Pit bull owner wants Cottonport to revise ‘vicious dog’ law

It didn’t take long for allegations of “breedism” to be aired following the Town of Cottonport’s promise to enforce its “vicious dog” ordinance.

Sarah Ferguson addressed the Town Council at its Oct 16 meeting, saying the town ordinance is “breed discriminatory” against pit bulls. Ferguson said she lives just outside of town but walks her pit bull on a leash each morning in the Cottonport park. A town policeman told her recently that she could no longer walk the dog in town unless it was wearing a muzzle, as well as being on a leash.

Police Chief Earnest Anderson declared a “no warning” policy in clamping down on enforcing several ordinances, including the vicious dog law requiring such animals to be on a leash and muzzled.

Pit bulls are considered “vicious” solely due to their breed and so fall under the ordinance’s restrictions even if the individual dog has never exhibited violent tendencies.

Ferguson said the ordinance that was adopted in 2006 should be re-visited. Most of the provisions are appropriate, she said, but added that classifying American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, bull terrier and any dog mixed with one of those breeds as a "vicious animal" is “breed discriminatory.”

“Over the past years, state and local governments have been affected by a severe economic recession and have had to tighten their belts, cut important safety programs and reduce staff,” Ferguson said. “Yet, Cottonport is enacting a costly law that bans, restricts and even kills certain pets based solely on their alleged breed.”

PROPERTY RIGHTS CLAIM
Putting breed-specific restrictions on pit bulls interferes with responsible pet owners’ property rights. It can also become a serious burden on local governments and a waste of tax payer dollars, Ferguson claimed.

She contends the ordinance drains needed resources from vital government sources, such as fire protection, parks and road maintenance.

There are 562 dogs in Cottonport, of which 42 are considered “pit bulls,” she said.

By her math, it would cost the town $3,435 to eliminate pit bulls in Cottonport -- $1,840 for enforcement costs, $651 for kenneling the dogs, $379 for DNA tests to prove the breed, $486 for legal fees and $79 for euthanasia for a total of $3,435.

“Governments that interfere with citizens’ property rights through breed-discriminatory provisions have the burden of proving the heritage of individual pets and providing constitutional due process protection before seizing and housing them,” Ferguson said.

“Enforcing a breed-discriminatory law will ultimately deplete the limited resources that Cottonport can allocate for animal control and require additional funds be taken from other departments or local programs and services.”

Mayor Scotty Scott said he would discuss the issue with Town Attorney Renee Roy and check with other municipalities about their vicious dog ordinances. However, Scott said he believes pit bulls should be muzzled and on a leash when being walked in Cottonport.

“Most pet dogs are loved and cared-for members of somebody’s family,” Ferguson said. “Responsible owners should be able to have any breed of dog they like without government interference in their property rights. It is arbitrary and unfair to break up families, traumatize children and spend taxpayer money to ban or restrict dogs based solely on a dog’s alleged breed, without regard for behavior or facts.

“A far more efficient use of public resources would be to enforce existing laws that prosecute and penalize negligent or reckless owners who not only abuse man’s best friend, but put their neighbors at risk,” she added.

Councilman Kenneth Friels said that not all dog owners are responsible, recalling an incident a few years ago when a Cottonport child was attacked by a pit bull.

It is also an undisputed fact that some pit bulls are trained to be fighting dogs -- even though dog fighting is illegal in the state.

‘I agree most are friendly, but there are some that are problems,” Friels said. “We want to make sure we are protecting the public.”

Ferguson repeated that most provisions in the ordinance are good, but one provision requires a pit bull owner to have at least $200,000 of liability insurance before they can own a pit bull or other designated “vicious dog.”

‘The insurance requirement is making people move out of Cottonport, get rid of their pet or put their pet down,” Ferguson said.

The council took no new action on the ordinance at the meeting.

REMEMBER MOREAUVILLE

The Village of Moreauville learned firsthand how passionate pit bull owners are when it banned the breed within the municipal limits a few years ago.

The action attracted nationwide protests against the village, including Nikki Reed (of the Twilight films) and other Hollywood actors adding their voices and stature to the call against “breedism.”

After the dust cleared and the stars went back to California, Moreauville rescinded its “breedist” ban on pit bulls.