OK, so I know I just wrote a piece on three pits attacking a cat and the havoc it ultimately wreaked on a non-thinking, legislative body’s poor choice of legislation. Not to reprise the whole pit bull thing, but yesterday’s discussion with a Broward County transplant had me seeing red all over again on a different rendition of the same issue.
You see, in Broward County (our northern neighbor here in Miami-Dade County, Florida), pit bulls are allowed to exist. In our county, however, the breed is “banned.” Breed bans such as ours are in place in many districts throughout the US. And it’s no secret that I’m vehemently opposed to this kind of haphazard legislation (read past posts on why I feel this way).
Back to my conversation: This young professional had lived in Broward and, while there, adopted a mixed-breed dog from her local Humane Society. She had sought a Boston Terrier rescue (her breed of choice), but the shelter didn’t have one of these. They did, however, have a Boston mix, whom this woman fell in love with immediately.
That would have been the happy ending to this story except that said Boston mix was also part pit bull. I saw a photo of her and, despite her small stature and upright ears, the resemblance to her pit forbearers was unmistakable—especially on the profile shots. I couldn’t help but say so, even after taking in her tale of woe:
After moving into an apartment in North Miami, she received a visit from an Animal Control officer. Apparently, this officer has complete authority (as our county’s pit bull surveillance expert), to distribute citations to those in violation of the anti-pit bull ordinance (which prohibits pit bulls, or any dog that resembles one, to exist within county limits). One of her new neighbors had obviously turned her in based on her dog’s appearance alone (the dog hadn’t been there a week and had never been off-leash).
A $500 fine was levied and the owner was instructed to move and keep her mix under wraps (wink-wink). This woman had the wherewithal to move to a house with a small, sheltered yard in another part of the city, but she was living in fear of the second violation (a $10,000 fine!).
I don’t know about you, but if I had an obviously mixed-breed dog and I moved here only to find that my dog wasn’t welcome due solely to its genetic provenance, I’d be in a tough spot, indeed. She’d asked her vet (a locally upstanding doc), talked to me, contacted the county and was currently looking into other legal options.
Apparently, temperament testing isn’t even an option, as the “no pit-bull” law is a blanket ban offering no exceptions. Once this particular gentleman stakes his claim on the breed of your dog, it’s over. Your dog goes.
I know the ACLU is busy with more human concerns, but isn’t anyone, anywhere, making headway against this kind of legislation? It seems unconscionable to me that this kind of restriction can be considered constitutional.
For the love of God, we have a constitutional right to bear arms, but we can’t even possess a dog that “looks like” [but isn’t even] a pit bull!? Even if she were a pit, what right does our government have to enforce restrictions like this? Were the constraints on citizens fair-minded, universal and compassionate, I wouldn’t have an issue at all.
As it stands, however, don’t plan on entering Miami-Dade County if your dog looks even remotely pit-bullish. She’s not even allowed to visit, much less take a stroll down Lincoln Road, should you choose to stay at one of our many pet-friendly hotels on South Beach. Sorry, even your Boston mix won’t be making friends with the local enforcement crowd. I suggest you hit Ft. Lauderdale, instead.
Add Comment14 Comments
You have a constitutional right to own whatever type of dog you want. What you're dealing with here is not a constitutional question, it's a state issue. States are allowed a little leeway with creating their own laws, even when such laws interfere with what we would consider our "inalienable rights". Usually this comes up in the context of free speech. Without getting too much into detail, states can't make a law that inhibits free speech if the purpose of the law is to inhibit free speech. However, states can pass laws that result in an inhibition of free speech as long as the laws have a valid purpose that states are allowed to legislate (i.e. protecting the health and welfare of its citizens).
Now, although someone's desire to own a specific breed of dog could be construed as a form of speech, it's really more of a property designation. Property doesn't have nearly the protections that something intangible like speech has. Sure, if the government wants to take your property, they have to pay you a fair price for it. If they want to deprive you of property, you need to go through due process of law. Here, your description of Miami regulations neither involve the taking of the animal (the woman was allowed to keep it), nor the absence of due process (as bad as the deciding entity may be, it's still a process). Essentially, the state is not saying you can't own a pit bull...you just can't keep a pit bull within certain limits of the city. Does this make pit bull ownership terribly inconvenient for people who want to live in Miami? Yes. But the state is not really concerned about your individual convenience, it's concerned with keeping everyone safe.
The point is that Miami has a compelling reason for banning pit bulls; that being that they are frequently used by less desireable people in the furtherance of illegal pursuits (i.e. dogfighting). The state also makes illegal things like the possession of drugs, even if one doesn't intend to use them, becuase such property is usually used for illegal purposes. Also, and clearly this does not apply to all pits (please don't flame me), they have a history of viciousness. We know this is mostly the fault of the owners, and sure, it could be all but cured by requiring the owners to go to a special class and obtain a license to own the breed. However, that takes a lot of state money (to run the classes, to process the licenses, to prosecute people owning without a license, etc.). It's a lot easier and more cost efficient to just ban the animals in certain areas where owners are likely to be lax and laws are likely to be flaunted (i.e. the inner city).
