On the day before Thanksgiving,  a Pit Bull entered my 78 year old Aunts yard and ripped her
cat to shreds.  This happened on the West Side of Charleston where the majority of Pit Bulls live,
mostly due to the drug dealers in that area.  Pit bulls have been a menace to the children and all
citizens of Charleston for some years now.   The number of Pit Bulls shot ( and rightfully so ) by
the police is starting to climb.  The injuries from Pit Bull attacks have not yet included fatalities,
but that's just a matter of time.  Driving around Florida St. on the West Side,   I counted 14 Pit
Bulls within an 8 block area.  Many more live on the hill section and others on the East End.  Pit
Bull attacks on family pets are very well known.   Walking your family dog on a leash in a Pit Bull
neighborhood is offering bait.  Pit Bulls entering your property by jumping your fence is also
well known as they can jump 4 feet high.   This danger can and MUST be stopped!  Other cities
have had laws on the books for many years.  Cincinnati Ohio just this month passed their own law.
(See Below). 

July 24, 2007
Pit bull attacks 3-year-old girl near Madison WV

Charleston Gazette Newspaper

A 3-year-old girl was severely injured in a pit bull attack in Boone County on Sunday.

The girl, Brooke Ryan, was sitting on the front porch of a home on Blue Spruce Lane, south of Madison, with relatives when the dog she was petting attacked her, said Boone County Sheriff Rodney Miller.

“It bit her face,” Miller said. “People around there pulled the dog off of her a couple of times and the dog went back and attacked the child.”

Ryan’s great-uncle, Scott Ryan, owns the dog. He was bitten on his hands trying to protect the girl, Miller said.

The girl received significant and potentially life-threatening injuries to her face, he said. She underwent surgery at CAMC General Hospital on Sunday evening.

There was a good chance she would be released Monday, Miller said Monday evening, and the girl was not listed Monday evening as a patient at CAMC General.

“At this time, her injuries are not life-threatening,” Miller said. “But they were certainly serious at the time.”

Scott Ryan asked that the county take custody of the dog, Miller said. The dog will be held for 10 days to monitor it for rabies, he said.

“It appears the dog was up to date on all its shots, so that won’t likely be a problem,” Miller said. “Then we will follow through with the owner’s wishes, and the dog will be destroyed.”

Charges are unlikely to be filed against Scott Ryan, the sheriff said.

“If the dog was labeled as vicious, there would be certain requirements to meet. This one was not characterized as vicious,” he said. “Without warning or provocation, it attacked the child.”

SEE NEWS VIDEO HERE

The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 21, 2007; 11:27 PM

GIG HARBOR, Wash. -- Two pit bull terriers broke into a house through a pet door Tuesday and attacked a woman in her bed, mauling her badly, a Pierce County sheriff's spokesman said.

The woman was able to grab a gun and try to shoot the dogs, then break away from the attack and lock herself in her car, where she called 911, sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.

The woman, who was not immediately identified, was taken to a hospital in Tacoma, where she was listed in serious condition.

Officers planned to talk to the dogs' owner.

The pit bulls also killed a neighbor's Jack Russell terrier, which entered the house during the attack, Troyer said.

"The thought is that the Jack Russell heard noise in the neighbor's house, came in and was attacked by the dogs," Troyer said.

Firefighters responded first, locking the dogs in the house, treating the woman and calling for an ambulance.

Officers "had to pepper spray and fight the dogs until they were detained. We almost had to shoot them on site," Troyer said.

The dogs were taken to a Humane Society and will probably be destroyed, he said.

It was not immediately known why the dogs entered the house, whether the woman had dogs of her own or what set off the attack.

I received this letter recently and am posting it here:

The Killer Breed Pit Bulls

I am a lover of amimals, however after reading and hearing about the morbid and brutal killings of numerous people, children, babies and other animals by pit bulls in the later years, I decided to do some research.

To put it simply, pit bulls have a split personality, inbred, rooted and ingrained in them. They
WILL attack even those who love them, without reason.

Yesterday, my sweet lovable, fat black kitty, sitting in my front yard was attacked and killed
by two pit bulls within seconds of going into my house to get a glass of milk. I live in a secluded area and have for 30 years, and my animals have never been in danger.

Two weeks ago the same pit bulls walked right into my house and into my living room toward one of my absolutely adorable Himalayan cats Boo Boo, (I also have her brother Yogi) who was sitting on the sofa. I turned around from what I was doing and Yelled "NO" and they ran, but later they tried to return. I told them to "GET", (I have a very strong voice) and they left. I Didn't see them again till yesterday July 22, 2007. A week ago they killed a dog a couple of blocks away.

They are smart though, because the animal control cannot seem to find them, which means, they WILL be back.

Pit bulls should be either banned or licenced in every city and state. They are VERY dangerous and those who choose to let them live among themselves and their children, are in GRAVE DANGER.

I pray for everyone who owns these demon inbred animals, that their children and themselves are not malled to death and eaten alive like so many others who also loved and adored their sweet and loveable doggy. The ones who have been brutally murdered, can no longer tell their story of their loving, adorable "Bull".

If you love yourself and your children, you would NOT own one, nor let them come near you. They should be banned, and breeders of pitbulls should be fined and imprisoned for every life their creation destroys. http://christianfunfair.org/lifesavers.htm

Click on the links below. I'm sure you will find it interesting the statistics on pit bull
killings, verses all other dog killings. Half of the killings are done by pit bulls, mostly
children, and half were attacks on the owners.

Pit Bulls One

Pit Bull Statistics

Please visit my website that has been active for 7 years. You will see I am for animals, not
against them. I take in stray animals and find homes for them. They are one of God's greatest creations. But God did not create the pit bull, man did.

