ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide. Founded in 1992, ANIMAL PEOPLE has no alignment or affiliation with any other entity.

 

This site built and maintained by: GREANVILLE ASSOCIATESand CRESCENT COMMUNICATIONS •Rev. 12.1.05 Copyright ANIMAL PEOPLE, INC. 1992--2006

 

 

 

 

 
   

 
powered by FreeFind

ESSENTIAL DESTINATIONS

MONTH: September 2007

Ohio Supreme Court upholds Toledo pit bull limit

 

TOLEDO--The Ohio Supreme Court on August 1, 2007 upheld the right of Ohio cities to regulate possession of pit bull terriers.

The court unanimously reversed an appellate ruling that overturned a Toledo ordinance limiting pit bull possession to one per house and setting conditions on how pit bulls may be confined.

The court also upheld a state law that defines pit bulls as a "vicious dog," a definition which has the effect of enabling dog wardens to respond to potential threats from pit bills before they actually bite someone. Dogs have historically not been legally defined as vicious until they inflict an unprovoked bite, but the "one free bite" standard has become increasingly unrealistic as breeds of dog whose first bite can kill or maim have proliferated.

Wrote Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, "Evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the danger posed by this breed of domestic dog."

"Three years ago," recounted John Seewer of Associated Press, "the Ohio Supreme Court essentially struck down a state law that said a vicious dog is one that kills or injures people. But it did not address whether pit bulls were automatically considered vicious. Paul Tellings, formerly of Toledo, challenged the city's pit bull law after he was convicted of owning three pit bulls. One dog was confiscated and destroyed."

Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp concurred with Moyer.

"Justice Maureen O'Connor concurred in judgment only," wrote Seewer, "and entered a separate opinion expressing her disapproval of the provision of state law classifying all pit bulls as 'vicious dogs.' She wrote that data cited by the trial court regarding pit bull attacks did not reflect inherent violent characteristics of the breed, but rather arose from deliberate efforts by some owners, including drug dealers, to increase a dog's aggression and lethalness through abuse or aberrant training."

The Ohio Supreme Court ruling camed six weeks after a Washington state appellate court in Tacoma upheld the assault conviction of Robbie Hoeldt of Vancouver, Washington. Hoeldt claimed he was innocent because a dog is not a weapon. Hoeldt's dog attacked a Vancouver police detective who was attempting to arrest Hoeldt at his home. The police officer shot the dog dead.