Judge says Toledo’s ‘pit bull’ law flawed - Some aspects cited as unconstitutional
January 21, 2010
By JC REINDL, BLADE STAFF WRITER
A Toledo Municipal Court judge’s ruling yesterday found numerous aspects of the city’s “vicious dogs” law unconstitutional, countering a ban on owning more than one “pit bull” and excluding “pit bull” mixed breeds as inherently vicious.
The ruling by Judge Michael Goulding involved the case of a Toledo man, Hugh Smith, who was charged with 13 violations of the city’s dog laws in October.
That month, the Lucas County Dog Warden’s Office seized what it deemed to be three “pit bull” dogs from Mr. Smith’s home after one of them got into a fracas with another dog as Mr. Smith was taking his three for a walk.
The warden initially refused to give back Mr. Smith’s dogs and cited him for having unmuzzled, uninsured, and improperly confined “pit bulls” as well as two too many “pit bulls.”
The city’s vicious dogs ordinance restricts residents to owning only one “pit bull” and requires that owners keep the animal leashed and muzzled when it’s away from home. Under Ohio law, dogs of a breed “commonly known as a pit bull” are deemed inherently vicious.
Yet Mr. Smith’s attorneys claimed that his dogs were in fact cane corsos – not “pit bulls” – and argued that the city’s vicious dog ordinance was unconstitutional anyway.
Judge Goulding yesterday dismissed 10 of the charges against Mr. Smith, asserting that the city’s muzzle requirement and one-only limit for “pit bulls” are unconstitutional as they conflict with home-rule doctrine.
“While the state statute does not specifically permit ownership of more than one dog ‘commonly known as a pit bull,’ it does not specifically prohibit it either,” the judge wrote.
He added that the challenges in this case are different than those in the Tellings case in which the Ohio Supreme Court in 2007 upheld the city and state laws singling out “pit bulls” as inherently vicious.
Judge Goulding also wrote that a provision of the city law lumping “pit bull mixed breed” dogs with “pit bulls” is unconstitutional. That judgment could have wide implications in the county, as the dog warden’s office refuses to adopt out adult “pit bull” mixes as well as “pit bulls.”
Those dogs are then killed by lethal injection.
Mr. Smith’s attorneys, husband-wife duo Daniel and Kristi Haude of Cleveland, took the case pro bono.
Mrs. Haude praised Judge Goulding’s decision for striking down a law that “leaves the door open for dog wardens to arbitrarily classify any dog as a ‘pit bull.’•”
“The problem with [the law] is that innocent dog owners are faced with criminal charges, and their dogs are taken away before they have a chance to prove their dogs are not vicious or are not ‘pit bulls,’•” said Mrs. Haude, a co-founder with Lucas County resident Jean Keating of the Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates.
Adam Loukx, acting law director for the city, said yesterday that city prosecutors have yet to decide whether to appeal Judge Goulding’s decision.
“As is always the case when a judge strikes down an ordinance or part of the code, we’re disappointed,” Mr. Loukx said. “We’ll be reviewing his reasoning very closely to see if it was justified.”
More than 55 percent of the 1,951 dogs euthanized last year at the pound were called “pit bulls” or “pit bull” mixes. The city of Toledo has a contract with the county dog warden to enforce its local laws.
Councilman Joe McNamara said yesterday that the judge’s opinion “underscores the need for us to re-examine the city’s policies concerning the regulation of dangerous dogs.”
“I do think Judge Goulding was correct when he wrote that ‘a more uniform, practical, and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of irresponsible dog owners, would seem preferable to the status quo,’•” Mr. McNamara said.
Ms. Keating said the dog warden eventually released all three of Mr. Smith’s dogs. Mr. Smith took one home and boarded the other two with a friend as he waited for the judge to decide his case.
Lucas County is accepting job applications for a new dog warden to replace the long-serving and controversial Tom Skeldon, set to formally leave office Jan. 31. Mr. Skeldon announced his early retirement late last year after weeks of mounting criticism that he euthanized too many dogs, among other complaints.