There are many good, good people who own pit bulls that have been attacked and yes, killed. Can one honestly say that out of 1,141 pit bull killings that these good people abused their dogs? That would be absurd.

Sarah Lindquist

See the face of pitbull attacks here!

Mom loses sight of 3-year-old for an instant, and pit bull attacks
by Zack Pettit
Daily Mail staff  4-29-08

As Ann Shreves and her neighbor casually spoke while watching their children play together outside, the unmistakable shrill screams of her 3-year-old daughter pierced the quiet Sunday afternoon air.Three-year-old Hannah Shreves, seen here in her preschool portrait, is recovering at Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown after a pit bull attack.
Ann, 28, immediately realized she had lost sight of her young girl, and rushed toward the sound of the screams.

What she witnessed next was a savage attack.

Only minutes earlier, 3-year-old Hannah Shreves climbed out of the family car after returning from church. As soon as Hannah stepped out, she got excited because her best neighborhood pal, Christopher, the neighbor's son, had arrived home about the same time. Hannah, eager to play outside with Christopher, 5, first had to go inside and change out of her church clothes, but returned shortly after to play "tag." Ann also came outside to keep an eye on her and struck up a conversation with Christopher's mother, whom she identified as Becky. As the two kids were running around in their Fairmont neighborhood, they ventured over a small hillside and out of eyesight for what seemed like only seconds, said Shreves.Down the hill about 75 yards and beyond a row of pine trees, a neighbor had just let his pit bull outside to get some exercise. Hehad the dog tied to a 20-foot rope, but the rope was anchored only by the weight of the man's foot, Shreves said.

Suddenly, Ann heard the screams.

The large, white pit bull, dragging the long rope behind it, hurriedly approached from the bottom of the hill and took off after Hannah, biting her face, arms and legs "The dog had taken her and rolled her down the hill through the brush," Shreves said. "He threw her a couple times and drug her around like a rag doll."

"It just took chunks out of her," added Lois Stern, Hannah's grandmother. "It threw her in the air and started chewing on her." Ann watched in horror as the dog she had never seen before attacked her only daughter, while its owner came up the hill, got on his hands and knees and screamed at the dog to stop.

Ann and Becky darted over to wrestle away the ferocious dog from Hannah, prompting the beast to turn its aggression toward Ann. "I punched it and tried to push it, but it barely did anything," she said. The family's two mixed breed dogs, Jessie, a Lab mix, and Joey, a German Shepherd mix, ended up being a pair of saviors, as they rushed to defend the women.

"My dogs came through the house and started barking at it, which made it stop," Ann said. The dog stopped, but not before Hannah and her mother were severely bleeding, Stern said.  Becky picked up Hannah, now screaming and writhing in pain, and carried her up the hill to safety.

"Half her lip was taken off," Stern said. Becky's husband works at a nearby hospital and was home to help care for the child. "He got on the phone with 911 and got (Hannah) into a good position," Shreves said. Both were taken to Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown.

Ann received several stitches on her arm and buttocks, but Hannah had to have reconstructive plastic surgery on her face in addition to dozens of other stitches. "Her right arm was pretty much mauled," Ann said. "Her left leg has chunks out of it. At least two chunks out of her were about the size of a golf ball."

Both are expected to make full recoveries.Hannah will be in the hospital for a few days, and will most likely require future surgeries, Shreves said. The dog, a female estimated to be between 70 and 90 pounds, was taken into custody by animal control, will be observed forten days before being euthanized, said Duane Hawkinberry, Marion County animal control officer. It is normal procedure for a dog to be monitored for rabies after it attacks someone, but the owners have already decided to have it put down, Hawkinberry said. "They don't want it to happen again," he said. "They are very sorry for what happened. They never expected it." "They are doingthe right thing," he added.

The Shreves and Stern are still having trouble believing what happened too. "It's one of those things you read about," Stern said. "You never dream it could happen to you." Hawkinberry said he has seen many pit bull bites during his 12-year career in animal control.

"In my own opinion, I think all pit bulls should be outlawed," Hawkinberry said. "They are born to kill. I just feel they should be outlawed, or there should be strict guidelines." Ann's husband and Hannah's father, Andy, was away at work during the attack. He said he wished he had been alerted therewas a pit bull living nearby. "I knew there was a dog down there, but I didn't know it was a pit bull," Andy, 37, said. "I think I would have said to put that in a cage. I know how dangerous they can be." This isn't the first time a pit bull has been taken for attacking and injuring a toddler.

A 2-year-old girl in 2005 was killed by a pit bull in Huntington. In 2007, a 3-year-old girl in Boone County was attacked and hospitalized when a normally friendly pit bull clamped down around her face Stern said Ann blamed herself for not being able to save her child sooner. "Mom, I was right there," Ann cried, according to Stern. Stern replied, "There wasn't anything you could've done." The names of the owners were not immediately available. It was not clear if they will be criminally charged. Fairmont police did not immediately return phone messages.

http://www.dailymail.com/News/200804290152

11/1/03 Cincinnati Pit Bull Ordinance

If you reside in the city of Cincinnati and own a pit bull, city leaders are sending out a reminder that
you must register your dog or risk violating the city's newly re-instated ban against the dog breed.
Registration of the dog involves having a microchip implanted under the dog's skin, a tattoo applied
to its leg, an up-to-date photograph of the dog as well as a $50,000 liability insurance policy.
However, finding an insurance company willing to insure pit bull owners isn't an easy task because
many won't provide coverage for the pit bull breed.

