Aurora closing in on pit bull law

Denver, CO -- - Unlicensed pit bulls could be banned from this city before the end of the year under a proposal reviewed by the City Council on Monday.

Council members pored through almost every point of a proposed ordinance that hashes out a long list of restrictions intended to rein in the breed.

The council decided to move the proposal to a formal meeting within a few weeks, when it will vote on whether it should be adopted.

If it's adopted, the proposal would give breed owners a 60-day window to get their pets licensed with the city for $600 or risk having them taken away to face death.

"I think this is necessary for public safety and welfare," said Councilman Bob Fitzgerald, a member of the council subcommittee that proposed the ordinance. "It's necessary to do."

The proposal would require that pit bull owners be at least 21 and agree to get their pets neutered or spayed, securely keep them on their property and that a warning sign be placed near the front door.

Most of the council members believe there is a need for an ordinance in the city where there have been three pit bull attacks in the past seven weeks.

But all 10 council members and the mayor weighed in on the effectiveness of the restrictions, including whether they could be enforced or if some breed owners would keep their dogs in hiding.

Councilman Steve Hogan was the most vocal opponent of the proposal, saying that it doesn't differentiate between good and bad pet owners.

Instead, he said that it "throws everybody into one pot" and punishes people who are taking care of their animals by trying to slap them with restrictions.

He said he has a problem with setting an ordinance in place that would target one type of dog, asking, "If it's pit bulls today, what will it be tomorrow?"

Councilwoman Sue Sandstrom said that one of her main concerns with the proposal is that it would require pit bull owners to have at least $100,000 in liability insurance.

She said she contacted her personal homeowners' insurance agent and asked whether pit bulls could be covered by a policy without owners facing hurdles.

The answer, she said, was no.

Sandstrom was told that her insurance company would likely cancel policies of those people who tell them that they have a pit bull on their property.

Nancy Sheffield, the director of neighborhood services who presented to the proposal to council members, also spoke to several insurance companies.

Sheffield said she had a different response, with at least one of the nation's largest insurance companies telling her that there likely wouldn't be a problem.

Council members made several tweaks to the proposal, including asking staff to look for other fines and fees that could be established to offset the costs of ordinance enforcement.

As it stands, the ordinance would be funded largely through the licensing fees, which is $593 more than the amount charged to license other breeds.

It would also establish stiff court fines of $700 for those who violate the ordinance.

Maria Sanchez isn't willing to give in easily.

The 31-year-old Aurora resident owns a pit bull named Hershey that she and her family enter in dog shows.

The dog is a big part of her family, which usually plans trips around events where Hershey can be showcased.

"This is devastating," said Sanchez, who was one of nearly a dozen opponents of the proposal who attended the presentation.

She believes the ordinance discriminates against the breed and would set outrageously high fees in place. "I'm going to fight this to the end," she said. "It's not right."

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4112520,00.html

 

Oh yea $600 is going to make a dog less viscous.

 

I think if they do this, it will be unconstitutional for the owners of pitbulls for the following reasons:


1. cruel and unusual punishment-the other breeds of dogs are not banned for one and they don't have to pay the steep fine that it demands.

2. pitbulls have been considered only viscious if they show aggression to humans and/or other dogs. these are isolated animals people not the breed.

3. I think the ACLU would jump all over that and the city better make sure they collect all their property taxes due, cause they will be paying it out in damages and legal fees for civil rights violations.