Toledo Gets It Right on "Dangerous" Dogs

The Toledo, Ohio, City Council unanimously approved a new, breed-neutral dog ordinance earlier this month, and it's not bad at all. The new law puts the responsibility for bad behavior on the owner, where it belongs. The new law itself is detailed, as it should be, but here are a few of the high points:

First and foremost, there's no mention of particular breeds, and language in the previous law targeting pit bulls is repealed. When it comes to defining a dangerous dog under the new law, there are two classifications. A "Level 1 Threat" is a dog that has chased or menaced a person anywhere other than the owner/keeper's private property without provocation. (E.g. a loose dog chasing bicyclists down a sidewalk.) A "Level 2 Threat" is a dog that has killed or injured a person or another dog. In order to classify a dog as a level one or level two threat, you need a written evaluation and witness testimony. Call it the canine version of due process.

So, the big takeaway is that a so-called "vicious dog," under Toledo's definition isn't limited by breed. It's determined solely by the dog's behavior.

Of course, dangerous canine behavior ultimately reflects back on the person who keeps the dog. So, the Toledo law addresses the very human concerns as well. Toledo defines a "reckless owner" as one who breaks the law more than three times in two years, or who willfully ignores the new requirements for having a dog classified as a level one or level two threat. And, if you get pegged as a reckless owner, you'll be surrendering your dogs within 24 hours and forbidden to have any new dogs for up to four years.

Finally, the new Toledo law strengthens some other very human problems — abuse, neglect, and tethering:

• No dog can be tethered outside for more than an hour, unless the owner or keeper is out there in the yard as well.
• The law also prohibits leaving a dog unattended for more than 24 hours in any circumstances.
• And, as you would expect, using a dog as a "weapon" in the commission of a crime is also banned.

The Animal Law Coalition does an excellent job of breaking down the nuts and bolts of the new Toledo ordinance, if you want more detail.

Overall, this is a really great example of what we need to be seeing in animal control ordinances, and a good step towards a breed-neutral approach on the local level. It's a good starting point for other, less progressive communities.

It's also very important to note that, while Toledo didn't get here overnight, their ascension to sanity has been refreshingly fast. It wasn't even a year ago that writers here at Change.org were calling much-needed attention to then-Dog Warden Tom Skeldon's predilection for puppy-killing. Skeldon resigned in November of 2009, and it took all of about two days for his replacement, Julie Lyle, to put the brakes on euthanizing pit bulls.

Toledo has moved quickly from being at the bottom of the heap on animal protection to being something that less-enlightened communities (we're looking at you, Denver) should aspire to.

Actually, let's talk for a second about Denver, which is making a pretty good case to be the anti-Toledo when it comes to dogs. Toledo is taking progressive, well-reasoned steps to control dangerous dogs, and it defines a dangerous dog based on the individual animal's behavior and the actions of its owner. In contrast, Denver is blowing boatloads of taxpayer dollars on trying to defend its pit bull-specific dog ordinance, based solely on the junk science of breed identification, in court. Which community do you think is going to have more success in the long term?

Photo credit: maplegirlie