What do you think about the ban on pit bulls in Prince George's ...

Washington, DC -- One Prince George's County councilman is proposing the council lift the county's pit bull ban, which he calls ineffective and expensive.

The ban was imposed in 1996 after a series of pit bull attacks and complaints about dog fighting and wandering dogs.

Councilman Thomas R. Hendershot said, "Public policy should make sense. It shouldn't be overly expensive, and it ought to be fair. The pit bull ban is none of the above."

The county captures and boards about 1,000 pit bulls annually. It euthanizes about 800. That has cost about $600,000 over the past two years, according to a recent audit.

Hendershot's bill defines a "potentially dangerous dog" as one that injures, aggressively provokes or chases a person or domestic animal or is impounded by the county at least twice in a year. He plans to introduce the bill as soon as this week.

A task force commissioned to review the ban recommended the repeal, suggesting the law be replaced with one that does not specify a breed.

Some of the most dangerous dogs aren't impounded because the focus has been on pit bulls and many pit bulls that are picked up are "nice dogs," according to County Animal Control Director and task force member Rodney C. Taylor.

"We found that we were grouping good dogs with bad dogs and penalizing good pet owners," Taylor said. "The task force didn't see that as being the right answer."

Hendershot compares the ban to crimes against humanity.

"If you did the same thing to human beings, it would be a grotesque violation of human rights, and indeed it would be called genocide," he said.

Equating the ban to racial profiling or the civil rights movement is a stretch, said Councilman David Harrington.

"People are trying to make a comparison that is just not there," he said.

Harrington said he will probably vote against repealing the ban, but the idea that the law "blames the dog instead of focusing on the owners," has resonated with him.

Amending, not repealing, the ban may be the way to go, said Council Chairman Samuel H. Dean. He said owners could be offered a chance to save their dogs through some form of mitigation, such as muzzling.

Bans have been tried elsewhere in hopes of controlling pit bulls. Miami and Denver have pit bull bans and California is considering statewide legislation to allow cities and counties to enact breed-specific legislation, which is illegal under state law.

But a ban was lifted five years ago in Cincinnati because it was affecting pit bulls that were not considered dangerous.

http://www.nbc4.com/news/5019570/detail.html