news
Tupelo’s proposed ordinance specifically mentions only one breed – mixed or pure pit bulls – as automatically qualified for its definition of dangerous animals. (Thomas Wells/file photo)
City Council members met Tuesday to discuss the recommended version, which significantly strengthens the existing ordinance. Members are scheduled to vote on it May 1.
If it passes, the amendment will take effect 30 days later and will apply to all Tupelo residents.
According to the proposal, owners of all pets with a history of aggression must obtain an $80 permit from the Tupelo-Lee Humane Society and renew it annually. Failure to do so could result in up to $1,000 in fines and up to six months in jail.
Animals are deemed dangerous when, unprovoked, they threaten or attack a person or another pet; if they're owned or trained primarily for fighting; or if they're a pure or mixed-breed pit bull.
The definition hasn't changed from the existing ordinance. But, unlike at least one previous proposal, this one omits the automatic classification of Rottweilers, German Shepherds and Doberman Pinschers as dangerous.
Some animal advocates, including veterinarian Stephen King, had argued against singling out specific breeds, saying it unfairly penalizes responsible pet owners. Others, like Ward 5 Councilman Jonny Davis, had lobbied for it because of the breeds' size and strength and the damage they could cause.
Both Davis and King renewed their positions Tuesday, as did Ward 3 Councilman Jim Newell, who argued extensively against leaving pit bulls in the ordinance. He wanted no mention of breeds whatsoever.
"I don't think we're ever going to solve this," said council President Fred Pitts after more than an hour of debate. "We're just going to have to take it to a vote next Tuesday night."
Prior to the meeting, Tupelo-Lee Humane Society Director Debbie Hood said she opposes most breed-specific legislation but approves the inclusion of pit bulls in the ordinance.
"I have seen the damage done to other dogs and cats, I have seen the damage done to persons by a pit bull more so than any other breed," Hood said. "A first offense on a Chihuahua ... is not going to result in the serious damage compared to a pit bull biting somebody on the first offense."
Also new in the proposed ordinance are a slew of conditions residents must meet to qualify for a dangerous-pet permit. They must, for example, be at least 21 years old, prove the pet has been sterilized, has a microchip and current rabies vaccination, and they must obtain a minimum of $100,000 in liability insurance in case the animal hurts someone.
Under the current ordinance, pet owners must provide only their address and a description of the animal to get a one-time, $50 permit. And they're required to keep it either indoors or in a fully enclosed, 4-foot-high pen. It must be muzzled and leashed when out for a walk.
Failure to obtain a permit currently can result in a maximum $150 fine per animal, per day. And failure to comply with the leash law and confinement regulations can cause the city to impound the animal and, if not reclaimed within five days, euthanize it.
The new proposal goes further. It mandates a 6-foot-high pen with a combination or key lock when outside. When inside, all windows and doors must be closed unless reinforced by something strong enough to prevent an escape - screens alone aren't enough. All dangerous pets also must wear at all times a bright, orange, city-issued collar. And owners can't walk them within 500 feet of a school.
Failure to comply with any of the regulations can lead to the maximum $1,000 fine and possible jail time, as well as impoundment of the animal and possibly its euthanasia.
emily.lecoz@journalinc.com
And how does charging 80 bucks for a permit make dogs less dangerous? It doesn't. It is all about making money for the city.
I definitely agree with many of the posts below that pit bulls can be wonderful dogs and that it is complicated to determine just what a "pit bull mix" is. I'd be much more in favor of labelling a dangerous dog based on behavior rather than breed.
On the other hand, certain pit bulls have shown an ability to maul and kill that goes beyond other breeds. Just last week, there were two stories in the news - one where a pit killed an infant and another where two pits broke through a garage door to kill a Great Dane in their own home. There is something different about these dogs - if they are taught agression, they are deadly where other breeds might just injure.
This is why they are trained for fighting and used as bully dogs by drug dealers and other criminals. In this part of the country a disproportionate number of these dogs are used for nefarious purposes. It will be interesting to see how the city's animal control dept will enforce the ordinance and actually get the fee from these unsavory characters.
I might argue that an $80 annual fee to license a dog that has attacked someone unprovoked does not go far enough. These animals should be humanely euthanized. There are plenty of poor animals put to death every day that have never shown the slightest aggression who should be allowed to live instead.
On the other hand, during the same time period, directly behind my apartment was a pit bull tethered in the corner of a backyard. He had been there so long there was no grass within the radius of his tether. Never did I see a person visit him except to give food and water.
Which of these animals has potential to hurt or kill someone? Could it be the one who's never even been around people?
All she wanted was love and to meet people. She would run at you and yes it looked like a horse charging. But never hurt a flee.
We had the police called on us (in a nice neighborhood in tupelo) several times for having a viscious dog. She spent most of her time in my house on my couch...
I feel very sad for some breeds out there especially pit bulls that have a bad reputation.
I know for a fact you can make ANY breed mean and agressive if you the owner train them to do that.
I had to move from city limits to keep her.
Sad, sad, sad,
oh and FYI I was bit as a child by a chow dog breed. HMMMMMMMMM
It also disturbs me that the Director of TLHS supports this nonsense citing size as pretty much the only factor. Makes me wonder if they put down all Pit Bulls brought in immediately, since you know they're dangerous and all.
OLHS supports all breeds and will receive my donations over TLHS any day.
The American Pit Bull Terrier is a distinctly different breed and is not recognized by the AKC. As long as owners of Amstaffs and Amstaff mixes can keep their gentle pets away from being named in this controversy, the better.
Don't these people realize if they try to ban one dog, they are just going to backyard breed another and it is just going to be a vicious cycle. Like you said, it all lies with the owners, not the dogs.