MANSFIELD - Mansfield City Council has began discussing legislation that could permanently remove the city's pit bull ban, putting the city in line with state law.
The city has temporarily lifted its pit bull ban after the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appealsstruck down in Aprila similar ordinance in Reynoldsburg, near Columbus, as unconstitutional.
Mansfield Law Director John Spon directed the Mansfield Police Department to stop enforcing the city’s pit bull ban last month.
Spon said Mansfield's ordinance can no longer be enforced because Mansfield is also under the jurisdiction of the Fifth District.
Mayor Tim Theaker said he prepared the legislation discussed in caucus Tuesday night and encouraged revisions.
"During committee, if you, Imean, rewrite it, Imean, that'd be perfect," he said. "It's just something to kick-start conversation and the process."
The legislation removes pit bulls and other similar breeds as vicious dogs.
UnderMansfield’s now-suspended city ordinance, dog breeds including American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire terriers were classified as vicious dogs and banned within city limits.
Vicious dogs also include those that killed or injured a person or killed another domestic animal.
Dangerous dogs, which were not banned within city limits, were dogs that chased or tried to bite a person without provocation while off their owners'property.
In the proposed legislation, nuisance dogs are unprovoked dogs off their owners' properties that chase or approach a person in a menacing fashion or appear likely to attack or bite a person.
Dangerous dogs are dogs that injure a person or kill another dog without provocation. Vicious dogs are dogs that killor seriously injurea person.
Mansfield's proposed changes put the city in line with the state's current law on dangerous and vicious dogs.
The State of Ohio in 2012changed its legislationfrom breed-specific about pit bulls, like Mansfield's, to non-breed-specific.
Council members agreed the proposed legislationis only a starting point and should be discussed and revised if deemed necessary.
SEE ALSO:Assembly Child Care doubling number of classrooms
"It's gonna take some time and some committees and some input and obviously definitely something we don't want to rush into," council president Phil Scott said.
Fourth-ward councilman Butch Jefferson encouraged community input.
"It is the hot-button topic now, and we do need everyone, citizens and some key players, that can help us draft this," he said.
Don Bryant, chairman of council's safety committee, said he will call a committee meeting before the next council meeting July 5 to discuss the legislation.
Spon said he's confident council can work together to determine the best solution for the city.
"It's so complex, but together we can work out something, I'm sure," he said.
Community memberDeborah Mount suggested council members only suspend the ban for now without changing the city ordinance.
"IfMansfield adopts state law as it, just as the state law is, it makes the city financially and legally responsible for whatever they enact," she said. "It would be far wiser to just suspend, drop, whatever you're gonna do with the city ordinance and enforce state law without enacting it ourselves."
Mount mentioned topics in the state law that are absent from Mansfield's proposal, including confinement, muzzle and insurance requirements, as well as mentions ofspaying, neutering and micro-chipping.
Linda Swisher, who serves on the board of directors for the Humane Society of Richland County, said the agency supports Mansfield enacting state law.
She said the humane society accepts some dogs are vicious and should be destroyed, but laws should not be based on breed, as "any breed can do damage," she said.
Swisher called a breed-specific ban "basic discrimination" based on physical characteristics, like large heads or muscular bodies.
"What we have a problem with is naming a specific breed and putting the blame on the other end of the leash," she said. "We want to reinforce that theresponsibility is with the owner."
Swisher said the humane society could work to bring spay and neutering units to the city to prevent overpopulation.
"If this is lifted, you don't know how many dogs will find homes that are good dogs," she said. "They have a chance. They could come into the city."
Citizens will not be any less safe with the ban not in place, nor would they be in the future if Mansfield follows state law, Swisher said.
"We just want to let the community know that to go ahead with the state law will not lessen any of the protection," she said. "People will be safe."
The possible change comes amid continued discussions of adding an animal control officer in the city.
City and countyofficials sparredin Aprilover allegations from the city that the Richland County dog warden's office is not enforcing the city's ordinances.
Dog Warden Dave Jordan previously said he is not legally responsible for enforcing city ordinances,only state laws.It's the city's responsibility to enforce its own ordinances, including the previous pit bull ban, Jordan said.
Under Ohio law, county dog wardens and their deputies are required only to"patrol their respective counties and seize and impound on sight all dogs found running at large and all dogs more than 3 months of age found not wearing a valid registration tag."
Spon, who estimated there are 2,000 pit bulls in Mansfield,said the city needs its own animal control officer.
Funding for the proposed position remains an issue, as city finance director Linn Steward previously saidshe believes no new positions should be created that are funded by the city's general or safety fund.
ejmills@mansfieldnewsjournal.com
419-521-7205
Twitter: @EmilyMills818
