Metro Aurora

City lawmakers uphold Aurora’s ban on pit bulls

“If some kid gets mauled by a pit bull, $100,000 is not going to make that situation whole,” said Councilman Bob Broom.

AURORA | City lawmakers turned back a proposal to repeal Aurora’s ban on pit bulls in lieu of forcing owners of the controversial dogs to carry big liability insurance policies.

City Council informally voted down measure at a study session Monday that would repeal the 9-year-old  ban but would require owners of the three prohibited breeds— American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers—to carry $100,000 for liability coverage in homeowners or renters insurance for the dog. City lawmakers agreed to send the measure back to a city council committee to make possible revisions. It’s unclear what legislation might look like when it returns to a  city council study session later this month.

  • Pit Bulls

    Juliet Piccone (left), a lawyer and animal advocate, talks with ColoRADdogs members David Walsh and Emily Cain before a city council meeting March 3 at the Aurora Municipal Center. City lawmakers informally voted to uphold Aurora's ban on pit bulls. (Marla R. Keown/Aurora Sentinel)

  • Pit Bulls

    Advocates for pit bull ownership, including members of ColoRADdogs, congregate before a city council meeting March 3 at the Aurora Municipal Center. City lawmakers informally voted to uphold Aurora's ban on pit bulls. (Marla R. Keown/Aurora Sentinel)

  • Pit Bulls

    Advocates for pit bull ownership, including members of ColoRADdogs, congregate before a city council meeting March 3 at the Aurora Municipal Center. City lawmakers informally voted to uphold Aurora's ban on pit bulls. (Marla R. Keown/Aurora Sentinel)

  • Pit Bulls

    Advocates for pit bull ownership, including members of ColoRADdogs, congregate before a city council meeting March 3 at the Aurora Municipal Center. City lawmakers informally voted to uphold Aurora's ban on pit bulls. (Marla R. Keown/Aurora Sentinel)

“Since the ban has been in place, bites are down 73 percent from pit bulls,” said Cheryl Conway, a spokeswoman for the city’s animal care division.

She described various problems the city encountered before enacting the ban in 2005 that included irresponsible owners letting the dogs run at large, and owners using pit bulls to taunt pedestrians.

She added that the dogs placed a tremendous burden on city staff. According to city documents, before the ordinance was enacted in 2005, up to 70 percent of kennels in the Aurora Animal Shelter were occupied by pit bulls with pending court disposition dates or with no known owner.  That number is now only 10 to 20 percent of kennels.

“There hasn’t been a human mauling in many years. Complaints and requests related to pit bulls are down 50 percent. Euthanasia of pit bull dogs is down 93 percent. Of those few that are put down, they are primarily those that come in as strays and their owners don’t come to claim them,” she said.

She said six of the eight municipalities that ban pit bulls in Colorado abut Aurora, and a repeal would result in pit bulls being relocated to Aurora.

Bob LeGare asked why Rottweiler’s and German Shephards, dogs that have also been studied and considered dangerous, were not included as part of the ban.

“It was the severity of the (pit bull) bites that prompted staff research and council action,” said Nancy Freed, deputy city manager.

Proponents have long argued that all dog owners, not just breeds should be held to the same standards.

“I’m convinced repealing with the safeguards that are in here—the $100,000 of insurance, and making the owner responsible—is the way to go,” said City Councilwoman Sally Mounier.  “It shouldn’t be breed-specific. It should make the dog owner responsible.”

But critics say that an insurance award isn’t the same as justice when someone is injured or killed by a dog.

“If some kid gets mauled by a pit bull, $100,000 is not going to make that situation whole,” said Councilman Bob Broom. “We’re listening to the people who are adamant about this subject, not to the people in the community. Put it on the ballot in November and let the city-at -large determine if they want to repeal this ordinance or not.”

Advocates for pit bulls who couldn’t fit into the study session space poured into the lobby and watched the meeting on TV. Around 40 of them later filtered into council chambers to express their concerns with the breed-specific legislation.

Juliet Piccone, a lawyer who has represented several clients cited for having a banned breed, said after the study session that it was a positive sign that 4 out of 10 council members supported the repeal.

“In the next couple of weeks while they revise the language of the ordinance, and they beef up the vicious dog ordinance, I think we can get the votes we need to repeal it,” she said.

Jennifer Bryant, an Aurora resident of Ward VI and community outreach director for ColoRADogs, said the ban does not protect Aurora residents.

“There’s a message being put out that the responsibility relies on the dog and the truth is we need to keep all owners accountable regardless of what breed their dogs are.”

About 50 other cities around the country have lifted their ban in recent years, according to figures from Aurora Animal Control. Still, more than 500 cities around the country and several other nations still ban certain breeds.

The ordinance will be revisited in an Aurora Public Safety committee meeting Tuesday, according to city staff.

