|
Certified Professional Trainer (614) 987-7495 |
![]() |
|
|
|---|---|
| « Dog Park Myths | Mandatory Spay and Neuter » |
Pit Bulls and House Bill 79
The local news ran a story last night about a new Bill introduced in the House by Representative Sears. You can read the proposed Bill here. The legislation, if successful, would simply remove Pit Bulls and other like breeds by name from the Ohio Revised Code. In short, dogs in Ohio would then be judged on merit rather than profiling.
The story on WBNS last night interviewed a prosecutor (forget which county) who was complaining passage of this legislation would make his job harder. He stated he would not be able to prosecute cases involving Pit Bulls 'until after they attacked'. I'm sure this will be a common rallying point for opponents to this Bill, but that's also the focal point of this whole issue. Is it right to presume guilt based on breed? For me this isn't a case of abusing rights as much of ignorance. Lawmakers should not presume certain breeds are inherently dangerous, so this Bill is one worth support. You can find more information on how to do that here.
And for anyone who's worried this will make prosecutor's jobs harder - well, perhaps a more definitive solution involves testing and screening as discussed previously, or through increasing penalties for those abusing dogs for protection or sport.
I've always stated this is a more complicated issue than many realize. However, the current simplistic approach in Ohio's legislation of naming specific breeds is one that will always fall short of any real solution.
2 comments
as a proud parent of a bull terrier, and shar pei owner... i would fight this to the teeth!!! funny, my "dangerous dog" has been trained as a theropy dog... it goes to nursing homes every week to visit residents... try to tell them my pitt is dangerous, they will laugh at you!
-joe
Perhaps part of the problem is that Ohio's dangerous dog laws don't give animal control officers the right tools to deal with abuse, neglect, and irresponsible ownership--except in the case of pit bulls. Being on a number of mailing lists, a few years ago I was appalled to see at least one ACO asking mailing list members how to get two non-pit bulls to be re-identified as pit bulls so that she could tackle owner irresponsibility. Apparently she had no way to address a dangerous situation in which non-pit bulls were involved. I have no doubt this is not an isolated incident. If I lived in Ohio, I don't think I'd feel particularly safe knowing that because the state is so obsessed about the supposed danger from pit bulls, it hasn't put in place any processes to protect its citizens from non-pit bulls.
Ohio needs to seriously rethink their weak and ineffective dangerous dog laws. Their BSL isn't helping them--it's making things worse by continually drawing attention away from the real problems they are having with dangerous dogs, and the real solutions that could address those problems. That's why dog wardens and police officers talk about the "ever-increasing" use and abuse of pit bulls by drug dealers and gang members--yet are unable to get a grip on the problem despite their precious BSL. Perhaps that's why they have no evidence to show that their BSL is producing results in terms of public safety--yet still cling desperately to the breed-specific law as if, twenty years after it was enacted, it just *might* show some results... some day... it could happen...
Thanks for covering this issue. HB 79 is a small step in the right direction for Ohio. I hope Ohio citizens will finally start asking the hard questions about what BSL has really done for them.






