In the 15-year period of 2005 through 2019, canines killed 521 Americans. Pit bulls contributed to 66% (346) of these deaths. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers contributed to 76% of the total recorded deaths. | More »
Content-Length: 68633 | pFad | https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs.php
Learn about the most common types of restricted breed laws adopted by cities to regulate dangerous dog breeds, including: breed bans, prima facie legal designations and spaying and neutering laws.
Prince George's County adopted a pit bull prohibition ordinance in 1996. Each attempt to overturn it since has failed. The most recent legal attempt failed in March 2024 after a Memorandum Opinion was issued by the U.S. District Court of Maryland.1 The most recent publicity stunt attempt failed in October 2019, after DC-based Humane World for Animals,2 Humane Rescue Alliance and Utah-based Best Friends Animal Society orchestrated an unsuccessful attempt to overturn the county's ordinance.3
For the reasons that follow, the amended complaint makes clear that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims in this putative class action, because they cannot show an injury-in-fact related to the County’s enforcement of the Pit Bull Ordinance ... And so, the Court: (1) GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to dismiss; (2) DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order ... (3) DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ motion to strike ECF No. 29 ... (4) DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment ... (5) DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ motion to intervene ... (6) DISMISSES the amended complaint.4 - Venero v. Prince George's County, Maryland, U.S. District Court Maryland, 2024
Shortly after the 2019 publicity stunt by animal groups,5 the county strengthened its definition of a "dangerous animal," increased requirements for the owners of dogs declared dangerous -- including potentially barring the owner from owning any animals for up to five years -- and assigned criminal charges to violations of the dangerous animal ordinance.6 The county's enduring pit bull restriction combined with the strengthened dangerous animal ordinance dovetail nicely for public safety.
Pit bulls are not only problematic in larger jurisdictions; they threaten mid-sized cities and small towns as well. Located in the heartland, Council Bluffs, Iowa has about 62,800 citizens. After a series of devastating attacks, which started in 2003, Council Bluffs decided to join over 900 U.S. cities by adopting a pit bull ordinance. The results of the Council Bluffs pit bull prohibition, which began January 1, 2005, show the positive effects this legislation can have on public safety in a few years time.7
The city's pit bull ordinance has also withstood two critical legal challenges. In 2021, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, granted summary judgment to the city on each of the dog owners' challenges to the constitutionality of the ordinance, whereby upholding the city's pit bull ban. The ruling was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reviewed the substantive due process and equal protection claims. In 2022, the appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling.
The equal protection analysis “is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” ... “[T]he Equal Protection Clause does not require that a State must choose between attacking every aspect of a problem or not attacking the problem at all.” ... “A rational basis that survives equal protection scrutiny also satisfies substantive due process analysis.” ... Because the dog owners failed to negate every conceivable basis for the Ordinance’s rationality, the Ordinance satisfies rational basis review and substantive due process analysis.8 - Danker v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, November 2022
Well-written restricted breed laws are consitutional. Some cities, such as Pawtucket, are forced to mute their ordinances due to state legislation. In 2013, Rhode Island legislators passed a preemption law that bars cities from enacting breed restrictions.9 During the years of Pawtucket's successful pit bull ban (2004 to 2013), there was an average of 2.3 pit bull bites annually. That increased over a 10-fold to 23.2 bites by 2019, just five years after state legislators removed this local control provision.10
Some cities adopt pit bull ordinances that prima facie designate the pit bull breed "potentially dangerous," which triggers special rules for pit bull owners. Little Rock requires these owners to obtain a potentially dangerous breed permit, a city license, and a window sticker on an annual basis and to provide proof the dog is sterilized and microchipped. Pit bull owners are also prohibited from using invisible fences, and households are limited to two potentially dangerous dog breeds per home.
Little Rock also prohibits the tethering of all dog breeds to a stationary object. The combination of the city's "potentially dangerous" designation for pit bulls and anti-tethering ordinance has led to excellent results. One year after the passage of the 2008 ordinance, Little Rock Animal Services Director Tracy Roark said that chained pit bulls are no longer seen along streets in center city Little Rock, and that "pit bull attacks have been cut in half." Roark credited the city's new ordinance for these results.11
Other cities adopt ordinances where pit bulls are prima facie designated "dangerous" or "vicious," which sets the bar higher than a "potentially dangerous" designation. Dodgeville, for instance, declares pit bulls "vicious" and requires the dogs to be muzzled when off property, and when penned outdoors, contained in a secure 6-sided structure that is locked. Owners must also carry $50,000 in liability insurance. Pit bulls are prohibited from being kept in multiple-family dwellings as well.