Brandon Johansson contributed to this report.

This entry was posted in Metro Aurora, News, Trending, z news. Bookmark the permalink.
  • thatindividual

    Good move, congratulations. May these poor dogs be phased out so they don’t have to suffer anymore.

    • whenwilltruthprevail

      Really? May individuals be phased out next.

    • gouko787

      I feel the same way about people who base their life views on hate and fear.

      • John

        Typical liberal. Perhaps Jews first? Maybe Chinese Nationalist, or perhaps Armenians, or better yet Christians? Its people like you that cause hate and fear.

        • gouko787

          You are correct, I hope Jews, Chinese Nationalists, Americans, Christians and all peoples of the world receive education, experience and knowledge so they can base their views on these virtues, phasing out those who base their life on fear and hate,
          Typical Republican, reading what you want, not what the words actually say. Have a great day.

        • gouko787

          So John, as a whole hearted American conservative that believes in individual rights and freedom, what Is your take on the ban of dogs based on appearance?

  • Yotie

    Wow, common sense prevails! Pit bull
    Euthensia is down 93%! BSL works to protect people and dogs!

    • Mustang

      Done be ignorant, euthanasia of PIT BULLS is down. It’s doesn’t take a genius to realize that if you ban them and and remove them from an area bite rates and euthanasia rates will go down because the dogs aren’t around.

      If labs bite a person 5 times a year and then you ban the breed and no one owns a lab, then guess what, you would have zero bites from labs next year.

      BSL is ridiculous, instead of offering resources to promote better pet owners they put all these resources into trying to kill of a perfectly good breed.

    • Emily Sieger

      75% of the dogs they kill for being “pit bulls” have NO pit bull component in their DNA. Do you like that?

  • fearnot

    This is the exact reason I never travel to CO if I fly through there if I HAVE to fly through there I leave lots of information about how BSL is WRONG.. Many bull breeds are therapy dogs, live with children and save peoples lives.. many are service dogs They are NEVER taken into account when BSL is considered.. dogs are jsut dogs.. all of them the same.. it is the owners who need to take responsibility

  • gouko787

    The report in not accurate.

    The proposal will be moving forward to a vote in the full City Council session.

    It only takes one person to move the measure forward and it received four. The date has been delayed in order for the Public Safety Committee to hear the vicious dog ordinance the City Attorney is presenting as an alternative. So the date has not been set so that both ordinance changes can be considered together.

    On a side note, the City Attorney, who has not been swayed by the aggressive DBO campaign will hopefully be presenting a complete report that is not simply focused on the cherry picked and inaccurate statistics ACC chooses to present.

    ACC reported a selection of stats showing pit bulls and bites by pit bulls are declining in Aurora, but also failed to account for the fact 2 years ago they redefined what a pit bull was, again, taking of 7 dogs AND started DNA testing dogs to determine their breed. The result, was less pit bulls by definition and less aggressive short haired dogs being labeled pit bull despite the fact a DNA test would have shown otherwise. They are comparing two sets of data based on two sets of parameters. Not a very sound report.

    ACC also presented the data they have been presenting for years, but this time when asked why DBO was their predominate source, they said the reference page was a mistake. Two questions on that, what are your referenced then? and if the report is the same as it was 3 years ago, why would the references have changed?

    ” Euthensia is down 93%! BSL works to protect people and dogs! ” No Yotie, redefining and DNA testing has reduced the pool of dogs ACC can label as pit bull, so the same number of dogs are being killed, they are just not called pit bulls.

    Bob LeGare needs to be commended, not just for his tenacious study on this topic, but on his attitude and motivation overall as a member of City Council. I will be knocking on doors for him when it is time for his re-election.

  • 123tl78

    A little media bias perhaps? What are the chances? Richard Jewell’s life was ruined by media bias and jumping the gun on inaccurate news. This happens with dogs and many other things unfortunately. This is the media. They want ratings. It’s a business. That’s it.

  • Bob Cronk

    The most recent
    comprehensive examination of dog bite data was published in the Journal of the American
    Veterinary Medical Association this past December. The researchers, who
    included the lead author of the CDC’s 2000 study, compiled much more extensive
    case histories than the CDC had previously. And this time, the researchers
    concluded that breed was not a significant contributing factor in fatal dog
    bites.

    In
    more than 80 percent of the 256 dog bite fatalities the JAVMA researchers
    examined, breed could not even be reliably determined.

    These
    figures are in line with a National Institute for Health study from 2009,
    looking at dogs identified at pit bulls in Florida animal shelters. That study
    also found that most people are fairly bad at identifying what breed of dog
    they’re interacting with.

  • http://www.coloradogs.org/ ColoRADogs

    Gouko787 is right. The Aurora Sentinel did a poor job of reporting facts this time but it was a good headline grab.