Councilwoman Laketa Cole admits the new ban makes it more expensive for law-abiding owners of
the breed, but she points out that it will give law enforcement officials more ammunition to get the violators.

"We had a pit bull last week that was just running around on the street. Without the ban,
they had no way of penalizing the owner, nor being able to get the dog," said Cole. "Now, if you
have this dog running on the street, officers are able to do something about it."
Council re-instated the ban after several recent pit bull attacks within the city limits.

Nov 16 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People who own vicious dogs such as pit bulls have significantly more criminal convictions -- including crimes against children -- than owners of licensed, gentler dogs such as beagles, researchers reported on Thursday.

A study of 355 dog owners in Ohio showed that every owner of a high-risk breed known for aggression had at least one brush with the law, from traffic citations to serious criminal convictions.

And 30 percent of people who owned an aggressive breed of dog and who also had been cited at least once for failure to register it had at least five criminal convictions or traffic citations.

This compared to 1 percent of owners of low-risk, licensed dogs such as poodles, beagles or collies, the researchers reported in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

"Owners of vicious dogs who have been cited for failing to register a dog (or) failing to keep a dog confined on the premises ... are more than nine times more likely to have been convicted for a crime involving children, three times more likely to have been convicted of domestic violence ... and nearly eight times more likely to be charged with drug (crimes) than owners of low-risk licensed dogs," said Jaclyn Barnes of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.

Barnes and colleagues used public records to check on the criminal pasts of dog owners.

They used agreed definitions of vicious dogs used in writing local ordinances. "A 'vicious dog" means a dog that, without provocation, has killed or caused serious injury to any person, has killed another dog, or belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog," they wrote in their report.

The definition excludes dogs used in law enforcement or dogs protecting an owner or property.

Aggressive breeds identified by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and some insurance companies include pit bulls, rottweilers, akitas and chows.

The most frequent low-risk breeds seen in the study included terriers, beagles, collies and poodles.

"One can argue that choosing to own a vicious dog is a marker of social deviance because a vicious dog is, by definition, a socially deviant animal," said Barbara Boat, director of The Childhood Trust at the University of Cincinnati, who worked on the study.

The researchers said their findings could be useful for social and law enforcement workers.

"We suggest, regardless of dog breed, that failure to license a dog is a potential warning sign of other deviant behaviour," they wrote.

A ban on pit bulls for the City of Cincinnati will be reinstated November 1, 2003. Only pit bulls registered with the Cincinnati
Police Department by November 1, 2003 will be allowed to remain in the City of Cincinnati. For more information about the
new Cincinnati Dog laws and how they apply to you, contact the Cincinnati Police Department, Records Section, at (513) 352-6459.

REQUIREMENTS TO OWN A PIT BULL TERRIER IN THE CITY LIMITS
 

Pit bull must be registered with the Cincinnati Police Department by November 1, 2003.
You may only own one pit bull over 6 months old.
Pit bulls must be under the control of a competent adult.
Pit bulls require muzzles and leashes, leash not to exceed 3 feet in length.
Pit bulls require special housing and/or caging.
Pit bulls are considered vicious dogs.
Liability insurance ($50,000) is required for pit bulls.
HOW TO REGISTER A PIT BULL OR DANGEROUS/VICIOUS DOG

Respond to nearest Police District and pick up a pit bull packet or download the pit bull packet information from the Cincinnati
Police Department web site.
Call the Police Department, Records Section, at line (513) 352-6459 to obtain a tattoo number.
Respond to an individual licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the state of Ohio and have the vicious dog tattooed on an
inside thigh and have an identifying microchip inserted between the top of the dog's shoulder blades at the withers.
Respond to the nearest Police District and provide:
Documentation from the veterinarian describing the tattoo and microchip number,
Current color photographs of the dog showing the front face, side head, and whole body of the dog, and any other identifying
characteristic such as a color marking or scar,
The completed Cincinnati Police Department Dangerous/ Vicious Dog Registration Form (Form 15D),
and Documentation verifying $50,000 worth of liability insurance for the dog.

Pit bulls, chosen by their owners for their strength and aggressiveness, have repeatedly made life miserable
for the police and for other public safety officials -- not to mention private citizens.
Inaction by the City Council is an invitation for trouble, and the public safety people on the front lines
are seeing it almost every day.

Most people do not have to live with the threat of a violent animal, owned by irresponsible people,
living near to them. But there are enough such people in Charleston to call into question the city government's
commitment to making this a peaceful and inviting place to live. What will it take to light
a fire under the City Council, and either ban or severely restrict the ownership of dangerous breeds of dogs? Or is this state of affairs something that our councilors are prepared to live with, satisfied with
the argument that you can't "categorize" breeds of dogs this way?

The truth is you can. The owners of these pit bulls certainly do; the city should reply in kind, for
all our sakes.

MIAMI -- Pit Bull dogs are not permitted to be brought into Miami-Dade County after July 1989. Anyone
found having an illegal Pit Bull is subject to a $500 fine and County Court action to force the removal
of the animal from Miami-Dade County.
A court case in 1989 challenged the ruling, and questioned the ability to adequately identify the breed.
The ban on pit bulls was upheld, and the below standards of identification were adopted. .
Miami-Dade Animal Care and Control Division enforces the County Code regarding the possession
of illegal pit bulls, and will remove any dogs that are reported and identified to be pit bulls.
 

