How HB 14 fails Ohio residents.

HB 14 was passed in late February of 2012.  The law was a gift/sell out to breed specific advocacy but the  public was told the law would "finally give dog wardens the tools to deal with vicious dogs." This law is failing  miserably.  On January 2nd a Lorain Ohio woman's Shih Tzu was killed by a pit bull with a record of violence.  The little dog was playing in the yard of its owner at the time of the witnessed attack.  A neighbor's pit bull broke its chain and attacked the nine pound Shih Tzu, it died the following day. The pit bull is not registered and records indicate that the pit bull attacked a human AND another dog in August of 2012.  Why was this clearly dangerous dog still in the community?  Did the owner of the pit bull pay the medical expenses for the human and the dog attacked last August?  How about the vet bill for dead dog?  How about counselling sessions for the Shih Tzu owner?  She witnessed the mauling. My guess is no, none of these expenses have, or will be paid by the pit bull owner.  Insurance is no longer required for pit bulls.    

Will animal control deal with this pit bull NOW?  The answer may be "no, it's too much trouble."  HB 14 sets out a protocol for dealing with dangerous dogs and here it is.  Workable?  I don't think so.  Designed to protect the public?  Nope...

955.222 Hearings for dog designation.

(A) The municipal court or county court that has territorial jurisdiction over the residence of the owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog shall conduct any hearing concerning the designation of the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog.

(B) If a person who is authorized to enforce this chapter has reasonable cause to believe that a dog in the person’s jurisdiction is a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, the person shall notify the owner, keeper, or harborer of that dog, by certified mail or in person, of both of the following:

(1) That the person has designated the dog a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, as applicable;

(2) That the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog may request a hearing regarding the designation in accordance with this section. The notice shall include instructions for filing a request for a hearing in the county in which the dog’s owner, keeper, or harborer resides.

(C) If the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog disagrees with the designation of the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, as applicable, the owner, keeper, or harborer, not later than ten days after receiving notification of the designation, may request a hearing regarding the determination. The request for a hearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with the municipal court or county court that has territorial jurisdiction over the residence of the dog’s owner, keeper, or harborer. At the hearing, the person who designated the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog.

The owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog or the person who designated the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog may appeal the court’s final determination as in any other case filed in that court.

(D) A court, upon motion of an owner, keeper, or harborer or an attorney representing the owner, keeper, or harborer, may order that the dog designated as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog be held in the possession of the owner, keeper, or harborer until the court makes a final determination under this section or during the pendency of an appeal, as applicable. Until the court makes a final determination and during the pendency of any appeal, the dog shall be confined or restrained in accordance with the provisions of division (D) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code that apply to dangerous dogs regardless of whether the dog has been designated as a vicious dog or a nuisance dog rather than a dangerous dog. The owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog shall not be required to comply with any other requirements established in the Revised Code that concern a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, as applicable, until the court makes a final determination and during the pendency of any appeal.

(E) If a dog is finally determined under this section, or on appeal as described in this section, to be a vicious dog, division (D) of section 955.11 and divisions (D) to (I) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code apply with respect to the dog and the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog as if the dog were a dangerous dog, and section 955.54 of the Revised Code applies with respect to the dog as if it were a dangerous dog, and the court shall issue an order that specifies that those provisions apply with respect to the dog and the owner, keeper, or harborer in that manner. As part of the order, the court shall require the owner, keeper, or harborer to obtain the liability insurance required under division (E)(1) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code in an amount described in division (H)(2) of section 955.99 of the Revised Code.

(F) As used in this section, “nuisance dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “vicious dog” have the same meanings as in section 955.11 of the Revised Code.

Added by 129th General Assembly File No. 75, HB 14, § 1, eff. 5/22/2012.

Holiday pittery from Ohio

A Cleveland jogger was horrified when two large pit bulls attacked her dog and needed to be beaten off by their owners with baseball bats.  She feels, and rightly so, that if the pit bull owners came out with baseball bats to control their dogs, they knew the dogs were vicious.  Albie, the year and a half old Samoyed will recover but Albie's owner, Elizabeth Froberg is reconsidering her morning jog.  There is no mention of exactly who will be paying Albie's vet bills.  My guess is that Ms. Froberg is likely to be stuck with this.

  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Toledo police, investigating possible drug sales from a residence, were charged by two pit bulls released from that home.  A nineteen year old Toledo woman was hit in the foot by a bullet aimed by police at the charging pit bulls.  Police Chief Mark Holden stated " As the resident opened the door, two large pit bulls ran from the apartment and charged the officers (who) were pursuing the resident."  "As the dogs approached the officers, one fired his weapon at the animals and fell as he was trying to retreat.  Other officers also fired as the dogs charged the fallen officer."   The young woman was treated and released, as was the officer, and the pit bull.

Kyle E. Zarcone, 19 of 309 Dale Ave., and Anthony R. Hicks, 19 of 607 Pleasant St. were arrested and transported to the Huron County jail.  Zarcone was charged with possession of a controlled substance and Hicks was charged with trafficking in marijuana, per the Norwalk Reflector.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Herbie, the neglected and emaciated pit bull found in Lorain Ohio has been diagnosed with untreatable cancer.  Despite recent weight gains and the excellent care Herbie has received, he will not survive. Click here for more information on Herbie.    

Ohio pit bull roundup, 7/28/2012

So many pit bull stories and so little time.  We will post this batch and come back to this in a few days.

