Despite pit bull ban, Aurora cuts some dog owners a break

Denver,CO -- The city of Aurora has been playing favorites with some pit bull owners and letting them keep their dogs, while most other pit bulls have been banished from the city or destroyed, according to a 9Wants to Know investigation.


"You can't pick and choose and play God of who gets their dog back and who doesn't," said former Aurora Animal Control Officer Mikal Rains. "It isn't fair that some dogs are returned and other dogs are euthanized."

Rains resigned after being an Aurora Animal Control Officer for two years because he says the shelter ignored his complaints that all pit bull owners weren't being treated the same under the city ordinance.

"Everyone should have the same chance, it should be straight across the board," said Rains.

The city has wide discretion in the ordinance in determining what happens with a vicious dog. However, the pit bull ban offers no exceptions. It says if an owner of a restricted breed of dog violates the law, (most of the dogs covered by the restricted breed ban are pit bulls) the dogs, usually pit bulls, must be moved out of the city or euthanized. The owner also faces a mandatory $700 fine. The ordinance was passed by the Aurora City Council in 2005 and took effect Jan. 31, 2006. (Click to read the ordinance.)

"We enforce the way the law is written, and the ordinance is written very strictly. Those are the only two options allowed to the judge," said Cheryl Conway, public relations specialist for the Aurora Animal Care Division. "The law is pretty black and white."

Under the ban, 1,042 pit bulls have been euthanized or banned from Aurora in the last two years.

However, some pit bulls were saved after the city quietly intervened in their cases.

Christopher Becker got both of his pit bulls returned to him in 2006 even though Becker had not posted required warning signs, had not built a big enough fence and his pit bull, Bo, escaped. Bo crawled into the neighbor's yard and terrorized Monica Thompson who was babysitting her 2-year-old nephew.

"I felt that he was going to attack the child," said Thompson. "I was afraid. It was not my dog and it was a pit bull."

Thompson called Rains, who then impounded Becker's two pit bulls. After Becker pleaded his case in court, Judge Shaun Day in Aurora City Court returned the pit bulls to him.

"I was stunned," said Rains. "I had a lead supervisor standing with me and he was stunned too. That's not supposed to happen."

Becker doesn't like the law, but was glad he got a second chance for his pit bulls.

"In this case, I got my dog back. The city of Aurora was very good about it. They were very fair about it," said Becker.

In another case, the shelter went around a legal ruling to return a pit bull to an owner. This month, Judge Day banned Donovan Gray's pit bull, Lady, from the city. Gray had been caught walking her without a muzzle and leash. Gray was angry after he was ordered to move his dog out of the city.

"They said their arms are tied, your dog has to go," said Gray.

Days later, Aurora Animal Shelter Manager Pam Alford held an administrative hearing and returned Lady to Gray. In her e-mail to Deputy City Attorney George Zierk about the decision, Alford wrote: "I authorized them to return their dog home today. I feel we were able to reach an understanding with Mr. Gray." (Click here to read the e-mail.)

Two days after that, Judge Day reversed his sentence. The new order reads: "By stipulation, order to remove dog from Aurora - vacated. Dog may be returned to owner." (Click here to read the reversal decision.)

Judge Day and the Chief Judge of Aurora Municipal Court, Judge Richard Weinberg, refused to comment about the cases. Zierk also chose not to comment for this the story.

Gray's attorney said he was pleased with the reversal.

"I don't know why they made an exception," said attorney James Morrato. "Maybe somebody looked at all the facts and said we ought to revisit this thing."

The city and shelter would not say how many times exceptions have been made for pit bull owners or why some owners got breaks and others did not. However, the director of Neighborhood Services, Nancy Sheffield, which oversees the animal shelter, said exceptions are made all the time.

"We absolutely make exceptions. We use discretion all the time when we are dealing with people," said Sheffield. "We are hired to make judgments and enforce city programs and city codes."

Sheffield believes the current ordinance gives the shelter and animal control officers discretion.

"I will have to refer back to the law to see that there should be no discretion applied. If not, that's news to me," she said.

City Councilman Ryan Frazier, who voted against the pit bull ban, says it sounds like there are inconsistencies in how the law is being handed out.

"That's something that deserves our attention and we need to ensure that we are consistent in our approach to the ordinance," said Frazier.

The sponsor of the ordinance, City Councilman Bob FitzGerald, says the law is clear-cut and there should be no exceptions for anyone if they broke the law. He says discretion should only be used if it's a minor infraction. FitzGerald plans to talk to the animal shelter to find out why owners have been allowed to keep their pit bulls after breaking the ordinance.

Cheryl Ismert wishes she had been given a break after her 5-month-old pit bull, Capone, got out of her backyard. Ismert pleaded her case, explaining she had just moved to Aurora from California where pit bulls were legal, but the city would not budge.

"They don't give you a chance at all. I mean, I could have argued 'till hell freezes over," said Ismert. "That puppy got put down for nothing."

Misty Allen and Corey Moorhead shipped their pit bull, Sassy, off to California to live with Moorhead's mother after Sassy was banned from the city. Now, Allen and Moorhead are planning to move out of Aurora so they can be with their pit bull.

"I feel like I got robbed," said Moorhead. "I feel like someone came in my house, took my dog and robbed me of one of my daughters."

Moorhead believes they should have been given an exception too.

"It's mind-boggling to think someone else gets to keep their dog and I don't," said Moorhead. "It's not fair. It's not right."

Since the pit bull ban took effect, pit bull bites have increased, not decreased. In 2006, there were eight bites from restricted breed dogs. In 2007, the dogs included in the ban bit people 15 times. However, Cheryl Conway, public relations specialist for the Aurora Animal Care Division, says that does not mean the ban is not working.

"Dog bites are cyclical and it's hard to determine at any one point in time when they'll be up or down. Sometimes it's the summer heat, kids running and dogs wanting to chase them," said Conway.

Other cities, including Denver, Commerce City and Castle Rock also have ordinances that ban pit bulls.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=90577

 

I get so damn tired of reading shit like this. People really need to get a f***ing clue. They need to ban Cocker Spaniels if they're going to ban APBT's. They bite more people anually than any breed.

 

Same tired of reading this crap!