The law itself is lengthy and displayed below:

AMERICAN DOG OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants.
No. 89-771-CIV.
United States District Court,
S.D. Florida.
Nov. 30, 1989.
Associations of dog owners sued city, seeking declaratory judgment that ordinance regulating "pit bull" dogs was
unconstitutional. The District Court, Hoeveler, J., held that ordinance sufficiently defined "pit bull" dogs by specifically
referencing three breeds recognized by kennel clubs, including description of characteristics of such dogs, and providing
a mechanism for verification of whether a particular dog was included under statute.
Case dismissed.
[1] FEDERAL COURTS k56
170Bk56
Abstention was not warranted in case brought by associations of dog owners claiming that ordinance regulating pit bull
dogs was unconstitutional; state court had previously considered similar issues and interpreted language identical to
language at issue and matter presented urgency which militated against delay.
[2] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW k48(3)
92k48(3)
Federal courts must proceed cautiously when considering attacks on constitutionality of state statutes, so that if statute
can be made constitutionally definite by reasonable construction, federal court must apply such construction.
[3] STATUTES k47
361k47
To avoid unconstitutionality based on vagueness, all that is required is that people to whom state statute is addressed
will, if they are of common intelligence, be placed on notice as to what the law forbids. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
[4] STATUTES k47
361k47
Constitution tolerates greater degree of vagueness in enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 14.
[5] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS k604
268k604
Ordinance regulating "pit bull" dogs was not unconstitutionally vague for failure to properly identify animals it covered;
ordinance specially mentioned three breeds recognized by kennel clubs, added an appendix setting forth physical
characteristics deemed to be those of "pit bull" dogs, and provided a procedure for verification of whether particular
dog was covered by ordinance. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
*1534 Steven Wisotsky, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., and William Berger, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs.
Robert A. Ginsbury, Dade County Atty., and Cecilia M. Altonaga and Thomas W. Logue, Asst. County Attys., Miami,
Fla., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
HOEVELER, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for a two and one-half day trial commencing July 10, 1989. Plaintiffs' complaint
presents a pre-enforcement facial challenge to the constitutionality of Dade County Ordinance No. 089-22 on the basis
that the ordinance is impermissibly vague. The ordinance purports to regulate ownership of pit bull dogs ("pit bulls") by
requiring registration, enclosure or leashing and muzzling of existing pit bull dogs and by prohibiting the acquisition of
new ones. The ordinance defines pit bull dogs by referring to standards set forth by the American Kennel Club ("AKC")
and the United Kennel Club ("UKC"), providing that dogs substantially conforming to those characteristics will be
considered pit bulls. Plaintiffs' challenge to this ordinance rests on their contention that the definitional sections are so
vague and uncertain as to deprive plaintiffs of their liberty and property without due process of law. The complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages.
Both parties presented witnesses, including experts and trial exhibits. On the basis of testimony, evidence and arguments
presented by both sides, as well as post-trial submissions, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The parties
Plaintiff, Responsible Dog Owners of Dade ("RDOD") is an unincorporated association created to advance the interests
of dog owners and to defend them from hostile legislation. RDOD is comprised of dog owners who live in Dade County
or who, as dog fanciers, are potentially subject to the challenged ordinance. Plaintiff American Dog Owners Association,
Inc. ("ADOA") is a Michigan nonprofit corporation formed for the advancement and protection of the interests of dog fanciers.
ADOA is a national organization whose purpose is to educate people, teach responsible dog ownership and to advocate
legislation which is non-breed specific. Many ADOA members live in Dade County and may be subject to the challenged
ordinance because of dog ownership or exhibition.
Plaintiff, Robert Sanchez is President of RDOD, a Dade County resident and owns two dogs which may be subject to the
ordinance. One of his dogs, Rex, is a pure-bred animal registered with the United Kennel Club ("UKC") as an American
Pit Bull Terrier. The other dog, Whiskey, is unregistered and of uncertain lineage. Whiskey's dog license states that he is
a mixed breed. Sanchez claims that he does not know whether either of his dogs is covered by the ordinance, despite Rex's
registration and an animal control officer's identification of Whiskey as a pit bull. Sanchez states that he does not know
what the definitional terms of the ordinance mean and thus does not know whether his dogs have the physical characteristics
set forth in the definitional standards. Moreover, Sanchez complains that if the ordinance is applied to him, he will no longer
be able to participate in his favorite sport of shitsun competition (apparently some form of search and rescue exercise),
because he could not participate if his dogs were leashed and muzzled.
Defendant, Metropolitan Dade County is the law-making body for Dade County, Florida which adopted Ordinance No.
089-22, amending Chapter 5 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. Defendant, Zoraida *1535 Diaz-Albertini is the
Director of the Dade County Animal Services Division and is responsible for enforcing the challenged ordinance.
II. The Ordinance
The Dade County Commission adopted Ordinance No. 089-22 on April 4, 1989, effective April 14, 1989. Legislative
fact findings included facts indicating that the selective breeding of certain characteristics in pit bull dogs made these
dogs a danger to health and welfare different from the dangers presented by other breeds. The Preamble to the Ordinance
contains the several factual findings made by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County that pit bull dogs require
special regulation because of their dangerous propensities. These findings were not challenged by the plaintiffs, and are
accepted as true for the purposes of this preenforcement challenge. The Ordinance is reproduced in full in Appendix A.
Enforcement of the ordinance was postponed until July 14, 1989.
The ordinance purports to protect the community by confinement and muzzling requirements. As indicated, ninety days
after the effective date of the ordinance, no pit bull dogs may be acquired or brought into Dade County (Ord.Sec. 5-17.6(b).
