SouthernDixie
08-15-2005, 08:48 AM
Even though I do not live in Denver, I wrote the city attorney with my thoughts on the subject. I did not gripe or send harsh words, I basically told him to do some research himself, as well as many other things. This is their response....
On behalf of Mayor John Hickenlooper, I have been asked to respond to your recent letter concerning Denver’s pit bull ordinance. While a detailed explanation of the full history and judicial review of Denver’s pit bull ban ordinance is available online on the official website of the City & County of Denver at http://www.denvergov.org/City_Attorney/54517143template3jump.asp the following information may answer your questions:
The history behind Denver’s pit bull ordinance goes back further than the mere date of its passage on July 31, 1989. Between 1984 and May of 1989, pit bulls attacked and seriously injured more than 20 people in Colorado, including three-year old Fernando Salazar, who was fatally mauled by a pit bull in southwest Denver in October of 1986. On May 8, 1989, 58 year-old Reverend Wilber Billingsley was attacked and bitten by a pit bull in the alley behind his home at 1075 Emerson Street, Denver. The pit bull’s attack was sustained over a long period of time, and a neighbor, Mr. Norman Cable, attempted to stop the attack by hitting the pit bull with a 2” x 4” piece of wood lumber, which had no effect. Mr. Cable eventually was able to stop the attack only by shooting the pit bull with a shotgun. The victim suffered serious injuries over 70 bites, with both of his legs being broken. As a result of these attacks, the opinion of the local community, as evidenced by editorials by the two leading newspapers, was in support of increased regulation over pit bulls, including a complete ban: Let’s outlaw killer dogs, editorial, Denver Post, June 12, 1998; and Tougher rules and stronger enforcement on pit bulls, editorial, Rocky Mountain News, May 12, 1989. In November of 2003 in Elbert County, Colorado, Jennifer Brooke was killed by three pit bulls which viciously mauled and dismembered her with such ghastly injuries that even grizzled veteran homicide investigators were shocked. The official crime scene photos are still under court orders against release to the public.
The nation’s leading expert in the field of ethology (the study of animal behavior) and pit bulls, Dr. Peter Borchelt, Ph.D., a certified applied animal behaviorist, testified before the Denver District Court that this breed of dog was artificially selected by humans for breeding in order to enhance their behavioral traits most beneficial in fighting other animals, and resulted in a breed of dogs having an aggressive behavior frequency distribution pattern that is permanently shifted higher than other breeds of dogs. Such behavioral traits as higher levels of strength, tenacity, tolerance to pain, combined with their “bite and hold” attack behavior that results in the ripping and tearing of flesh and muscle, presents a logical explanation for this ban. While the individual tendencies of any individual pit bull may vary, as a clearly defined phenotype, the breed has been determined to have higher levels of such dangerous tendencies as a group, justifying this action.
This ordinance has been heavily litigated, and has been upheld by the judiciary repeatedly, as the best available evidence indicates that there is a logical reason to differentiate the treatment of pit bulls from other dogs, not because they are more likely to attack humans or other domesticated pets, but should they attack, they are more likely to impose serious injuries upon their victims, and more likely to cause fatalities. This determination was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1991, in the matter of Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc., v. Denver, 820 P.2d 644 and most recently by the Denver District Court on April 7, 2005.
Upon Governor Owens signing HB04-1279 into law on April 21, 2004, Nancy Severson, the Manager of the Denver Department of Environmental Health, the administrative agency over the Division of Animal Control, announced the voluntary suspension of enforcement actions of the ordinance, but advised that the enforcement could resume upon the conclusion of any legal litigation. Subsequently, the Division of Animal Control consistently advised everyone that their possession of a pit bull in Denver would be done at their own peril, as enforcement of the ordinance could resume at any time. On April 8, 2005, Denver announced that due to the judicial ruling on April 7th, resumption of enforcement would occur on May 9th. Individual notice letters were mailed out to every address where there was any reason to believe a pit bull may be harbored. The extensive local media’s coverage of the pit bull litigation also provided notice, specifically after the City’s victory in December 2004 in its litigation with the State over the issue of constitutional home rule authority. Even after May 9th, the owners of an impounded pit bull who can provide sufficient proof of their capacity to permanently remove pit bulls from Denver are able to do so and avoid having them destroyed. Every destroyed pit bull has been abandoned or has been brought back into Denver for a 2nd time. These owners are to blame.
KUSA Channel 9 News recently reported that a statistically reliable survey from Survey USA, with a confidence level of over 95%, reported that 60% of Denver area residents supported Denver’s pit bull ban, with only 35% opposed. Now, many surrounding suburbs of Denver, including Aurora and Commerce City, and other major cities around North America are following Denver’s leadership and either have already or are now pursuing the implementation of restrictions against pit bulls, including the entire Province of Ontario, Canada, the State of Oklahoma, and the State of California. Supporters from continue to send messages of support, such as the following email:
With your prohibition of owning pit bulls you have saved lives. God bless you and your staff. . . . Keep up the good work! This is the most important task that you will perform during your entire career. The nation, and I, salute you.
Finally, as the executive branch of Denver’s municipal government is tasked with the enforcement of laws passed by the legislative branch, any changes to the ordinance would be the decision of the Denver City Council.