On Tuesday, county commissioners voted to reverse a policy that previously prohibited unclaimed “pit bull” puppies from leaving the pound. Such puppies can now be transferred to the Toledo Area Humane Society for adoption.
***
LITTLE CANINE GETS A REPRIEVE
‘Pit bull’ pup freed from Lucas County Pound
‘This is a victory for the decent treatment of animals,’ says County Commissioner Ben Konop
Nikki Morey, executive director of Planned Pethood Inc., holds a ‘pit bull’ puppy that left the county pound with the help of the Toledo Area Humane Society. ( THE BLADE/DAVE ZAPOTOSKY )
By JC Reindl, Blade Staff Writer:
December 15, 2009: A puppy Monday escaped an almost certain death at the Lucas County Dog Warden’s Office and is now in the care of an animal rescue group after a rare transfer of a “pit bull”-type dog out of the county’s pound.
“I think this has set a precedent,” said Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop, who supports adoption of “pit bull” puppies to responsible dog owners. “There is no such thing as a vicious puppy. If this didn’t happen today, the dog would have been euthanized probably in a month or two, so this is a victory for the decent treatment of animals.”
The milk chocolate brown puppy, a female, arrived at the pound on Nov. 25 after Toledo police found her “confined in a nasty fecal-covered portable kennel” while serving a warrant at 721 Spring St. in North Toledo.
The puppy was placed in the pound’s isolation area because kennel workers believed she was sick and feared that she could be blind because her eyes were cloudy.
Under traditional circumstances, the puppy could have soon faced euthanasia under Dog Warden Tom Skeldon’s longstanding policy against adopting or transferring out any “pit bulls” from the pound. Mr. Skeldon is to leave office at year-end and retire Jan. 31.
But the puppy made it through yesterday — and into the care of Planned Pethood Inc. — thanks to the county’s recently adopted moratorium against puppy killing at the pound. County commissioners passed the moratorium Nov. 24, the day before the pup was picked up.
Once a “pit bull” dog reaches 3 months of age, there are no restrictions against Mr. Skeldon’s practice of killing all adult “pit bulls” regardless of behavior.
‘This is a victory for the decent treatment of animals,’ says County Commissioner Ben Konop.
A “pit bull” is a generic descriptive term for a dog trained to fight and may refer to multiple breeds, including the American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, and other mixed breeds that Mr. Skeldon can determine to be “pit bulls.” Ohio law considers “pit bulls” inherently vicious.
Nikki Morey, executive director of rescue group Planned Pethood, visited the pound yesterday to inquire about a litter of non-“pit bull” puppies that she said she heard were there.
All but one of those puppies had been adopted already, she said. Ms. Morey said she was browsing the pound’s isolation area for the unadopted pup, which was sick, when she noticed the brown “pit bull” mix puppy. The dog looked like it could be part weimaraner, she said.
At first, pound officials wouldn’t give Ms. Morey the dog. Not only does Mr. Skeldon forbid adopting out “pit bulls,” but he refuses to give any dogs to “all-breed” rescue groups aside from the Toledo Area Humane Society.
So Ms. Morey enlisted the help of Mr. Konop, who sent a staff member to the pound to help her get the dog. After a several-hour standoff, the dog warden’s office agreed to transfer the “pit bull” to John Dinon, the humane society’s executive director, who could then transfer the puppy to Ms. Morey.
While signing the dog transfer papers, Mr. Dinon said the occasion marked the first time in recent memory that the humane society received a “pit bull” from the dog warden.
The pup seemed to have largely recovered from its illness and regained much of its vision. Mr. Dinon carried her out in a dog carrier, which he set down in the parking lot beside Ms. Morey’s vehicle. Ms. Morey then loaded the dog into a cage in the back of her vehicle.
Ms. Morey said the puppy will live with a foster family while the organization looks to find a new, permanent home for her with a responsible owner.
