A group of municipal leaders and other stakeholders who have studied the issue will recommend the measure within the next few weeks. It aims to reduce hundreds of monthly calls about aggressive dogs – especially pit bulls – and prevent future attacks.
But some animal advocates blast the measure for unfairly targeting specific breeds, saying it punishes responsible pet owners whose dogs have done nothing wrong. They want an ordinance against aggressive animals without identifying pedigree.
“Unfortunately you need a first-bite incident to say that’s a dangerous dog,” said Tupelo veterinarian Stephen King, who opposes breed-specific legislation. “On the flip side, if you do a breed specific, you’ve penalized responsible dog owners of that type of breed who show no aggression or dangerous behavior.”
Dogs, from pit bulls to teacup poodles, are only as aggressive as their owners allow, he said.
Those in favor of the ordinance agree with King about owner-induced aggression but argue that Tupelo’s specific pit-bull problem can’t be ignored. The bloodline has a history of violent behavior perpetuated by some of the owners who typically choose this type of pet, said Tupelo-Lee Humane Society Debbie Hood.
“I blame the irresponsible owners of these pit bulls for the ordinances to come down on the other, responsible owners,” Hood said. “We agree it should be a dangerous dog ordinance, but the city doesn’t want to wait until a dog is deemed dangerous.”
Hood said the animal shelter fields about 200 calls monthly, and the vast majority involve errant and aggressive pit bulls.
In addition to pit bulls, other breeds also could be singled out in the proposal, said the subcommittee’s chairman and Ward 5 City Councilman Jonny Davis. He wants to recommend mandatory registration and annual permit fees for owners of Rottweilers, German Shepherds and Doberman Pinschers, too.
Owners of these animals would face stricter requirements for confining their pets and higher fines for failure to comply than would owners of non-dangerous pets.
Other dogs would fall into the dangerous category only after having shown signs of aggression, like biting a person or another pet or acting in a threatening manner. Such incidents would be investigated by the city’s animal control officer before a dog could be deemed dangerous.
Tupelo’s current ordinance requires all dogs be kept on a leash or in a pen with a maximum $50 fine for violations. With only one full-time animal control officer, though, it’s hard to enforce.
“We’re trying to make the city a safer environment for other citizens and still respect dog owners,” Davis said. “We don’t want to wait until a citizen gets hurt or, God forbid, a child gets killed.”
In the past two years in Northeast Mississippi, pit bulls have attacked at least four children and four adults – two of them fatally. One of the incidents happened on Feemster Lake Road in Lee County, where a family pit bull ripped into the face of an 18-month-old girl. She survived.
Communities across the region have wrestled to deal with the situation. Many now are considering ordinances similar to the one floated in Tupelo. But it’s not an easy matter, as evidenced by Tupelo’s own struggle to adopt a solution.
The city had launched a task force about five years ago to recommend a vicious dog ordinance. It never gained enough steam to pass a council vote and eventually died.
Ward 3 Councilman Jim Newell said he’d like to see it pass this time, as long as it doesn’t target specific pedigrees. He also wants to see a citywide pet registration requirement for all cat and dog owners. The permit fees would raise much-needed revenues for the Tupelo-Lee Humane Society, while the registration would help reunite lost pets with their owners.
“I would support a citywide pet registration, a dangerous dog act and a leash law with teeth in it,” Newell said. “But I’m opposed to breed specific.”
emily.lecoz@journalinc.com


Maybe a $500 fine on the first offense and $5,000 on the second with the fines going to the pound would greatly reduce the likelihood of a repeat offense, while contributing to support the pound.
What did she think I had, an elephant? So since I'm retired and have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a Perfect Diet and that the way that it works is, to load your pants pockets with Purina Nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The food is nutritionally complete so it works well and I was going to try it again. (I have to mention here that practically everyone in line was now enthralled with my story.) Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care, because
the dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stepped off a curb to sniff a poodle's butt and a car hit me.
I thought the guy behind her was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard.
Costco won't let me shop there anymore.
Pit bulls are dangerous animals by nature.
“I blame the irresponsible owners of these pit bulls for the ordinances to come down on the other, responsible owners,” Hood said."
For once I agree with Hood.