Thank you again for you inquiry.
Respectfully,
Kory A. Nelson, Esq.
On behalf of Mayor John Hickenlooper, I have been asked to respond to your recent letter concerning Denver’s pit bull ordinance. While a detailed explanation of the full history and judicial review of Denver’s pit bull ban ordinance is available online on the official website of the City & County of Denver at http://www.denvergov.org/City_Attorney/54517143template3jump.asp the following information may answer your questions:
The history behind Denver’s pit bull ordinance goes back further than the mere date of its passage on July 31, 1989. Between 1984 and May of 1989, pit bulls attacked and seriously injured more than 20 people in Colorado, including three-year old Fernando Salazar, who was fatally mauled by a pit bull in southwest Denver in October of 1986. On May 8, 1989, 58 year-old Reverend Wilber Billingsley was attacked and bitten by a pit bull in the alley behind his home at 1075 Emerson Street, Denver. The pit bull’s attack was sustained over a long period of time, and a neighbor, Mr. Norman Cable, attempted to stop the attack by hitting the pit bull with a 2” x 4” piece of wood lumber, which had no effect. Mr. Cable eventually was able to stop the attack only by shooting the pit bull with a shotgun. The victim suffered serious injuries over 70 bites, with both of his legs being broken. As a result of these attacks, the opinion of the local community, as evidenced by editorials by the two leading newspapers, was in support of increased regulation over pit bulls, including a complete ban: Let’s outlaw killer dogs, editorial, Denver Post, June 12, 1998; and Tougher rules and stronger enforcement on pit bulls, editorial, Rocky Mountain News, May 12, 1989. In November of 2003 in Elbert County, Colorado, Jennifer Brooke was killed by three pit bulls which viciously mauled and dismembered her with such ghastly injuries that even grizzled veteran homicide investigators were shocked. The official crime scene photos are still under court orders against release to the public.
The nation’s leading expert in the field of ethology (the study of animal behavior) and pit bulls, Dr. Peter Borchelt, Ph.D., a certified applied animal behaviorist, testified before the Denver District Court that this breed of dog was artificially selected by humans for breeding in order to enhance their behavioral traits most beneficial in fighting other animals, and resulted in a breed of dogs having an aggressive behavior frequency distribution pattern that is permanently shifted higher than other breeds of dogs. Such behavioral traits as higher levels of strength, tenacity, tolerance to pain, combined with their “bite and hold” attack behavior that results in the ripping and tearing of flesh and muscle, presents a logical explanation for this ban. While the individual tendencies of any individual pit bull may vary, as a clearly defined phenotype, the breed has been determined to have higher levels of such dangerous tendencies as a group, justifying this action.
This ordinance has been heavily litigated, and has been upheld by the judiciary repeatedly, as the best available evidence indicates that there is a logical reason to differentiate the treatment of pit bulls from other dogs, not because they are more likely to attack humans or other domesticated pets, but should they attack, they are more likely to impose serious injuries upon their victims, and more likely to cause fatalities. This determination was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1991, in the matter of Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc., v. Denver, 820 P.2d 644 and most recently by the Denver District Court on April 7, 2005.
Upon Governor Owens signing HB04-1279 into law on April 21, 2004, Nancy Severson, the Manager of the Denver Department of Environmental Health, the administrative agency over the Division of Animal Control, announced the voluntary suspension of enforcement actions of the ordinance, but advised that the enforcement could resume upon the conclusion of any legal litigation. Subsequently, the Division of Animal Control consistently advised everyone that their possession of a pit bull in Denver would be done at their own peril, as enforcement of the ordinance could resume at any time. On April 8, 2005, Denver announced that due to the judicial ruling on April 7th, resumption of enforcement would occur on May 9th. Individual notice letters were mailed out to every address where there was any reason to believe a pit bull may be harbored. The extensive local media’s coverage of the pit bull litigation also provided notice, specifically after the City’s victory in December 2004 in its litigation with the State over the issue of constitutional home rule authority. Even after May 9th, the owners of an impounded pit bull who can provide sufficient proof of their capacity to permanently remove pit bulls from Denver are able to do so and avoid having them destroyed. Every destroyed pit bull has been abandoned or has been brought back into Denver for a 2nd time. These owners are to blame.
KUSA Channel 9 News recently reported that a statistically reliable survey from Survey USA, with a confidence level of over 95%, reported that 60% of Denver area residents supported Denver’s pit bull ban, with only 35% opposed. Now, many surrounding suburbs of Denver, including Aurora and Commerce City, and other major cities around North America are following Denver’s leadership and either have already or are now pursuing the implementation of restrictions against pit bulls, including the entire Province of Ontario, Canada, the State of Oklahoma, and the State of California. Supporters from continue to send messages of support, such as the following email:
With your prohibition of owning pit bulls you have saved lives. God bless you and your staff. . . . Keep up the good work! This is the most important task that you will perform during your entire career. The nation, and I, salute you.
Finally, as the executive branch of Denver’s municipal government is tasked with the enforcement of laws passed by the legislative branch, any changes to the ordinance would be the decision of the Denver City Council.
Thank you again for you inquiry.
Respectfully,
Kory A. Nelson, Esq.