2 Supervisors Call for Stiff Laws to Curb Vicious Dogs

Reacting to growing concern over dangerous canines, particularly pit bull terriers, two Los Angeles County supervisors Tuesday proposed laws to crack down on vicious dogs and their owners.

In a sweeping proposal, Supervisor Kenneth Hahn urged an outright ban on pit bulls in the county’s unincorporated areas and in cities that contract with the county for animal control services. Hahn said in a statement that “it is clear that pit bulls are bred to be unpredictably vicious and are a threat to neighboring communities.”

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, meanwhile, sought laws similar to those adopted last week by the Los Angeles City Council to streamline the process in which dangerous dogs can be seized and eventually destroyed.

The full Board of Supervisors will consider the Hahn and Antonovich proposals next week. Brian Berger, director of the county’s Department of Animal Control, said he would oppose Hahn’s idea because all pit bulls are not necessarily dangerous.

The two proposals come in the wake of a series of news accounts, both nationally and in Southern California, of adults, children and small animals being maimed or even killed by pure-bred or mixed-breed pit bulls. Many pit bull owners have defended their dogs, saying that these are isolated cases.

The town of Tijeras, N.M., near Albuquerque, banned pit bulls two years ago, while more than three dozen other cities have enacted or are considering tough new restrictions on the aggressive dogs. A similar ban was enacted in California by the City of Livingston.

Outlawed Fighting

Antonovich, who as an assemblyman sponsored legislation more than a decade ago outlawing dog fighting in the state, said Tuesday that the county should avoid singling out pit bulls.

“Although the dangers of pit bulls are abundantly clear, we must not concentrate on a particular breed but make animal control laws apply to all vicious animals,” Antonovich said.

Antonovich also urged “severe penalties” against owners who violate any new vicious animal laws but provided no specifics.

Current law provides a $250 fine for a violation of the county’s leash law and a $500 fine and/or six months in jail if the owner of an attack dog fails to keep the animal confined on his property with at least a five-foot high fence.

Berger said that his office issued about 1,300 citations last year for a host of violations but added that there are no accurate statistics of how many citations involved dog bites.

Antonovich further called for a better monitoring of dog bites to determine which breeds are most frequently involved in serious attacks. While about 25,000 dog bites were reported in the county last year, Berger said there has been no detailed breakdown of incidents by breed.

Berger said his office has been working with the county counsel’s office for more than a month to develop new laws dealing with vicious animals. He said the main features of any new ordinance would probably make it easier for animal control officers to deal with first-time biters.

Berger said any new law would likely involve at the most a few hundred dogs and their owners each year. He said that animal control officers probably would not move against a dog that had bitten someone for defensive reasons unless the injury is serious. He said the new laws would be designed to control dogs that attack without provocation.

Specifically, Berger said that the new controls would:

- Shift the burden of proof from the county to the dog owner in the determination of an animal’s viciousness. Currently, the county must prove in court that a dog poses a danger to others. Berger said the new law would require the owner at an informal hearing to show that his dog is not dangerous.

- Reduce from two to one the number of reported bites that a dog must commit before it can be impounded and possibly put to death. Current county ordinances permit the seizure of an allegedly dangerous animal from its owner after one biting episode only if a public health officer is called to the scene and agrees that the animal may be seized.

Berger said he is not at this time advocating stronger penalties against owners of vicious animals, explaining that current laws are adequate.

“In all honesty, I’d prefer to impound the owners rather than the dogs,” Berger said. “The dogs started out in all instances trying to be part of someone’s family.”

The new laws, if adopted, would apply in the county’s unincorporated areas, as well as the 35 cities within the county that contract with the department for animal control services, Berger said.