Go to content Go to navigation Go to search
Associated Online

Thursday, September 2, 2010 | Archives

February 26, 2009

Council OKs new vicious dog ordinance


Man’s best friend will be on a little longer leash in Westland following approval of some new ordinance language.

Last week, members of the city council unanimously agreed to take the bite out of current rules and approved a new ordinance that eliminates a breed-specific ban which required certain dogs considered “vicious and or dangerous” be restrained, penned, leashed and or muzzled, depending on the circumstances.

Following protests by a vocal group of supporters of pit bulls, the ordinance was altered so that only dogs reported to have bitten or attacked a person or another animal be subject to more stringent restrictions.

The ordinance becomes effective today, according to Police Chief James Ridener.

“We formerly required that pit bulls, or dogs deemed vicious or dangerous, be in a six-sided pen, that is one with walls and fencing across the top to prevent these dogs from jumping. Now, that has been relaxed until there has been a report of an attack,” he said.

Ridener noted that the ordinance had required the top fencing because some of these dogs were able to jump a 4 or 6-foot fence.

“While other communities are becoming more restrictive regarding pit bulls and some other dog breeds, we’re going the opposite way,” he said.

After a report of any attack to police, the dog owner has the option of either having the animal tattooed or micro-chipped for identification, should it be out running loose or be apprehended by the animal control officer.

Ridener noted that the department does not have a scanner, estimated to cost about $2,000, necessary to read the micro chips which are usually inserted in the dog’s upper neck.

“It may also be quite difficult to get the scanner that close to a vicious dog to read the micro chip,” he said.

The relaxed ordinance does not require the muzzling of the dog based on breed until a report of an attack. The seriousness of the attack is not addressed in the ordinance, Ridener said.

“Once an attack has been reported, we can then treat the animal as a vicious dog and a danger. I don’t think that the best interests of the human factor were considered with this relaxation,” the chief added.

Ridener stressed that his concern was for the safety of the public and that most dog owners, and owners of pit bulls, were responsible.

“Our problems come from irresponsible owners,” he said. “When we have a number of attacks and bites reported, and cases in court, that indicates there is a problem with some owners and that these dogs can create problems.”

http://www.journalgroup.com/Westland/9290

Join the Discussion

Reader comments [4]

Feb 26, 2009 | 4:55 PM
Brad:

Ridener and others got bamboozled by a lobby of pit bull breeders and dog fighters who only care about easily making money from these dogs, NOT public safety.

The bloodshed will be imminent.

If Ridener had had the integrity to do some research, and look at sites like http://www.dogsbite.org (instead of pit bull breeder propaganda sites) he might have cared a little more about the public.

Pit bulls DO have problems that other dogs don’t have.

There DO need to be special rules for pit bulls, or else people and pets die.

There is a reason that pit bulls top the list for killing and maiming people.

Anyone hurt by a pit bull should hold Ridener responsible.

Add a Comment | Link to This | Back to Top
Feb 27, 2009 | 2:28 PM
Brian Cluxton:

Congrats to Westland for this action. BSL does not work, cracking down on irresponsible owners does work. Dogsbite.org is a bunch of propaganda not based in fact or scientific research. For an unbiased, objective view of breed specific legislation, check out http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/

Add a Comment | Link to This | Back to Top
Feb 28, 2009 | 10:36 AM
Jay:

The site dogsbite is nothing but a collection of media stories.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/

They don`t allow dissenting opinion,free discussion or correction of misinformation.

I know,I tried.

[quote]Pit bulls DO have problems that other dogs don’t have.[/quote]

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/types-of-dog-bites/dog-bites-injuries/

[quote]There is a reason that pit bulls top the list for killing and maiming people.[/quote]

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/avma-letter.pdf

[quote]Anyone hurt by a pit bull should hold Ridener responsible.[/quote]

Anyone hurt by a DOG should hold the OWNER of that dog responsible.

Add a Comment | Link to This | Back to Top
Feb 28, 2009 | 10:44 AM
Kyle (@krharrison):

I’m not sure if you read the specific legislation, but it was very broad and vague. If a dog “looked” like it was a bull breed it was deemed a vicious dog. It also required a “tattoo” to be added to the dog. Who provides those services? Is that like branding?

I just don’t think the original ordinance was well-thought out and I’m glad it was pushed back.

As far as “propaganda” is concerned, I’m going to have to assume the web site you presented is not propaganda as well?

Add a Comment | Link to This | Back to Top
New! Talk about more issues in Journal Talk.
Communities All Areas Services & Extras About Us
VR Metro - Website Design, Development, Promotion, Hosting and Consulting Company