smith family kennels
06-01-2009, 04:56 PM
Loudoun County, VA: Pit bull case ruled in county’s favor
Posted on May 25, 2009 by stopbslcom
http://www.loudountimes.com/news/2009/may/23/pit-bull-case-ruled-countys-favor/
Pit bull case ruled in county’s favor
By Holly Hobbs
A May 21 ruling ended the nearly two-year battle over the county’s no-adopt policy on pit bulls.
In a 13-page opinion, Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Burke F. McCahill sided with the county. He said the county’s current policy on pit bulls, put in place by the Board of Supervisors, does not break state or local laws.
Charges that the county shelter was euthanizing pit bulls because of a breed bias surfaced in 2007.
A lawsuit was filed then, after Loudoun resident Ronald Litz tried to adopt a pit bull from the county animal shelter. He was told the shelter did not allow pit bull adoption.
On May 5 and 6 of this year, a two-day trial on the county’s no-adopt pit bull policy was held. McCahill’s opinion is the result of these court proceedings.
In his opinion, McCahill said he disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the county’s policy on pit bulls breaks state rules on dog ownership rights and breed bias.
Although county residents are allowed to own pit bulls, McCahill said, “A citizen’s right to own a pit bull is entirely different than a citizen’s right to adopt.”
He continued, saying the breed bias would be difficult to prove. The plaintiff’s attorneys in this case argued that the euthanasia of pit bulls at the shelter far out numbered those of other dog breeds. This statistic, they said, proved that the shelter was exhibiting signs of breed bias.
McCahill disagreed, saying, “ … use of this term as well as the statistics can be misleading for a variety of reasons.” He said the statistics did not take into account the various behaviors of the individual dogs.
“If I were to rely on the statistics alone,” he said, “I would have to ignore the evidence that there are differences in breed characteristics.”
Finally, McCahill said, the lawsuit against the county was really a complaint against a legislative decision made by the county supervisors.
“The decision to not allow adoptions was made by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors,” he said. “Although couched differently in the pleadings, this case is really an attempt to attack a policy decision of a legislative body.”
Contact the reporter at hhobbs@timespapers.com
Times Community © 2007 | Loudoun Times-Mirror
Posted on May 25, 2009 by stopbslcom
http://www.loudountimes.com/news/2009/may/23/pit-bull-case-ruled-countys-favor/
Pit bull case ruled in county’s favor
By Holly Hobbs
A May 21 ruling ended the nearly two-year battle over the county’s no-adopt policy on pit bulls.
In a 13-page opinion, Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Burke F. McCahill sided with the county. He said the county’s current policy on pit bulls, put in place by the Board of Supervisors, does not break state or local laws.
Charges that the county shelter was euthanizing pit bulls because of a breed bias surfaced in 2007.
A lawsuit was filed then, after Loudoun resident Ronald Litz tried to adopt a pit bull from the county animal shelter. He was told the shelter did not allow pit bull adoption.
On May 5 and 6 of this year, a two-day trial on the county’s no-adopt pit bull policy was held. McCahill’s opinion is the result of these court proceedings.
In his opinion, McCahill said he disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the county’s policy on pit bulls breaks state rules on dog ownership rights and breed bias.
Although county residents are allowed to own pit bulls, McCahill said, “A citizen’s right to own a pit bull is entirely different than a citizen’s right to adopt.”
He continued, saying the breed bias would be difficult to prove. The plaintiff’s attorneys in this case argued that the euthanasia of pit bulls at the shelter far out numbered those of other dog breeds. This statistic, they said, proved that the shelter was exhibiting signs of breed bias.
McCahill disagreed, saying, “ … use of this term as well as the statistics can be misleading for a variety of reasons.” He said the statistics did not take into account the various behaviors of the individual dogs.
“If I were to rely on the statistics alone,” he said, “I would have to ignore the evidence that there are differences in breed characteristics.”
Finally, McCahill said, the lawsuit against the county was really a complaint against a legislative decision made by the county supervisors.
“The decision to not allow adoptions was made by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors,” he said. “Although couched differently in the pleadings, this case is really an attempt to attack a policy decision of a legislative body.”
Contact the reporter at hhobbs@timespapers.com
Times Community © 2007 | Loudoun Times-Mirror