At the time trial commenced, only seven pit bull dogs had been registered with Animal Control pursuant to the ordinance.
A great number of licensed dogs are listed as pit bulls on their Dade County dog licenses. Failure of a pit bull dog owner
to comply with the Ordinance subjects the owner to civil fines and to possible destruction of the dog by a court of competent
jurisdiction. Dade County Code at Sec. 8CC-10. By its terms, enforcement of the penalty provisions of the Ordinance
commences on July 14, 1989. Ordinance at SEc. 5- 17.6(a).
Plaintiffs initiated this suit on April 21, 1989, and after several amendments to their pleadings, raised the following issues
for resolution by the Court: (a) are the definition of pit bull dog and the exceptions from confinement in the Ordinance so
vague that they violate due process of law under the federal constitution; (b) does the Ordinance violate Florida constitutional
provisions by delegating enforcement to the executive branch without standards. This is a pre-enforcement challenge.
III. Identification of Pit Bull Dogs
Plaintiffs contend that there is no such thing as a pit bull dog. Rather, they contend that there are three breeds which the
ordinance in question has mistakenly lumped together. Further, plaintiffs contend that the standards set forth by the kennel
clubs and incorporated by the Dade County ordinance were never meant to be used for identification, but only as a reference
regulating the owners of existing pit bull dogs and banning acquisition of these dogs after July 13, 1989. [FN1] The ordinance
applies on its face to any dog that "exhibits those distinguishing characteristics" which "substantially conform" to American
Kennel Club ("AKC") or United Kennel Club ("UKC") standards. The ordinance also states that technical deficiencies in a
dog's conformance to the standards will not prevent it from being considered a pit bull. The definitional standards in the
ordinance encompass characteristics of dogs from three breeds recognized by the AKC and UKC: American Staffordshire
Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers and Staffordshire Bullterriers. The ordinance defines the breed of dog not according
to bloodlines, but according to physical characteristics. Owners unsure about the breed of their dogs may bring them to
Animal Control Division for a determination. [FN2]
FN1. Provisions requiring that owners of pit bull dogs insure or demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility have
been withdrawn pending review, according to the testimony of Dade County.
FN2. The ordinance in question incorporates by reference Chapter 8(c)(C) of the Dade County Code. This section sets
out administrative review procedures and provisions for review by a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, dog owners
who contest the county's categorization of their dogs may seek administrative and judicial review.
Existing pit bull dogs ("pit bulls") are controlled by requiring owners to register the dogs with Metro Dade Animal
Services *1536 Division and to confine pit bulls indoors or in a secure, totally enclosed, locked pen unless muzzled
and leashed. Dogs participating in lawful dog shows or engaged in hunting in an authorized area under competent supervision
are exempted from in judging dogs already identified by bloodlines as belonging to one of the kennel clubs' three breeds.
Thus, the plaintiffs contend that the standards set forth in the ordinance are meaningless.
Despite plaintiffs' contention that there is no such animal as a pit bull, plaintiffs' own experts have written articles about
their pedigreed dogs referring to them by the common nickname of pit bull. At trial, these experts identified photographs
of dogs as pit bulls, rather than delineating the dogs into any one of the three breeds recognized by the kennel clubs.
Moreover, veterinarians commonly identify dogs as pit bulls--rather than one of the three recognized breeds--by their
physical characteristics. Two veterinarians, testifying for the defendants, stated that they are often called upon to identify
a dog's breed because it is an integral part of the animal's health record. This they do by reference to standard physical
characteristics. Generally, these veterinarians testified, owners themselves know what breed their dog is.
The trial testimony shows that most dog owners know or have a preconceived idea of, the breed of the dog they possess.
(T.R. at 394). The term pit bull, alone, is a descriptive term that conjures up a picture of a particular breed of dog (T.R. at 105),
and is a critical component of the definition of this dog in the Ordinance. (T.R. at 110). Breed identification based on
appearance is, of course, necessarily a valid judgment. (T.R. at 93).
Although no dog registry recognizes a breed of dog by the name pit bull, the term is often used as nickname in Bloodlines,
the official magazine of the United Kennel Club. (T.R. at 135-36). Pit bull is used by persons having an extensive background
in the UKC and AKC dogs, as for example, former plaintiff Marilyn Brubaker Thompson. (T.R. at 518). Marilyn Thompson
has used the term pit bull dog to refer to her dogs, which are cross registered as UKC-registered American Pit Bull Terriers,
and AKC American Staffordshire Terriers. (T.R. at 520-21). Testimony was received concerning various dog clubs which
use the term pit bull in their name and whose special emphasis is on American Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire
Terriers. (T.R. at 516, 521-24).
The term "pit bull" dog is widely used in the media, in decisional law, by veterinarians, animal control officers, and citizens
of Dade County. (T.R. at 357-370). Testimony was heard from several veterinarians that pit bull dog is a designation routinely
used to identify the three breeds listed in the Ordinance. (T.R. at 395). Animal control officers have been using the term on a
daily basis for years. Over one thousand residents of the County own dogs, which either they or their veterinarians have
identified as pit bulls when applying for dog licenses.
Pit bull dogs share a typical physical appearance because of their genetic background, notwithstanding the fact that there is
variability in the physical appearance, or phenotype, of these dogs. (T.R. at 217). That distinctive phenotype, according to
sources reported in the official UKC publication, Bloodlines, has hardly changed in the last forty years. (T.R. at 133-34).
The pit bull is a distinctive dog in its appearance.
Veterinarians routinely identify dogs by their breed for record keeping and diagnostic purposes. (T.R. at 99, 100). The most
important thing veterinarians look for in trying to identify the breed of a particular dog is the dog's physical appearance
and conformation. (T.R. at 392).
Pit bulls vary in size, color and head and body shape. Most pit bull dogs have no pedigree papers. Experts for both the
plaintiffs and the defense testified that they have been wrong in their identification of pit bulls, by varying percentages.
[FN3] Lt. *1537 Armand Miller, Supervisor of Dade County's Animal Control Division, stated that his trained officers