***
Despite No Positive Results from Breed Specific Legislation, the Attempt to Repeal Ohio’s Breed-Specific Regulation Appears Doomed to Fail
In a story dated December 6, 2009, Jim Provance reports in the Toledo Blade that Title 9, Chapter 955.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, a triumph of hysterical ignorance over rational understanding unique among the enactments of America’s 50 state legislatures, will likely withstand the efforts of state Representative Barbara Sears (R-Sylvania) to amend it.
As readers of this site know, Section 955.11 defines a vicious dog, not only as one that has been involved in a serious incident, but as any dog “that belongs to a breed [sic] that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.” Keeping a dog identified as a pit bull is prima facie evidence that one is keeping a vicious dog. For an owner to keep any dog defined as vicious pursuant to 955.11, he or she must meet the requirements specified elsewhere in the code (Section 955.22) – as well as others that may have been heaped on by the city or county where the owner and dog reside.
Rep. Sears had introduced legislation this year that would have deleted the breed-specific provision. Provance reports that the Ohio House of Representative and Senate have been reluctant to tackle the issue.
The Ohio legislature included the “pit bull = vicious dog” language in the summer of 1987, into a bill that had originally been intended to accomplish other purposes. The decision to do so was taken shortly after an incident in which two dogs killed a 67-year-old Dayton area surgeon after he had forced his way into the home of a local prostitute, whose dogs they were.
In any event, the doctor’s death made headlines. The breed-specific provision was an 11th-hour addition by a Dayton senator, after a breed-neutral version had passed the House of Representatives. It’s still there, 22 years later.
Animal advocates from across the country have expressed their vehement opposition to the breed specific provision of 955.11. They base their opposition, of course, in the fact that there is no scientific evidence that one kind of a dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of a dog, so that owning a dog commonly known as a pit bull is, in fact, prima facie evidence of nothing of public consequence; and their appreciation that dogs cannot be characterized apart from human beings. They realize that breed specific regulations or designations are irrelevant to any concerns about safety around dogs.
If there were any connection between breed label and safety, soon-to-be-former Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, who early in his tenure condemned dogs identified as pit bulls as public enemy No. 1, and who has overseen the killing of thousands upon thousands of such dogs, surely would have found it by now. Yet, 22 years after Skeldon took office as dog warden, Lucas County’s rate of reported dog bites continues to be poorer than cities such as Minneapolis, New York and Philadelphia, all of which address issues of animal control from a breed-neutral perspective.
This imagined connection would have been demonstrated in Toledo, which is in Lucas County. However, Toledo saw reports of bites jump 20% in the year following the state enactment.
And the experience in Ohio with respect to fatal dog attacks would have been better since Section 955.11 was enacted than in comparably-sized, breed-neutral Pennsylvania. Which it is not– In fact, Ohio has suffered more fatal attacks with Section 955.11 than has Pennsylvania, without such a law.
And all American jurisdictions pale before the record of breed-neutral, service-oriented Calgary, Alberta, which records fewer than 150 dog bites in a year. In Calgary, if your dogs are licensed, well-cared for, and not a problem for other animals or people, how many dogs you have, or the breed label assigned to them, is not considered part of the public business.
Think of it. A city of more than 1 million people recording fewer than 150 dog bites in a year!
Notwithstanding the experience of America’s breed-neutral cities or the resounding success of Calgary’s service-based model for responsible pet ownership, based upon Provance’s report, we can expect that Ohio’s benighted animal control policies will drag on into the next decade, producing the same dismal results: more dogs killed and worse outcomes than the cities and counties that have understood the issue of companion dogs for what it is.
We’ll say it again. Dogs cannot be characterized apart from human beings.
Humane communities are safe communities.
***
Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon resigns!
November 19, 2009 — compiled from published reports
This morning, Commissioner Pete Gerken, President of the Board of County Commissioners, received a letter from Dog Warden Tom Skeldon announcing his retirement, effective January 31, 2010. Commissioner Gerken shared the letter with his colleagues Thursday morning.
