Officials explain pit bull decision

In the Argus Observer, how in the world could Schuller have watched a Pit bull fight, unless it was legal in the state he was in. Then of course you are looking for trouble by allowing such a thing and he's talking of public safety?

If it wasn't allowed, how did he manage to find out where it was and no authorities called?

He also spoke of owning a Pit bull when his daughter was young for protection. Was his dog trained as a guard dog, rather than a family pet?

So many questions unanswered, yet it bases a decision.

Officials explain pit bull decision
By Julie Engel - Argus Observer
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:15 PM PDT

Payette County - Many Payette County residents already know that the Payette County Commissioners approved a breed-specific dangerous dog ordinance recently, but many may not understand why the decision was made and the circumstances leading up to it. Payette County Commissioners Larry Church and Marc Shigeta said Fruitland City Councilman and Payette County Coroner Keith Schuller was instrumental in researching and presenting the ordinance to the board. In an interview Tuesday, Schuller described multiple attacks, all within a year, in Fruitland that pushed the issue to the forefront for him.

“We agreed with his (Schuller’s) information,” Church said. “His concern was for public health and safety.”

Schuller said one incident involved a Fruitland police officer who was attacked by a pit bull that was running loose. Another incident occurred when a pit bull attacked 4-H pigs and threatened a police officer, Schuller said. In both instances, Schuller said the dogs were shot to prevent further harm to the officer. According to a handout from Schuller, “dangerous dogs can impair a neighborhood’s quality of life,” and he said it is important for city and county residents to always feel safe while jogging, riding bikes or playing in parks.“

All dogs bite, but when a pit bull bites, it’s different,” Schuller said. “Most dogs bite and let go.”

Those incidents brought the issue of pit bull attacks to Schuller’s attention, but the pit bull attack on an Ontario resident early last year caused Schuller to take the next step. Schuller presented a pit bull ordinance — based on a similar mandate in Denver, Colo., — to the Fruitland City Council, which it passed in May. The city of Payette then passed an ordinance similar to Fruitland’s in October.

Shigeta said it was practical to follow suit with the two largest communities in the county.

“I think they are going to talk to the city of New Plymouth,” Shigeta said. “They’re going to try to make it countywide within our municipalities as well.”

The ordinances require pit bull owners to register their dogs for $500 per year ($475 if spayed or neutered), acquire a $1 million public liability insurance policy, have the dog microchiped and spay or neuter the animal. Also, no new pit bulls can be brought into the county or city limits of Fruitland or Payette. Schuller said the county or sheriff’s office may present a similar proposal to the New Plymouth City Council in the future

It doesn’t seem quite right — when owners don’t provide all the resources and the person bitten ends up footing the whole bill,” Shigeta said.

Schuller owned a pit bull when his daughters were young to protect them, but said one day the dog turned on one of his daughters and attacked her face. After that incident, Schuller said he began to research the breed, and even attended a pit bull fight as part of that research.Schuller said in his research, he found that pit bulls have been bred to kill for many years, have very strong jaws and usually do not let go until the thing being attacked is dead.

Schuller referenced No. 9 of the defining characteristics in the ordinance as a major factor in presenting a breed-specific mandate. No. 9 in the county ordinance states: “a combination of agility, stamina, and strength, together with a genetic predisposition to aggressiveness, that makes pit bulls uniquely dangerous, even to their owners, among all breeds of dogs, especially where improperly raised or trained.”

Denver’s breed-specific ordinance the Payette County ordinances are based on has stood up many times in court, Schuller said. If a suit was ever filed against the county, Shigeta said the liability insurance the county carries would cover legal expenses.

The city of Denver’s ordinance is again in the court system — this time three women have filed a federal lawsuit claiming the procedures used to enforce the ordinance violate owners’ rights against self-incrimination, according to information from the Rocky Mountain News Web site.

“There’s no way you can tell by looking at the dog when it’s going to someday attack someone,” Schuller said.