Pit bull owner takes fight over city dog law to court
Fights like this will continue and innocent dogs will die all because of breed. It's sad that one owner has to make his fight alone. This is where an American Dog Coalitions should be taking part in fighting this challenge, just as we are doing here in Canada and ridding the U.S. of BSL.
This article is in the Toledoblade.com.
Article published Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Pit bull owner takes fight over city dog law to court
Ohio justices to hear challenge of Toledo rule
Former Toledo resident Paul Tellings, with Chance, left, and Justice, is fighting city and state laws governing vicious dogs. ( THE BLADE/JETTA FRASER )
By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU
COLUMBUS - A challenge to Ohio's law that deems pit bulls to be inherently vicious is drawing national attention as animal-rights organizations side with a dog owner who was prosecuted under a similar ordinance in Toledo.
The Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow in a case that claims the state law and the Toledo ordinance based on it unconstitutionally deprive dog owners of their right to a hearing.
The laws prohibit owners from having more than one "vicious" dog, generally defined as one that has killed or bitten a human, killed another dog, or "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull."
Sol Zyndorf, attorney for dog owner Paul Tellings, will cede part of his 15 minutes of argument time before the court to a California attorney who represents the American Canine Foundation.
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has weighed in with a legal brief supporting Mr. Tellings.
"They are fighting these laws throughout the country, and they would like a win here," said Mr. Zyndorf. "These organizations also condemn dog fighting, but they feel there's another way of controlling the situation."
The organizations argue the law should instead target owners who train dogs to be aggressive or fail to properly train or socialize them.
The state attorney general and the city of Cleveland, meanwhile, are coming to Toledo's defense.
Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann's office will take up half of Toledo's 15 minutes to defend Ohio's law, while the city of Cleveland, which has a similar ordinance, has filed a brief supporting Toledo.
"I'm surprised other municipalities didn't weigh in," said Victor Perez, Cleveland's chief prosecutor.
"Last year we had a mailman attacked by a pit bull that broke through a door," he said. "There were no warning signs. He is still going through physical rehabilitation."
Mr. Tellings, formerly of East Toledo and now living in Petersburg, Mich., owned two American pit bull terriers and a mixed breed fitting the description of a pit bull when a health inspector conducting a routine lead-paint home inspection reported him in 2003.
Mr. Tellings was convicted in Toledo Municipal Court of one count of owning more than one vicious dog and two counts of failing to obtain at least $100,000 in liability insurance for the dogs. He kept one dog and gave a second away. The third, Baby Girl, was confiscated and destroyed.
"My dogs have never attacked anyone," Mr. Tellings said.
"They say people with pit bulls are drug dealers or gang-bangers," he said. "I work for Edison. They stereotype somebody because of the type of dog they have, which is wrong. I was doing nothing but sitting at home with my dogs."
On appeal, the 6th District Court of Appeals in Toledo declared the city ordinance "unreasonable" for failing to provide an opportunity for an owner to challenge a dog warden's determination that a family pet is a pit bill or vicious.
The Supreme Court issued a stay allowing Toledo to continue enforcing its ordinance while the appeal continues.
Last year, Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon's office confiscated a record 998 pit bulls. He said many of those that did not show signs of dog fighting, were not picked up in drug raids, or were not involving in biting incidents were ultimately returned to their owners.
In 2004, the state Supreme Court struck down much of Ohio's vicious dog law on due-process grounds in Portage County. Cities like Toledo and Cleveland, however, have continued to enforce their ordinance as it applies to pit bulls, determining there were no due-process problems when state law specifically singles out the breed as vicious.
Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com
The Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow in a case that claims the state law and the Toledo ordinance based on it unconstitutionally deprive dog owners of their right to a hearing.
The laws prohibit owners from having more than one "vicious" dog, generally defined as one that has killed or bitten a human, killed another dog, or "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull."
Sol Zyndorf, attorney for dog owner Paul Tellings, will cede part of his 15 minutes of argument time before the court to a California attorney who represents the American Canine Foundation.
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has weighed in with a legal brief supporting Mr. Tellings.
"They are fighting these laws throughout the country, and they would like a win here," said Mr. Zyndorf. "These organizations also condemn dog fighting, but they feel there's another way of controlling the situation."
The organizations argue the law should instead target owners who train dogs to be aggressive or fail to properly train or socialize them.
The state attorney general and the city of Cleveland, meanwhile, are coming to Toledo's defense.
Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann's office will take up half of Toledo's 15 minutes to defend Ohio's law, while the city of Cleveland, which has a similar ordinance, has filed a brief supporting Toledo.
"I'm surprised other municipalities didn't weigh in," said Victor Perez, Cleveland's chief prosecutor.
"Last year we had a mailman attacked by a pit bull that broke through a door," he said. "There were no warning signs. He is still going through physical rehabilitation."
Mr. Tellings, formerly of East Toledo and now living in Petersburg, Mich., owned two American pit bull terriers and a mixed breed fitting the description of a pit bull when a health inspector conducting a routine lead-paint home inspection reported him in 2003.
Mr. Tellings was convicted in Toledo Municipal Court of one count of owning more than one vicious dog and two counts of failing to obtain at least $100,000 in liability insurance for the dogs. He kept one dog and gave a second away. The third, Baby Girl, was confiscated and destroyed.
"My dogs have never attacked anyone," Mr. Tellings said.
"They say people with pit bulls are drug dealers or gang-bangers," he said. "I work for Edison. They stereotype somebody because of the type of dog they have, which is wrong. I was doing nothing but sitting at home with my dogs."
On appeal, the 6th District Court of Appeals in Toledo declared the city ordinance "unreasonable" for failing to provide an opportunity for an owner to challenge a dog warden's determination that a family pet is a pit bill or vicious.
The Supreme Court issued a stay allowing Toledo to continue enforcing its ordinance while the appeal continues.
Last year, Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon's office confiscated a record 998 pit bulls. He said many of those that did not show signs of dog fighting, were not picked up in drug raids, or were not involving in biting incidents were ultimately returned to their owners.
In 2004, the state Supreme Court struck down much of Ohio's vicious dog law on due-process grounds in Portage County. Cities like Toledo and Cleveland, however, have continued to enforce their ordinance as it applies to pit bulls, determining there were no due-process problems when state law specifically singles out the breed as vicious.
Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com
or 614-221-0496.
3 comments:
It doesn't really matter if the law targets owners who train dogs to be aggressive, or not, because by the time the law gets involved, someones beloved pet has been killed or a person or someones child has been attacked and maimed. Learn to like another breed, there are plenty of other ugly dogs out there. Lions are tough too but no reasonable person keeps them as pets
It's illegal to own wild life as pets. As to 'learn to like another breed, there are plenty of ugly dogs out there.', I think that comment is just plain assinine.
Why would I want another breed when I have one of the most beautiful, loyal, intelligent and comical breed already.
One more comment j. To use a false blog addy is pretty low as with your mentality. You could have gone under anonymous. At least you would have been honest.
Post a Comment