According to Commissioner Gerken, Skeldon intends to take advantage of his accrued vacation time, making December 31, 2009 his last day in the office.
Commissioner Gerken will ask County Administration to appoint Bonnie Mitchell, current Dog Pound Manager, as the interim Dog Warden while a search takes place.
Skeldon’s agency killed 2,483 dogs in 2008 and more than 1,800 so far this year, killing 77 percent or 66 percent of all dogs that entered the pound last year, depending on how the number of animals reclaimed by their owners are counted.
The Toledo Blade prize-winning photo of Skeldon’s handiwork (1994)
Lucas County’s dog adoption rate in 2008 was 13 percent, much lower than in neighboring counties. Included in this year’s numbers were 78 puppies under 3 months of age killed by Mr. Skeldon.
Pressure had mounted in recent months for Skeldon to be replaced. The Toledo Blade published an editorial demanding Skeldon’s replacement. A growing number of elected officials have in recent weeks called for changes at the county pound that could bring about more adoptions and fewer euthanizations.
There have been candlelight vigils, calls for resignations, and reports that fewer dogs should be killed. The Toledo Blade reported that as many as 70 breeds of dogs were listed in Skeldon’s kill records. Animal-rights groups say Mr. Skeldon refuses to work with them and is focused on killing dogs.
“Innocent dogs, oftentimes puppies, are being killed in our dog warden’s office and they don’t have to be — that’s the essence of this,” said Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop. “This is another instance of what plagues politics here in Toledo — a resistance to change and a continuation of the status quo.”
“As the [advisory committee] report has indicated there’s room for improvement, and we need to put procedures and the policies in place to reduce the number of dogs that are euthanized,” said State Sen. Teresa Fedor (D., Toledo)
* * *
Otis, a Boxer dog tasered by Lakewood Police
Lakewood, Ohio police insist that a white Boxer is a pit bull —and then taser the dog for barking at them
NCRC Comment on Lakewood’s Treatment of a Boxer and how “pit bull policies” instill fear, intolerance and cruelty:
We are quite sure that Lakewood will, until the end of time, continue to insist that the white Boxer its police officer tasered was a pit bull. Whatever its genetics, Otis, according to all the video available and witness statements, posed no threat to anyone. But the belief that Otis was a pit bull provided a nervous policeman with an excuse to taser him. Then, as Otis lay writhing on the ground, and after saying out loud, “We have the animal secured,” the officer tasered him again. Otis, his legs failing him from the shock, was dragged on his back along the pavement and tossed into a waiting vehicle.
Lakewood held onto Otis the white Boxer it claimed was a pit bull, because Lakewood has a pit bull ban. As the tide of public outrage swelled, the city agreed to ransom Otis the white Boxer it claimed was a pit bull. The price? The owner was compelled to agree not to pursue any legal action against the city, or the officer individually. Lakewood then would release Otis the pit bull-who-is-a-white-Boxer, subject to his being removed from the city. Happily, Otis the pit bull-who-is-a-white-Boxer has been accepted by a Boxer rescue in Cleveland, which, we imagine, will insist that Otis is a white Boxer. The Boxer rescue has agreed to keep him safe until his owner can move out of Lakewood and bring Otis to his new home.
Indeed, we would expect any caring animal owner to flee a city that defends such medieval cruelty as soon as humanly possible. Whether Otis is a pit bull, a white Boxer, or a canary, he didn’t deserve what he got from Lakewood.
The Story of Otis & Lakewood:
August 3, 2009: Lakewood, Ohio – Last week, Lakewood police tasered a neighborhood dog named Otis that accidentally got out of his yard and was barking on the sidewalk in front of his home.
Two women told 19 Action News that they heard Otis barking last Saturday morning around 8:30 a.m. and looked out of their apartment window to see the pup surrounded by several police officers. The officers tasered Otis twice “like he was a grizzly bear,” said witness Christina MacDonald.
MacDonald added that “the dog was backing up defensively, as if he was saying, ’stay away from me.’ He wasn’t being aggressive in any way.”
Pit Bulls are banned in the City of Lakewood and although Otis’s owner, Daniel Kier, claims that his dog is “a white Boxer, not a Pit Bull,” the police and local animal warden insist that the dog “looks as though he has Pit Bull in its blood.”
Otis’s story has sparked heated public debate nationwide and many people have expressed their outrage in an online petition.
Kier was cited for having a dangerous and vicious animal and for letting Otis run loose. Otis has been detained in Lakewood Animal Shelter, but is scheduled to be sprung this afternoon after a morning meeting in which Kier and the city struck a deal.
August 4, 2009: Otis was sprung from the Lakewood Animal Shelter around 1PM Monday afternoon. The shelter had been the pup’s home since he was tasered by Lakewood police over a week ago.
Monday, a morning meeting was held to determine whether Otis is a vicious animal. The original meeting was slated for last Thursday but was postponed because the officers involved in the tasing were unable to attend.
The incident was captured on the cop’s taser camera and has sparked outrage nationwide.
Police noticed Otis was without his owner, Daniel Kier, and was loose on the sidewalk at Robin & Plover. They claim they tasered Otis because he’s a pit bull and was acting aggressively towards them.
Kier maintains Otis is a white Boxer, not a pit bull. Pit bulls are banned in Lakewood.
The city wants Otis out of the city so Otis will be housed with Lighthouse Boxer Rescue until Kier can move out of his Lakewood apartment into a new place. He hopes to make that happen within two weeks.
He also agreed not to sue the City of Lakewood. In exchange, the charge of having a vicious dog was dropped. Kier still faces charges for allowing Otis to roam unaccompanied on the sidewalk.
See News Story and Graphic Video of Otis being tasered: http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=10842281
***
Ohio Family Outraged Over Police Shooting Dog
Jack: The 5 lb. dog tasered and shot 3 times by police
June 9, 2009: (Blue Ash, OH) — A family from Blue Ash, Ohio is outraged after finding out the police shot and killed their dog.
Scott and Sharon Bullock gave the Chihuahua mix to their son for his birthday a few years ago.
When they returned home last Friday they found blood, three bullets and a note to call the Blue Ash Police Department about their dog.
Apparently the dog got out of their backyard and the two officers couldn’t catch him. Cops say they had him cornered on the front porch but when they reached out to pick him up, the dog bit one of the officers.
That’s when they shot it three times.
The Bullocks admit they were wrong to leave their dog outside, but say they just can’t come to terms with why two grown men had such a problem handling a five-pound dog.
They say the SPCA should have been contacted about coming out to get the dog.
The officer who shot the Bullocks’ beloved Chihuahua insists he was merely following procedure.
***
Lawmaker seeks to repeal label of pit bull as vicious dog
Mar 18, 2009 — A Toledo lawmaker yesterday proposed doing away with Ohio’s law that automatically deems a pit bull to be a “vicious dog.” Representative Barbara Sears (R., Sylvania) has introduced HB 79, which would remove the breed-specific language from Ohio state law. Currently, Ohio declares all “pit bulls” (term not defined) as “vicious dogs.” HB 79 would remove that designation.
“In the 1970s, it was the German shepherd,” Ms. Sears said.
“In the 1980s, it was the Doberman. In the 1990s, it was the Rottweiler. We shouldn’t put something in permanent law that is a moving target. It begs the question that whether we should really be looking at the owners of the pit bulls.” The Ohio Supreme Court in 2007 unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the state law and a Toledo ordinance based on it that consider the pit bull to be the only dog breed inherently considered “vicious.”
The law defines a vicious dog as one that has killed or injured a person, killed another dog, or “belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.” Ms. Sears’ bill would strike the last phrase, along with language stating that the “ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog.”
The bill has not moved to committee yet.
See HB79: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText128/128_HB_79_I_N.html
National Canine Research Council