will be able to correctly identify pit bulls 90 to 95% of the time. Although there was testimony that a new genetic
fingerprinting technique may be developed in the short-term future, no such scientific testing is currently available.
FN3. None of the experts questioned confused the picture of a wire-haired terrier for a pit bull, however. The difficulty
in identification appeared to be primarily with dogs of mixed breed.
Despite the absence of scientific testing procedures for dog breeds, however, and the absence of pedigree in the majority
of dogs owned in Dade County, the evidence demonstrated that the majority of dog owners know the breed of their dogs.
Moreover, dog owners may request a binding determination from Animal Control if they are unsure about a breed. Thus,
while the identification of pit bulls may be difficult in some situations, the facts adduced at trial establish that there are
certain conforming characteristics shared by pit bull dogs.
Veterinarians opine that ordinary citizens may be trained to identify the breed of a dog based on the dog's physical appearance.
In fact, one resident of the County gave testimony that he was able to determine the breed of the dog he owned after
comparing its physical conformation to that of other pit bulls he had seen in the media. (T.R. at 457).
At least one expert testified that he would not recommend using a definition of pit bull dog which depended on registration
with one of these two national dog registries because there are many pit bull dogs that are not registered. Such a definition
would only address a very small part of the pit bull problem. (T.R. at 405-06).
Presently, there exists no better method of identifying a pit bull dog than by its appearance. (T.R. at 418-19). Even if a
scientific method is developed to identify breeds of dogs, an enforcement scheme will still depend on initial visual
identification. (T.R. at 438-39).
A breed standard is a description of the ideal phenotype or physical conformation of each recognized breed to serve as
a word pattern by which dogs are judged at shows. (T.R. at 87-88). However, breed standards are also used by people
interested in dogs, and appear routinely in dog magazines. (T.R. at 137, 406-07).
The AKC or UKC standards at issue describe the pit bull dog as well as words can do. (T.R. at 406). Most of the terms
in the standards are understandable to reasonably intelligent persons. (T.R. at 408). With a little effort, and possibly some
external assistance, an interested person can utilize the standards in the Ordinance to identify the breed of a particular dog.
(T.R. at 420, 449-50).
Approximately 60 dogs a day are secured by Dade County Animal Control specialists, or enforcement officers, and each
is identified by breed for record keeping purposes and in order to facilitate reuniting the dog with its owner. (T.R. at 59-50).
While the County has never had a breed-specific ordinance such as the one in question (T.R. at 29-30), it is routine in the
Animal Control industry to identify dogs by breed based on their physical appearance.
After passage of the Ordinance, Animal Control officers received training in ways to identify a pit bull dog and on the
terms used in the standards. (T.R. at 33-34). In addition to the standards contained in the Ordinance, the officers have a
breed book, other visual aids, and their professional judgment and experience to assist them in identifying a dog as a pit
bull. (T.R. at 37- 44).
Since the enactment of the Ordinance, the County Animal Control Services Division has established standard operating
procedures ("SOP") designed to govern the activities of its enforcement personnel vis-a-vis the Ordinance. The SOP
includes a requirement that Animal Control render a binding opinion, upon request, as to whether a dog is subject to the
provisions of the Ordinance, and if it is determined not be a pit bull, the dog's owner is given an exclusion certificate.
Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit 4.
Animal Control specialists, because of their experience in handling and identifying pit bull dogs on a daily basis, will
be able to identify pit bulls with accuracy. They will *1538 use the standards in the Ordinance to assist them, as well
as the various other tools at their disposal. (T.R. at 62-63).
By the time of the trial, at least seven County residents have registered their pit bulls with the County under the provisions
of the Ordinance. The photographs of the pit bulls in the registration files show dogs which substantially conform to the
standards used in the Ordinance. (T.R. at 43, 67- 69).
Persons familiar with dogs can use the standards in the Ordinance to identify a pit bull dog. (T.R. at 110).
IV. Enforcement
Lt. Armand Miller, Supervisor of Animal Control Division, testified that in addition to the standards set forth in the
ordinance itself, his officers have been given training by a veterinarian on the identification of pit bulls. The officers
have also been given copies of Simon & Shuster's Guide to Dogs (1980), a guide that experts for both sides recognized
as authoritative. The standard operating procedures manual carried by the officers has additional pictures and physical
standards to aid the officers in their identification. The Gaines Guide to American Dogs, a poster recognized by all the
testifying experts as authoritative, is prominently displayed in the Animal Control workplace. The officers have been
instructed to issue citations for violation of the ordinance only to those owners whose dogs they have positively identified
as pit bulls.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory judgment under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-88, and the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1343(3)
and (4).
[1] Prior to trial, defendants requested that the Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction until such time as the state
courts had been given the opportunity to interpret the legislation at issue. A motion to abstain is directed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. See Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 237, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 2327, 81
L.Ed.2d 186 (1984). Furthermore, "[a]bstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule."
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1244, 47 L.Ed.2d 483
(1976). Because a Florida court previously considered similar issues and interpreted language identical to the language
at issue here, albeit in a city ordinance, see State v. Peters, 534 So.2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So.
2d 1334 (Fla.1989), the Court declines to abstain. Additionally, the matter presents an urgency which militates against delay.
[2] Federal courts must proceed cautiously when considering attacks on the constitutionality of the state statutes, see
Cotton State Mutual Insurance Company v. J.O. Anderson, 749 F.2d 663, 667 (11th Cir.1984) (citation omitted), so
that if a statute can be made constitutionally definite by reasonable construction, this Court must apply such a construction.
