Lancaster Considering New Dangerous Dog Ordinance
The city of Lancaster is considering adopting strict penalties for owners of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs – particularly pit bulls and Rottweilers – which they say are used as weapons of intimidation by the area’s gang members. According to this news report in the Los Angeles Times, the proposed ordinance would also require spaying and neutering of all varieties of pit bulls and Rottweilers including mixed breeds that have the predominant physical characteristics of those breeds.
If this ordinance is approved, Lancaster will join many other cities in Los Angeles County that have adopted similar dangerous dog ordinances. But in this case, the city is going one step further by specifically identifying dogs that are potentially dangerous or vicious. California law allows government agencies to target specific breeds for spaying and neutering, but these specific breeds cannot be officially branded “vicious.” Under Lancaster’s ordinance, a hearing officer could determine an individual dog to be vicious if for example they behave aggressively. City officials say they particularly want to use this ordinance to crack down on local gang members.
Such ordinances almost always offend owners of pit bulls and Rottweilers, who understandably have a soft corner in their hearts for these animals. They argue that there is no scientific evidence that genetics cause a breed of dog to be aggressive, vicious or dangerous. While it is true that irresponsible or negligent dog owners should be punished or be held liable in dog attacks, consider these statistics. According to a news report released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), pit bulls and Rottweilers accounted for more than 70 percent of dog attack fatalities in the United States between the years 1979 and 1996. This report clearly shows that when it comes to dangerous dog breeds, pit bulls and Rottweilers really do lead the pack.
As Los Angeles personal injury lawyers who vigorously fight for the rights of dog bite victims in Southern California, we know what a lot of damage and injury these breeds of dogs can cause. Consider one of the examples in the Times’ report of 3-year-old Brittney Cesena, who was mauled by a pit bull at a family friend’s house when she was only 11 months old. The child suffered horrible facial injuries and her ear had to be retrieved from the dog’s stomach. Her family is suing the dog’s owners for “negligence and strict liability,” which they should. California has a strict liability statute when it comes to dog bites, which makes the dog owner responsible in the case his or her animal attacks and injures or kills another person.
However, the laws enforced by city governments and municipalities will go a long way in preventing these tragic attacks and enhancing public safety. These ordinances that place the emphasis on responsible dog ownership are very much necessary to educate dog owners about the importance of restraining their pets especially if they have displayed dangerous or vicious behavior in the past.
Comments
I agree that actions are needed to protect people from dangerous animals. I also agree that most dog attacks reported in the news are "pitbull attacks" but the truth of the matter is that many "pitbull" attacks are in fact mix breeds, now a dog that is APBT mixed with a Labrador retriever will be classified as a pitbull mix or for TV rating purposes a pitbull, I suppose "vicious Labrador attack" doesn't quite make a grabbing headline.
as far as the guidelines for targeted harassment of pitbull owners or as mayor Rex Paris refers to as gang members, I am baffled at the notion that in this day in age one would make a comment as to the encouragement of profiling based on stereo type. now I for one am a proud owner of two registered APBT's licensed, spayed and neutered as a personal choice. I am a Chicano about to become 30 I own my own home, I am a tax paying community member and as a profession I am a manager of a financial center of one of the largest financial institutions in the country and I have tattoos does this mean that as I take my dogs for a walk while exposing my tattoos I will be targeted as a gang member? should I be subjected to this type of narrow minded ignorance? simple fact is this. those that are irresponsible with their pets are not registering them, not licensing them, and often not walking them. my dogs have been approached by other breeds off the leash by irresponsible owners yet because of the breed it is overlooked, had it been the other way around we would have had a headline. I believe in the enforcement of the laws currently in place by responding to dogs roaming the streets unleashed, respond to complaints of specific vicious dogs, and the requiring of licensing, even the occasional "random" inspection of known pet owners homes is appropriate but to put a blanket label on a breed is in essence racism. don't punish responsible owners and good pets for the mistakes made by a few. when does it end is mayor rex Paris going to attempt the k9 version of a Holocaust or will he describe it as a "cleansing".....
Posted by: oliver gonzalez | January 27, 2009 10:53 PM
I can't believe that any city or county would enact such a law. They are trying to extinguish an entire breed of dog. There is no prove that these are a dangerous breed of dog. It always depends on the behavior that the owner provides to the animal. It is sad to see how they are trying to fix things. Two wrongs don't make a right. The new law said that they are going to take the dogs, what are they going to do with them? They are a very smart breed of dog and very protective. This new law is going to break thousands of hearts. If we let this happened what's next?
Posted by: Victor Huerta | January 28, 2009 9:04 AM
Thank you Mr. Gonzalez for your comment. Your voice and your perspective need to be heard. You bring a perspective to the challenge of protecting society from vicious dogs while balancing our individual rights and pointing out to the mayor that profiling isn't the answer.
What I do know is that over 80% of the dog attack cases we handle involve either Pit Bulls, Rottweilers or a mix of those breeds. As a society we have to balance your rights and protecting society, especially children from the devastating injuries that these breeds can inflict. And, yes, my statistics are not an accurate reflection of the number of dog bites that occur in California because we only handle serious dog attacks.
Thank you for speaking up.
Posted by: John Bisnar | January 28, 2009 9:27 AM
My deepest condolences to you. I cannot imagine the pain that comes with losing a child, especially in this manner.
Thank you for adding your perspective to this discussion. Your point of view and experience need to be considered in this debate.
Are you aware of the organization www.dogsbite.org? Please check them out if you are not.
Posted by: John Bisnar | January 28, 2009 9:40 AM