SUSAN KEYTON with her son’s dog, Sadie, at Keyton’s mother’s home in Fayette Friday morning. Keyton cares for Sadie and plays Frisbee with her every day. She objects to certain provisions of the proposed animal ordinance: 1) the requirements for $100,000 insurance and 2) the requirement of muzzles for pit bulls when outside of fenced areas. “I couldn’t play Frisbee with my dog,” she said. She acknowledged at the Nov. 18 Fayette city council meeting, “I understand there is a problem with too many free-roaming dogs in general.” But she disagrees with the ordinance targeting the pit bull breed. “It’s the owners who make the animals vicious,” she said.

Whether or not to ban pit bulls within the Fayette city limits will be a question council members will address at their next meeting Tuesday.

Although the pit bull ban is only one part of the proposed animal control ordinance, it has generated the most controversy.

To provide additional information to both council members and citizens, the Democrat-Leader researched the effect of pit bull bans that are in place in nearby cities, in addition to policy statements of professional organizations about breed-specific legislation.

Both Glasgow and New Franklin have ordinances which ban pit bulls. New Franklin’s ordinance was passed in December 1988; Glasgow passed its ordinance in the late 1990s.
New Franklin City Administrator Pat Cunningham, as well as Glasgow City Collector Debbie Haskamp, told the Democrat-Leader that they have not heard any comments or complaints from citizens about the ban. Cunningham said, “We have had no trouble with compliance.” Since 1989, Cunningham reported, there have been two incidences involving pit bulls: one charged an individual and another pit bull bit a person. In each case, the animal was either removed from the city or euthanized.

New Franklin Mayor Frank Frevert said, “If it’s working, why change it?”

Glasgow Mayor Fred Foley said, “I’ve heard nothing negative about the ordinance [pit bull ban].” Foley added, “It’s always difficult to pass a new ordinance.” But he believed that once it is in place, “most people see it as a positive impact on their community.”

A question asked during public discussion was whether a ban on pit bulls would simply increase pit bull populations into the nonincorporated areas of the county. Sheriff Charlie Polson felt there would “probably not be any more than usual,” citing the grandfather clause which allows persons who already own pit bulls to keep their dogs.
Despite widespread acceptance of the pit bull ban in local cities, several professional organizations oppose breed specific legislation.

The American Veterinary Medical Association, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association and the Centers for Disease Control all post policy statements which call for legislation which addresses vicious dog behavior rather than dog breeds.

The AVMA stated in a September 2000 report: “From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.”
Following this conclusion, AVMA recommended prevention measures such as “stringent” enforcement of leash laws, quick response to dogs showing menacing behavior and requiring owners of problem dogs to assume liability for their dogs’ behavior.

© Copyright 2002-2005 by Wood Creek Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

Top of Page