See Jones v. Continental Insurance Co., 670 F.Supp. 937, 943 (S.D.Fla.1987).
This matter was presented from an evidentiary and argument standpoint on the narrow issue of whether or not the
ordinance is facially vague. The issues were presented in such a way that the court has regarded the action of the
county as legislatively proper from the standpoint of the basis and need for the ordinance. As suggested elsewhere
in this memorandum, plaintiffs, while not agreeing, did not take issue with the factual basis for the County's legislative
action. Rather, plaintiffs elected to concentrate their constitutional attack on the facial invalidity of the ordinance. Thus,
the court accepts as given that the promulgation of this ordinance was a valid exercise of the police power and is
rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Plaintiffs having confined their challenge to the facial validity of the ordinance, contend that its standards are so vague
that no reasonable person could know whether or not a particular dog was subject to the ordinance. Thus, plaintiffs assert
that the *1539 ordinance not only fails to give notice to dog owners who may not be able to discern from the standards
whether their dogs are subject to the ordinance, but also fails to establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.
[3] Vague laws fail to provide notice and thus may trap the innocent. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09,
92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). Moreover, in order to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,
laws must provide explicit standards of enforcement. Id. However, there is no requirement that the language of a legislative
enactment be mathematically precise. Id. at 110, 92 S.Ct. at 2300. All that is required is that the people to whom the statute
is addressed will, if they are of common intelligence, be placed on notice as to what the law forbids. High Ol' Times v.
Busbee, 673 F.2d 1225 (11th Cir.1982).
The fourteenth amendment due process guarantee against vagueness requires that laws provide fair warning to persons of
ordinary intelligence of the conduct prohibited, and standards to protect against arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Florida Businessmen, etc., v. City of Hollywood, 673 F.2d 1213, 1218 (11th Cir.1982) (citations omitted). Grayned v.
City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). In this pre-enforcement challenge,
the principal question is whether the law affords fair warning of what is proscribed. Village of Hoffman Estates v.
Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 503, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1195-96, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982), rehearing denied,
456 U.S. 950, 102 S.Ct. 2023, 72 L.Ed.2d 476 (1982).
[4] The Constitution tolerates a greater degree of vagueness in enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties. Cf.,
High Ol' Times, 673 F.2d at 1229; Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 515, 68 S.Ct. 665, 670, 92 L.Ed. 840 (1948).
See also Flipside, 455 U.S. at 498-99, 102 S.Ct. at 1193 ("the Court has also expressed greater tolerance of enactments
with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe.")
(citations omitted). The Ordinance here is civil in nature.
[5] The question thus facing this court is whether the instant ordinance provides sufficient guidance to dog owners of
ordinary intelligence to register and properly restrain pit bull dogs they already own and to abstain from purchasing
new ones. There is no need for legislation to give fair warning except to those potentially subject to it. Flipside, 455
U.S. at 501 n. 18, 102 S.Ct. at 1194 n. 18. The relevant inquiry is therefore whether the average dog owner is given
fair warning.
The Ordinance regulates a group, the dog owning public, that has a special knowledge of the matter being regulated.
The uncontradicted testimony of the various veterinarians in this case reflects that most dog owners know the breed
of their dog. In fact most dog owners look for and select a dog of a particular breed because of their knowledge of
or interest in a particular breed. For this reason, too, the Ordinance is subject to a less strict standard of review.
Fleming v. United States Department of Agriculture, 713 F.2d 179, 194 (6th Cir.1983) ("When the persons affected
by the regulations are a select group with specialized understanding of the subject being regulated the degree of
definiteness required to satisfy due process concerns is measured by the common understanding and commercial
knowledge of the group.")
There was ample testimony that most people know what breed their dogs are. Although the plaintiffs and their
experts claim that the ordinance does not give them enough guidance to enable owners to determine whether their
dogs fall within its scope, the evidence established that the plaintiffs themselves often use the term "pit bull" as a
shorthand method of referring to their dogs. Numerous magazine and newspaper articles, including articles in dog
fancier magazines, refer to pit bull dogs. Veterinarians typically refer to the three recognized breeds and mixed
breeds with conforming characteristics as pit bulls. In addition, the veterinarians who *1540 testified stated that
most of their clients know the breeds of their dogs.
The agency responsible for enforcement of the Ordinance, Dade County Animal Services Division, promulgated
a set of Standard Operating Procedures, one of which permits dog owners who are in doubt as to whether their
dog is a pit bull to obtain a binding, written determination from Animal Control that the dog is or is not a pit bull
dog. See SOP, para. 4. This administrative procedure reduces the level of scrutiny with which this Court will
review the challenged Ordinance since such a procedure lessens the amount of precision in definition required
by due process. See e.g., Record Head Corporation v. Sachen, 682 F.2d 672, 674 (7th Cir.1982) ("[E]conomic
regulation may be less precise than other forms of legislation because the entities affected by it are ... more able
to clarify uncertainties through inquiry or administrative proceedings.") (emphasis added); Flipside, 455 U.S. at
498, 102 S.Ct. at 1193 (less strict standard of review for vagueness is in order when "the regulated enterprise
may have the ability to clarify the meaning of the regulation by its own inquiry, or by resort to an administrative
process.").
In a vagueness challenge, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the law in question is vague "not in the
sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard,
but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611,
614, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 1688, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971). Such a provision simply has no core." Smith v. Goguen, 415
U.S. 566, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 1249, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1979).