You can't ride your bike on the freeway. You can't drink unless you're 21 years old. You can't drive a car until you're 16, even if you've got a job all the way across town and you really need the money. And for now, at least, you can't keep your pit bull in Miami. Are these rules unfair? Maybe. But they have a purpose beyond just wanting to treat people unfairly, and that's really all the state needs.
Becky July 5th, 2007 10:37:00 AM
There are some people working against it. I know Advocates for the Underdogs in Canada is working against the Ontario ban. Chako.org is out there working but, I think, mainly in CA. Meanwhile more BSL pops up everywhere everyday. It's sad and it's frustrating, and if you're a pit bull owner like I am, it's downright terrifiying.
As far as Becky's mentioning that pit bulls "have a history of viciousness", well, there's this extremely interesting book that came out recently by Karen Delise called The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Human Aggression. The type of dog who first had the reputation as being scary and vicious? The bloodhound, back in the 1800s. The media is much different nowadays. It's fascinating to read the old newspaper stories quoted in this book.
elegy July 5th, 2007 10:52:00 AM
Becky: Never ever would I flame anyone for expressing their opinions (especially when they do so in such a level-headed way). Thanks for your primer. I do understand that no one's trying to go out of their way to treat anyone unfairly but it's heartbreaking to see the side of the coin I have to stare at day in, day out.
The vast majority of these dogs are not vicious, but the "undesirable" owner designation is well-founded in a statistical reality: pits are overrepresented among members of urban cultures that tend to glorify these dogs for their aggressive appearance and reputation.
(Part of me wonders whether this issue doesn't have its own human civil rights component. I wonder what the gun lobby would say if handguns were completely outlawed because gang-banger culture abused them. Now that's a public health risk--but handguns have their own exalted place in our contitution and therefore don't qualify as normal property.)
Sorry about the wandering nature of this comment. You've certainly given me cause to think on the issue more deeply. I guess, for now, we'll have to continue to deal with these arbitrarily enforced laws with the frustration of knowing it's not the breed we should be after--it's the people. But that's a problem that runs across the board when it comes to all animal legislation, isn't it?
Dr. Patty Khuly July 5th, 2007 02:47:00 PM
The City of Toledo lost it's appeal against a dog owner who owned three pit bulls:
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/topic.php?id=5...
Apparently in Toledo, OH, you're allowed to own one pit bull. This owner owned three, and was cited for a number of violations. He sued the City of Toledo, lost the first round, and won on appeal. It is, of course, going to the Ohio Supreme Court.
RKolosky July 5th, 2007 04:01:00 PM
Even after our terrible experience with the killer pit bull next door, I'm completely opposed to breed bans.
If for no other reason than how do you define what is or isn't a pit bull?
Our dog is the gentlest soul I've ever met. There isn't a single aggressive bone in his body.
But it's also quite possible that there is at least some pit in him.
How much is too much? An eighth, a quarter, a half? Chris could be as much as half for all I know.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose these bans besides the obvious problem of determining which dogs are banned and which ones aren't.
There's no question in my mind that the pit bull next door turned into a monster because she was never raised properly by people who shouldn't own any dog. Did her breed contribute to her degree of aggression? Perhaps. But if Animal Control had dealt with her and her owners specifically, we wouldn't need a breed ban. We could be dealing with the problem dogs.
I won't ever genetic test my boy and take a risk that he could be banned regardless of his sweet, gentle nature.
Natalie July 5th, 2007 04:31:00 PM
The power being given to ACOs is so wrong!
I've been blogging about animal control issues lately due to the AB 1634 situation here in California. Because of my breed affiliations (working livestock guardians and peoples whose livelihoods depend on them) I'm making a point to talk about some of this perspective.
California Veterinary Medical Association has withdrawn support for AB 1634.
The very few extremist vets in control who were initially involved with the bills design and initially in its support have apparently deferred partially because some vets in opposition that are/were members of CVMA were not afraid to speak out. I don't know if CVMA as an org is neutral or against the bill now.
FWIW: A 'fix it' clause was added to the 7th rewrite of the bill that both releases and charges the vets with enforcement. (yes, doesn't make sense but the whole bill has been broken from day one)
And the power given to ACO is beyond surreal.
http://www.cobankopegi.com/blog/labels/animal_cont...
Also, regarding policy, see the NY story about Spartacus if you're not aware of it
(permalink) http://www.cobankopegi.com/blog/2007/07/mandatory-...