In a story that defies common sense, 50 pit bull owners in Xenia will get a $23 refund check in the mail.  The critical mauling of a Xenia woman in 2010 prompted the City of Xenia to pass a law requiring registration of pit bulls, payment of a $30 registration fee and provide proof of liability insurance of at least $100,000.  I quote from the whiotv article "in May the state of Ohio removed pit bulls from its list of vicious dogs, and that decision overturned community pit bull bans."

First, Xenia never had a pit bull ban, just registration and insurance requirements.  Second, HB 14 does not impact a community's right to regulate dangerous dogs.  Ohio is a home rule state and communities have every right to regulate dangerous dogs. 

Community leaders simply catered to a vocal and well funded special interest group, they should be ashamed of this action.
http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/local/pit-bull-owners-will-get-refund-checks/nPthC/

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Changes to law in Ashtabula Ohio are reported in the Hispanic Business News.  Ashtabula had a pit bull ban and did not have any desire to change that law after passage of HB 14.  After long months of meetings and "emotional testimony" the Ashtabula County Animal Protective League board vice president Irene Fiala announces a compromise with Ashtabula City Council that would allow adoption of pit bulls in that city.  Fiala states "It has been a challenge, but I have fought city hall and won." 

The proposed law still lists pit bulls as "vicious dogs" but allows pit bulls to be adopted from the APL "if it has been determined by the APL as being neither people-aggressive nor animal-aggressive, has an APL microchip implanted and an APL tag on its collar, has current rabies vaccinations and has been spayed or neutered and has a current dog tag or license issued by the Ashtabula County Auditor" per City Solicitor Michael Franklin.  Violations of these provisions could mean a third degree misdemeanor for the first offense and first degree charges on any subsequent offense.

It will be interesting to see how this works out.  The microchip will clearly identify dogs that the APL places in the community, any victims of these dogs may have legal recourse against the APL.

The name Irene Fiala  draws attention. Fiala, named as the negotiator, is far from unbiased on the issue of pit bulls.  Links below are to Fiala's Examiner articles.  It should be noted that the Examiner allows authors to post material, no fact checking is done, the author receives payment per page view.  Pit bull advocacy has LOTS of Examiner bloggers.
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/7/16/pit_bulls_back_in_bula.htm

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-pit-bull-ban-debate-part-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-pit-bull-ban-debate-part-2-the-so-called-clifton-study

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-pit-bull-ban-debate-part-3-bsl-does-not-work

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This story, out of Lorain Ohio, is sad and may well become common now that there is no disincentive to breed pit bulls in Ohio.  A lactating pit bull was tied to a pole in front of Animal House, a pet placement center.  Surveillance video showed a sedan approaching the building and leaving 3 minutes later.  This dog was not found until staff arrived the next morning.  Staff was upset to see the dog whining for her pups and were concerned about the pups.

 Media attention to the drop off brought an anonymous tip on a classified ad showing a photo of the abandoned dog in a kitchen, with smaller photos of the puppies.  The price listed for the puppies was $250 each and an address was listed.  A local Humane officer talked to the woman at the residence listed in the ad, the woman's photo was also seen in the ad.  The woman made a statement that she was being "set up by someone who stole her photo from Facebook"  but neighbors have seen the puppies and the abandoned dog with the couple at that residence.  Per Dave Arnold of newsnet5 "The puppies are really cute," said one anonymous neighbor."  Humane officers searched the house and found no evidence of any dogs, or dog food. 

Deregulation of  pit bulls is expected to bring an explosion of pit bull breeding and sales of puppies.  These same puppies are likely to find a place in the breeding/shelter/euthanization cycle.  How very sad.
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_lorain/Mother-dog-left-tied-to-pole-overnight-at-Lorain-pet-clinic-puppies-cant-be-found

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Per the Middletown Journal, Middletown Police shot a pit bull after it attacked a Jack Russell Terrier.  The JRT's owner, Eric Sorrell said his dog is "fighting for his life."  Per published reports, neighbors came with objects to hit the pit bull, and police were called.  A Middletown police officer responded to the call, received permission from his supervisor to shoot and kill the pit bull "due to the animal's dangerous behavior and injuries, I placed one shot behind the dog's head" killing the pit bull.
http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/news/local/pit-bull-killed-after-attack/nPxhQ/

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1496137140642653899&q=State+of+Ohio+v.+Anderson&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1

The official opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio remains that pit bulls are inherently vicious, and the Court shares many reasons why they should be regulated for the safety of the public.  Legislators may be influenced by well funded special interests, but the opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court is not changed by HB14.  The Maryland Supreme Court just made a similar ruling. That ruling has bit bull advocacy in an uproar.  http://scorchedearththepoliticsofpitb.blogspot.com/2012/05/pit-bull-politics-in-maryland-or-sky-is.html

Prosecutor Taylor and Highland Heights Police Chief James Cook suggest adding an appeals process to any new law proposed for Highland Heights for any dog accused of being vicious. Taylor and Cook appear to be unaware that there is an appeals process written into the new Ohio law, granted it is designed to protect dogs accused of vicious behavior and NOT designed to  promote public safety, but it is already state law.  Highland Heights "Council will revisit the issue and check on the progress of the new ordinance as it is being developed in September" per cleveland.com.  One can hope that someone on the council actually reads the new Ohio law.
http://www.cleveland.com/hillcrest/index.ssf/2012/07/highland_heights_city_council_20.html