My question involves personal property located in the State of: Ohio
Here it goes. This is something I have been struggling with for a while now, but with no real representation, it is an ongoing battle.
I ahve 2 pit bull mix dogs, neither of which have ever bitten another person, or an animal. The state of Ohio is the only state in which they automatically deem "pit bull" type dogs as inherently vicious. My city has added even harsher restrictions on the current law. They make you have a 6 foot fence that is locked, have an electronic microchip inserted into the dog, muzzle the dog while off the property, and this is my main concern, you can only have one of these dogs per household.
Now, I have no problem with dangerous dog laws but, I do have a problem when my dogs are considered guilty when they have never done anything wrong. The constitution of Ohio states that dogs are property adn shall be afforded the same rights as other property....due process. How can they tell me that my dog is "vicious" based simply on the dogs appearance. The ordinace state Dogs "commonly known as" pit bull. Now, pit bull is not a breed, it is a description that includes over 25 different breeds of dog. American pit bull terrier is the only breed with the term pit bull in its name. They make people with american bulldogs, boxers, and mixed breed dogs be registered as "pit bulls" they say, if it looks like a pit bull, then it is a pit bull. Even if the owner has proof otherwise.
So how is it that my property(dogs) can be limited based on an assumption. there is no actual proof that these dogs are any more dangerous than any other breed of dog. How come I do not have a chance to prove that my dogs are not vicious? Dangeous dog laws are usually like this, any dog that has bitten, chase, scratched, or killed another person or animal is considered dangerous. I have no problem with that, but they put OR is a dog commonly known as pit bull. Who is deciding what is common knowledge?
Doesn't the constitution state no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law? 12 other states outright ban this type of legislation based on its unconstitutionality. So how is it that coucil members and politicians, people with no real knowledge about animal behavior can make laws regarding animal behavior? When I buy two dogs, regardless of breed, am I not afforded the same rights as someone with 4 rottweilers? how can these people base behavior off of appearance.
My dogs are my property, my property has done nothing to be called vicious, never bit anyone or anyting, I have never had anyone call animal contro on me, I have insurace, a fence, and am a law abiding citizen. How is this legal? How is it that my property can be limited based on the way that it looks and not on the way that it acts?