Semavi Lady July 5th, 2007 04:58:00 PM
I am totally against breed bans, it's such an incredibly slippery slope. It's all about the owners. I think Becky makes a good, though flawed point: It's not a State issue in this case, it is a COUNTY issue. If we get to a point where entire states can ban dog breeds, we are going to be in big trouble. I also think Dr. Patty makes a good point about guns. Why are they not banned? What is the legal banter around that form of property? Just curious.
My sister just moved into a very expensive, elite area of Chicago. The next door neighbor has 2 Bouviers. 1 is "aggressive" and the other is a rescue that is "completely psychotic" (That is according to the neighbor). These are very big dogs and my sister has 3 small children (6, 4, 18months) and is terrified. She said the dogs just stand there looking over the fence barking and going crazy. She's got the dough to put up a $6,000 privacy fence for peace of mind, but I am going to visit in 3 weeks and plan on speaking to this woman about the harm she is doing to the breed, not to mention rescues.
Amy in Cambridge July 6th, 2007 08:38:00 AM
One of our former editors tackled this topic awhile back:
http://www.vetecon.com/vetec/article/articleDetail...
Amanda July 6th, 2007 12:04:00 PM
Breed bans are sorry excuses for failures in law enforcement issues with PEOPLE. It's the most chicken-sh*tted thing I've ever seen. Because Miami has a problem with drugs and drug dealers that they cannot control, they'll go for the dogs, much like the US guv'mint pursues tax issues on the Mafia. In most cases the pits owned by druggies are chained up, abused, ignored and all of this issue could be dealt with if we had some kind of sane laws regarding the keeping of pets. In FL particularly, due to mild weather, there are way too many dogs kept on a chain 24/7. I find it curious that keeping chickens isn't allowed within towns, but it's OK to keep a dog outside barking all the time. While it is indeed a slippery slope to decide what exactly constitutes good husbandry (and it could easily go way too far the other way), I think required training and classes for those who keep dogs poorly should be instituted. If they won't do it, they lose their dog, but the dog is not blamed for the failure of the humans.
At some point I hope to get out of Flori-duh, but Ohio (or Colorado) will not be one of the places I go. I have a part-pit who shows no agression to people or animals. I just would not move to a place that has such dimwits for regulators.
CathyA July 7th, 2007 07:24:00 AM
Amanda: I loved that editorial. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It treats the issue soulfully without skirting the heart of the issue.
Dr. Patty Khuly July 7th, 2007 09:01:00 AM
Check this out:
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.ht...
or this
http://members.aol.com/radogz/find.html
Most people have no idea what kind of dog they are looking at. Even with proof they can take your dog if THEY think it is a pitbull and destroy it in some areas. I know they do in parts of Canada too. Even french bulldogs can be taken there because they are a bull type breed. Ridculous!!
Marie July 8th, 2007 09:52:00 AM
Hmmm...Maybe this would justify pet plastic surgery -- change the appearance of your pit! (Pet-ness Protection Program)
MrScruffy July 12th, 2007 12:11:00 AM
I totally agree with you! Im from Virginia but moved to miami-dade to attend school at johnson & wales university and we just bought a house and I wanted to bring my dog, which is half pit n half black lad, not a bad bone in her body!!! She's protective, but would never hurt anybody unless they were being a threat. You should get a petition together and I will sign it!fokxj
vanessa July 21st, 2007 02:36:00 PM
Dear frustrated PIT owners: I for one have an extraordinary PITBULL. His temperament at age 4 is softer than any goofy LAB or PODDLE. He listens. He can be trusted around all sizes and breeds of dogs. He is amazing with my new born child. He is a superb specimen of what PITBULLS should be like. If NYC ever banned pits, they have to pry him from my cold dead hands to get him away from me. I think there are two solutions to the bans: (1) require prospective owners to pay all fees involved with processing a temperament test, the living conditions of the animal, and the skills of the handler. Whatever the cost, $100, $5000. what’s the difference. Its costs thousands to raise a human baby. If that what it takes to raise a pit, so be it. Once the animal and handler passed a battery of tests, a license similar to a driver's license, or a license to farm and milk venomous snakes can be issued; (2) if all else fails, owners around the states or counties should set up a protest or march DOG MARCH and protest the stupid laws that are being passed. I for one acknowledge that BITE & HOLD type dogs like pits are dangerous animals. Society should be and has right to be protected from being mauled by bears, lions, eagles, alligators, and dogs. But there are exceptions. And government needs to start looking into other options beside bans. I cant wait until someone invents a portable field DNA breed tester to expedite allegations of BREED VIOLATIONS. I think NEW JERSEY will be an ideal place for PITBULL concentration camps. call it DOGSCHWITZ.
MARCUS August 6th, 2007 04:33:00 PM
Add Commment