Bluffs City Council Considers Pit Bull Ban

Omaha, NE-- The Council Bluffs City Council meets Monday night to consider a ban on pit bulls in the city. Three of the five members have already said they will vote for the ban. Even if it does pass, the controversy will be far from over.

"These are those I gathered this afternoon." Even in what's likely the final hours of the fight to prevent the city from passing a ban, pit bull owner Ray Order continued to collect signatures Monday. He has nearly 2,000 who oppose the ban. "They are loving. They are kind. They are my children." Order said pit bulls have been given a bad rap and only wants them to be treated just like other dog in the city. "There are tons of people who are responsible dog owners and want the city to recognize that and hold each citizen responsible for that."

Despite their argument, in order to prevent a ban on pit bulls, they will have to convince at least one of the three city council members who are for the ban to change their vote and that doesn't appear to be likely. "At this point I don't think there is anything they can say that will make me change my mind," said city council member Lynne Branigan, who says the facts show pit bulls are simply a public danger. "Granted any dog can bite at anytime, but the pit bull, with everything we've seen in the reports, they can do a lot of damage. I want to prevent a potential death."

So far this year, the city has reported 27 cases of pit bull attacks, nearly a quarter of all the city's dog bites. Earlier this year a pit bull left Anne Smith's arm with an eight-inch tear requiring 28 stitches. Then a month ago, according to an incident report, a pit bull attacked its owner sending him to the hospital. The dog then attacked a police officer and police said they had no choice but to shoot it.

If the city council does pass the ban, those who have pit bulls will be grandfathered in, but they will have to meet a series of requirements, including obtaining $100,000 of liability insurance on their dog, which if the dog has a history of biting, we're told will be difficult to get. We should also expect several lawsuits to be filed over whether the city has the right to pass such a ban.

Three of five members say they favor ban

 

I live in CB and I can relate with the PB attacks. I still have a problem with this ban. I know probably 15 people with Pit's and only one of those dogs has ever bitten anyone. What about the other 14 people that own these dogs? My cousin has a pitbull that will not attack anyone unless you go after a member of the family. I agree with the ban but, disagree with the ridiculous $100,000 insurance requirement. Also, this ban, I have noticed, has caused more problems here in the city. Former (now) owners have just released the dogs onto the streets. As I sit here typing this, I look outside and see a stray pitbull outside the house now, messing with our dog. Now, those of you that voted for this ban, do you think you did the right thing? Should those of us that have outdoor animals be able to sue the council for passing this ban should our animal get attacked by a now-stray pitbull? I think we should be able to, IF we can prove somehow that the attacking PB was once owned by someone in the city and released it due to this ridiculous insurance coverage requirement... What do you think??