Other jurisdictions do not prima facie designate pit bulls "potentially dangerous" or "dangerous," but maintain similar requirements. The city of Omaha, Nebraska requires owners of dogs designated "dangerous animals, potentially dangerous animals and pit bulls" to carry $100,000 in liability insurance. All pit bull-type dogs (American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, American bulldog, presa canario and more) must be leashed and muzzled when off property in Omaha too.
A restricted breed law that began in San Francisco, mandatory pit bull spaying and neutering, has since been adopted around the country. Cities burdened with high pit bull biting incidents and shelter occupancy rates seek to combat both problems at once with this law. In January 2006, San Francisco enacted its ordinance. After 18 months of passing, pit bull impoundments declined by 21%; pit bull shelter occupancy rates fell from three-quarters to one-quarter and pit bull euthanasia dropped 24%.12
In 2010, it was reported that pit bull biting incidents had significantly decreased in the city as well. Sgt. Bill Herndon of the San Francisco Police Department's Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit said the numbers and severity of pit bull attacks are down since the ordinance was enacted. The same article reports that pit bull euthanasia dropped to 30%. Rebecca Katz, then the director of San Francisco Animal Care and Control, said, "We've seen it as very effective from an animal welfare perspective."13
In October 2015, Beaufort County Council adopted a similar pit bull sterilization ordinance in an effort to reduce the overpopulation of pit bulls hindering their shelters. One year before the ordinance was passed, 285 pit bulls were spay and neutered free of charge by the county shelter and the Hilton Head Humane Association. That number more than doubled to 691 in the 14 months after the ordinance regulations took effect, according to Tallulah Trice, the director of Beaufort County Animal Services.14
Studies indicate that pit bulls have the lowest prevalence of sterilization (27%) among all dog breeds and that 64% to 73% of dogs in the U.S. are sterilized.15,16
The ordinance, however, only applied to unincorporated Beaufort County. In 2016, the city of Beaufort, the county seat, followed by passing the same ordinance, requiring all pit bulls over 4-months old to be spayed or neutered. The town of Bluffton did as well, effectively covering most of the county under the mandatory pit bull sterilization ordinance.17 During the 2021-2022 South Carolina legislative session, a bill was introduced requiring a $25 fee to own an unsterilized pit bull. The bill did not succeed.18,19
In November 2020, voters in the city and county of Denver repealed their 30-year old pit bull ban and replaced it with a breed-restricted license. Under the new ordinance, the requirements for owning a pit bull include: registration, microchip identification and rabies vaccination -- basic steps that responsible dog owners already take. No mandatory pit bull spaying and neutering was included in the repeal ordinance. The breed-restricted license also limits the number of pit bulls per household to two.20,21
One year after rescinding the ban, pit bulls became the top-biting breed in Denver with 117 bites (17% of total, 117/695), nearly twice as many as the next top-biting breed, German shepherds, 61 bites. Prior to the ban being rescinded, our nonprofit examined three years of Denver dog bite data (2017-2019). Pit bulls inflicted 41 bites in 2017 (6% of total), 34 bites in 2018 (7% of total), and 38 bites in 2019 (7% of total). Thus, between 2020 and 2021, which includes a year before and after the ban was lifted, pit bull bites tripled in Denver. 22-25 - Combination of data from Axios.com and DogsBite.org (2017-2021)
Over the course of the ordinance's 30-year history, Denver's pit bull ban withstood numerous legal challenges in state and federal courts. On each occasion, the city and county of Denver prevailed. The litigious history of the law, and Denver's consistent victories, helped many jurisdictions across the country adopt a similar law. The language of the Denver pit bull ban remains the beacon that illustrates the legal viability of a restricted breed law and continues to be the model pit bull ban ordinance.
Other jurisdictions opt for generic dangerous dog laws instead of restricted breed laws. Such laws classify a dog dangerous after one or more attacks causing serious bodily injury. The key word here is "after," whereas restricted breed laws are designed to prevent first attacks by dog breeds with well-identified risks. Both types of laws are needed and combine well: (1) prevent first attacks by dangerous dog breeds and (2) classify any dog dangerous after a damaging attack and penalize its owner.
Texas, which has a generic dangerous dog law,26 also has a felony dog attack statute. Owners of loose dogs face 10 years in prison if an unprovoked attack results in serious bodily injury to a person and 20 years if the attack results in death. A conviction is unattainable unless the dog was unsecured and there is proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," the owner knew or should have known the dog was going to cause serious injury or death, or with criminal negligence, the owner failed to secure the dog.27,28
Fatal Pit Bull Attacks: An archive of U.S. fatal pit bull maulings from 1833 to December 2024, maintained by DogsBite.org.
DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks. Through our work, we hope to protect both people and pets from future attacks. | Make a donation today »
Copyright © 2007-2025 DogsBite.org | Published by Lynn Media Group
Page last modified: | Sitemap
Fetched URL: https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs.php
Alternative Proxies:
DogsBite