My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1994 021 Ordinance
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Ordinances Resolutions
>
1994 Ordinances
>
1994 021 Ordinance
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2018 4:00:44 PM
Creation date
8/22/2018 10:26:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Ordinance
Number
021
Date
6/20/1994
Year
1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />1-?,e <br />A-OZ <br />???1111 <br />March 31, 1994 /91?/ <br />Members of Council <br />Village of MaXfield <br />6621 Wilson Mills Road <br />Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143 <br />RE: Dangerous and Vicious Dogs <br />Dear Members of Council: <br />One of your members has requested of ine to research the possibility <br />of outlawing certain breeds of dogs, such as Pit Bulls or Rotweilers, <br />so as to prevent them from existing in the Village under any <br />circumstances. The following is my opinion. <br />We have researched thoroughly the laws of Ohio in all of the <br />various municipalities, and are unable to find any precedent for <br />outlawing all such breeds of dogs within the Village. However, we are <br />also unable to find any court cases which would prohibit such <br />legislation from being adopted. Before enacting such legislation, there <br />are some principles of law which must be followed and adhered to to <br />support the enforcement of such legislation. <br />A municipal corporation can regulate the keeping of animals within <br />its boundaries pursuant to its police power and authority to protect <br />public health and safety. The cases we find in this subsection usually <br />deal with the number of animals kept, and such things as exotic animals <br />(lions, tigers, cougars, etc.) which I have drafted for many communities <br />in the Greater Cleveland area. There are court cases which have <br />indicated that an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of animals is valid <br />onlv when the public health, public peace, public safety or public <br />decency is effected by the keeping of such animals. The cases we have <br />found did not deal with breeds of dogs, but again with exotic animals, <br />birds which become a nuisance, and other such type animals. It is my <br />opinion that an ordinance eliminating a specific breed of dog would <br />likely meet with a challenge that would be difficult to defend unless <br />we had documentation distinguishing between these types of dogs and <br />other dogs. Therefore, if we are intent on adopting such legislation, <br />I would recommend that we retain an animal specialist, dog warden, or <br />someone with expertise, to give us a report as to the breeding practices <br />that are related to Pit Bulls and Rotweilers that cause a greater <br />majority of their numbers to be dangerous and vicious as opposed to <br />other intimidating type dogs such as German Shepards and Dobermans. If <br />this is your desire, please so advise me and I will attempt to locate <br />such an expert and advise you of the cost for such an investigation, <br />study and report. <br />Alternatively, your existing animal ordinance, Section 505.11, is <br />the standard and "state of the art" legislation for protecting against
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.