Dangerous dog ordinance sparks passions

By John Quinlan, Journal staff writer | Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

SOUTH SIOUX CITY -- A new "dangerous dog" ordinance moved another step closer to reality Monday as the South Sioux City Council gave unanimous approval to the second reading of the new ordinance. A final reading of the ordinance, which would take effect June 1, is expected at the next regular council meeting.

Several South Sioux City residents and other Siouxlanders, however, spoke, often passionately, in opposition to that section of the new ordinance that moves pit bulls into the potentially dangerous category and discusses the neutering of the dogs. They argued that it places an unfair burden on owners of pets with histories that belie the charge that the breed is dangerous.

The new regulations and restrictions will not make the community safer, said Jean Hassebroek of South Sioux City, a 12-year member of the Sioux Valley Kennel Club. "It might have the opposite effect," she said, pointing to a research study that shows neutered animals are actually more aggressive.

Dawn Bain of Kingsley, Iowa, the AKC registered liaison for the area, called the problem with pit bulls a human issue, not a dog issue, "If you legislate dogs, you're taking responsibility away from the owners," she said. "It's the humans that have to be held responsible."

Jennifer Holtgrew of Merrill, Iowa, another member of the Sioux Valley Kennel Club, said it isn't fair to designate one breed as potentially dangerous. "You are presuming guilt," she said.

Pamela Marsh of South Sioux City, owner of Pet Spa, agreed with the other protesters that most of the ordinance was proper and needed, but said she feared that her rottweilers would be next on the dangerous list and asked where the list would end? "It doesn't make sense," she said.

The protesters unanimously agreed that dogs should be targeted for their behavior, not for their breed.

Councilwoman Sandra Ehrich commended the various speakers for what she termed their reasonable arguments, but she admitted to a natural prejudice against pit bulls.

"I can't think of any other dog that when it locks with somebody, it's there for the kill. Pit bulls scare me," Ehrich said. "Most dogs, you give them one chance, and maybe they've bitten somebody, and you know that you take care of that. The pit bull ... we're just lucky that that little boy, there were people there. Pit bulls, when they've got you, they want to kill you. And that's the prejudice I have. I can't help it. Their jaws lock. They're not going to let go. And the one time is all you need with a pit bull. I am still not convinced that that's not the case."

Councilman Gary Hallstrom said he can see both sides, but he can't forget the pictures he saw of the little boy who was attacked. If adults hadn't rushed to the boy's rescue, that would have been it, he said.

Added Councilman Al Bengtson: "I'll make a mistake on this ordinance before I'll let that happen in my community again."

Deborah Kidd of Sioux City, a professional dog trainer, strongly opposed any breed-specific legislation and criticized the media's demonization of the the pit bull. That recent incident in which a young boy was attacked by three so-called pit bulls was erroneously reported because one of the animals was not a pit bull, she noted.

Breed-specific legislation such as this places an unfair financial burden on the dog owner. The ordinance requires among other things that pit bull owners register their dogs and prove they have $250,000 in liability insurance.

There have been five fatal dog attacks in Nebraska in the past 42 years. The attacks involved three different breeds -- none of them pit bulls, Kidd noted.

Such legislation also ignores owner responsibility, gives the public a false sense of security, leaves to local authorities the impossible task of identifying the breed and is unconstitutionally vague. And the bad owners who breed pit bulls for evil design, she noted, will simply replace them with larger, stronger, faster dogs.

Story Comments

Dee wrote on Dec 22, 2007 11:32 PM:

" Ban the deed, not the breed. I wish people would STOP saying Pitbulls have locking jaws. THEY DO NOT, what about the pom, how come there is no talk of banning that breed. Lots of people have guns, and their guns, never kill anyone, until the wrong person picks it up and kills someone. If you own certain breeds you should be raising that dog a certain way, to insure that breed does not harm someone. I had Boxers for 35 years, and I took my boxers to OB classes, and took them out in public and let everone touch them, and never left them alone with children, Its not cause I did not trust my dog, I did not trust the kids to always be nice to the dog. I always made sure a toy, bone could be taken away from my dogs by anyone, and my dogs were ok with it. A lot of people are bitten or attacked by their own dogs, cause they do not know how to raise them and train them. If you own certain breeds, you should go to a school to learn how to raise and train them "

BAN BAD OWNERS wrote on Dec 17, 2007 6:08 PM:

" Also in a lot of the cities were pit bull type dogs have been banned, it hasn't been any help. There has actually been a increase in the amount of pit bull type dogs in some of those cities. I feel that responsible owners are the only ones to obey the laws and the bad owners (were the real problems lies) won't. The big thing that gets to me in this case is the fact there have been no fatal dog attacks in recent years by pit bull type dogs but there somehow restricting them. I think they should also ban those other breads that have actually caused deaths. Banning the other breeds that have killed in there area makes more sense to me then banning a dog that hasn't killed in there area at all. I guess it doesn't matter if they do pass the ordinance since a pit bull isn't an actually breed of dog in the first place. Maybe they should get there information right and do some research before hastily passing ordinances. This whole thing seems like pure ignorance to me. "

BAN THE BAD OWNERS wrote on Dec 17, 2007 6:08 PM:

" I find it a little outrageous when they want to ban or restrict a type of dog when there is no solid proof that there more dangerous than any other dog. In reality pit bull type dogs score higher than average in temperament testing (www.atts.org). I believe this actually violates the 14th Amendment witch states "No State shall�deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Since your dog is your property there not allowed to take it away or restrict it without due process of law. So they must prove that a pit bull type dog is more dangerous than any other type of dog. This has yet to be proved. "

Common Sense wrote on Dec 12, 2007 10:53 AM:

" Listen to some more experts. www.animalfarmfoundation.org/topic.php?id=21&topic=17&printing=1 Owning a dog is a right. Rights are tied to responsibilities. Citizens have the right to drive cars unless they cross certain bounds of criminality. Then only the guilty citizen loses their right to drive. Citizens have the right to "keep and bear arms" unless they cross certain bounds of criminality. Then only the guilty citizen loses their right to "keep and bear arms". Citizens have the right to own dogs, any dog, unless they prove themselves to be irresponsible in their duties as an owner. At that point, the guily should expect to lose their rights to "keep and care for dogs". Rights come with responsibilities. It doesn't matter if it is a VW Beetle or a Hummer; a .22 or a .44 magnum; a Pekinese or a Pit Bull. It is not the property that is at fault. It is the irresponsible property owner. "

Dog Pet wrote on Dec 12, 2007 8:17 AM:

" I owned Rotties, I owned mutts, I have been around pit bulls, dobbies, mastifs, chows, and all the other dogs deemed "most dangours!" You know the dogs that snapped at ppl around me havne't been these dogs! They were the lil lapdogs! Ppl need to stop fearing what they don't know! All dogs are capable of turning. It isn't the dogs, it is the owners! Go after the owners NOT the breed of dog! "