It just isn't so. I am all for making owners responsible for the actions of their dogs. Dogs don't know laws, they only know what they are or are not permitted to do, via trainingm owner control, and setting of rules and boundaries. It is time to stop making a set of responsible dog owners into criminals, and putting heavy financial burdens and restrictions on them. It is time to require all dog owners to be responsible, regardless of the breed.

Suggest removal:

2babyblueeyes69me(1 comment)posted 6 years, 8 months ago

I think that people need to learn the truth about pit bulls and how they can be in true nature. The only way a pit bull would be and can be mean is if the owner traines it to be mean and to attack anyone or any animal. I'm an owner of a pit bull that came from a home that would beat him badly and he doesnt and i do mean doesnt have a mean bone in his body. He love anyone and every animal that comes to our house. People need to read books about pit bulls before they want to judge them.

Suggest removal:

3tba46(4 comments)posted 6 years, 8 months ago

Shawn Webster represents FOR PROFIT BREEDERS. The money lobby. People who make money breeding and selling pit bulls. Yes, that includes dog fighters.

This is a big money business, and these lobbies have fastened on to Shawn Webster to do their bidding and represent their interests.

It doesn't matter if he is a "veterinarian" or not. Meaningless. Veterinarians also work for puppy mills and dog fighters. It doesn't mean they have any special insight.

But he at least should admit what constituency he represents.

These are not people who care about public safety OR the dogs. These are people who care about the MONEY.

Suggest removal:

4Myra(1 comment)posted 6 years, 8 months ago

to tba46
More babble, accusations, and drivel that has been the bane of the Pit bull - that is: people saying things undaunted by the fact that it is not true, nor can they in any way, shape or form prove what they are saying.
And here is another perfect example: Do you really believe that Shawn Webster's intention is to get rich by changing the designation of Pit bulls? Well, in your small mind maybe this is true, but there is a BIG difference between the thoughts crawling around in your brain and what is reality.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport