Despite many pit bull bans and Breed Specific Legislation being repealed, other bans or seemingly restrictive ordinances are cropping up. A Washington state lawmaker is pushing to rescind the bans in her whole state but vicious dog ordinances would remain, as reported by the Inquisitr.
In a similar circumstance in Ohio, despite a ruling removing pit bulls from vicious dog ordinances in the state, many locales are still under tough ordinances. The court ruling in December of last year deemed that such potential pit bull bans were unconstitutional.
In Saint Marys, Ohio, a pit bull ban might not be allowed, but a seemingly intrusive ordinance passed earlier this month to regulate pits within the locale might be, according to Lima Ohio News. The "vicious dog" ordinance was first drafted in November, and a lot of different restrictions were being milled around.
According to the Daily Standard, the drafts that were being considered included keeping some type of outdoor enclosure to secure the pit bull outdoors, and providing the city officials with a count of how many pit bulls were within city limits.
Since its passage on December 8, a few more specifics have been added to the pit bull ordinance. The ordinance limits the amount of pit bulls one can own or walk at one time. It states that there needs to be locked pen or enclosure in the yard for the pit, as aforementioned, that is secured on all sides and top. Also, felons can not own a pit bull.
Furthermore, it requires muzzles to be worn by the pit in public, no sales of pit bulls within city limits, and if the city determines your pit bull or "pit bull-like" dog will be a "continuing threat" that can cause harm to animal or human, they can "destroy it."
At the time, the local officials did not feel that there would be much objection to the ruling, according to Lima Ohio News. Mayor Patrick Mcgowan said as much at the time of the ordinance's passage.
"I think we did not face any opposition because people are beginning to realize their is a problem."
The city council stated they would look into it. Council chairwoman Robin Willoughby stated that the "people need to understand that we are not banning them." She called the ordinance a "safety precautions." However, Kate Smith sees things differently.
"Basing this on subjective appearance is wrong on all accounts. To me, it is discrimination at its finest."
What is your thoughts? Does this ordinance seem like a fair way to deal with the problem, or do you feel the problem squarely falls on the owners? The ordinance is.PDF form can be found here.
Leave your thoughts below.
[Image Via Creative Commons]