The language of the ordinance explicitly covers pit bull dogs. The evidence clearly demonstrates that there is
some breed or mixed breed of dog that is commonly referred to as a pit bull. Thus, the law affords fair warning
of what is proscribed. See Flipside, 455 U.S. at 502, 102 S.Ct. at 1195 (the principal inquiry of facial vagueness
is whether the law affords fair warning of what is proscribed). The Southern District of Ohio, in facing a similar
vagueness challenge to a local pit bull ordinance, found the ordinance to be constitutionally valid even though the
ordinance contained only the terms pit bull terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier,
without including physical characteristics or other definitions. [FN4] Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F.Supp.
1236 (S.D.Ohio 1989). An Ohio appellate court upheld another Ohio ordinance which did not set forth any
definition of a pit bull. City of Lima v. McFadden, No. 1-85-22, 1986 WL 7474 (Ohio Ct.App. June 30, 1986).
The ordinance before this court, in contrast, provides as a further aid to dog owners, an appendix with the physical
characteristics set forth as standards for the breed by the AKC and the UKC.
FN4. The definitional section in the Ohio ordinance defined a pit bull terrier as
any Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dog, or any mixed breed of dog which
contains, as an element of its breeding the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier
as to be identifiable as partially of the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier by a
qualified veterinarian duly licensed by the State of Ohio.
Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F.Supp. 1236 (S.D.Ohio 1989) (citing Ordinance No. 87-6 of the Village
of South Point).
An ordinance nearly identical to the ordinance before this court was upheld as constitutional (by a Florida appellate court)
in the face of vagueness, due process and equal protection challenge. State v. Peters, 534 So.2d 760 (Fla.Dist.Ct.
App.1988). Judge Pearson held that although the definitions of a pit bull might lack mathematical certainty, those
people to whom the ordinance was addressed would be able to give the term pit bull a sufficiently clear meaning
to enable them to correctly apply the statute. Id. at 767. The terms in the ordinance were, according to the Third
District Court well enough understood by pit bull owners to enable them to determine whether their dogs fell
within the proscriptions of the ordinance. Id. at 768. Similarly, in the instant case, while the terms may lack
mathematical certainty, the evidence showed that the terms are well enough *1541 understood by pit bull owners
to give them fair notice of the ordinance's proscriptions.
If, after consulting the ordinance, an owner remains in a quandary as to whether the ordinance applied to him, the
owner could seek guidance from a dictionary, a guidebook to dogs or from his or her veterinarian. Further resort
could be had to Animal Control Services for a binding determination as to the breed of the dog. The county may
adopt further administrative regulations that may sufficiently narrow potentially vague and arbitrary interpretations
of the ordinance. See, Flipside, 455 U.S. at 504, 102 S.Ct. at 1196 (further steps may be taken to minimize the
dangers of arbitrary enforcement). These guidelines and aids to identification are not, strictly speaking, relevant
to the court's vagueness inquiry, however. Flipside, 455 U.S. at 502, 102 S.Ct. at 1195.
A court faced with a pre-enforcement facial challenge to the alleged vagueness of a legislative enactment that
does not reach constitutionally protected conduct [FN5] should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is
impermissibly vague in all of its applications. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,
455 U.S. 489, 497, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). Here, the object regulated by the Ordinance
is dogs having the physical appearance of pit bulls. Plaintiffs claim that "[d]ogs, too, are members of the family,
and the owner's choice or decision to make that choice is entitled to substantial constitutional protection."
Plaintiffs' Trial Brief at 11. The weight of authority, however, demonstrates that ownership of dogs does not
implicate fundamental constitutional rights. "Property in dogs is of an imperfect or qualified nature and they may
be subject to peculiar and drastic police regulations by the state without depriving their owners of any federal
right." Nicchia v. People of State of New York, 254 U.S. 228, 230- 31, 41 S.Ct. 103, 104, 65 L.Ed. 235 (1920).
"Even if it were assumed that dogs are property in the fullest sense of the word, they would still be subject to the
police power of the state, and might be destroyed or otherwise dealt with, as in the judgment of the legislature is
necessary for the protection of its citizens." Sentell v. New Orleans & C.R. Co., 166 U.S. 698, 17 S.Ct. 693,
695, 41 L.Ed. 1169 (1897).
FN5. Although most vagueness challenges concern laws which define conduct rather than property, courts have
frequently upheld against vagueness challenges laws which--like pit bull ordinances--describe property. State v.
Peters, 534 So.2d 767 n. 12 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988).
Because the Ordinance does not impact any fundamental right, to prevail Plaintiffs must show that the Ordinance is
"impermissibly vague in all of its applications." "The possibility of a valid application precludes facial invalidity".
High Ol' Times, Inc., v. Brisbee, 673 F.2d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir.1982) (emphasis added). See also Flipside, 455
U.S. at 495, n. 5, 102 S.Ct. at 1191, n. 5, quoting from Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 474, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1223,
39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (a facial challenge, such as this one, requires that the law be "invalid in toto--and therefore
incapable of any valid application."); Florida Businessmen, 673 F.2d at 1218 ("To succeed on their facial vagueness
challenge, however, the merchants must demonstrate that the statute and the ordinance are impermissibly vague in
all of their application.")
Plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of proof. The evidence of record shows that since the passage of the
Ordinance, at least seven County residents have complied with the registration/confinement requirements of the
Ordinance. The Court heard testimony that the dogs registered under the Ordinance substantially conformed to the
physical appearance of the pit bull. Clearly, these registrations show that the Ordinance can be and has been validly
applied. A facial challenge in this context means that there is no valid application possible. Id. 455 U.S. at 494 n. 5,
102 S.Ct. at 119 n. 5. Clearly there are some applications of this ordinance that are valid. The ordinance purports to
regulate pit bull ownership. Those people who know they have pit bull dogs cannot complain that the statute is vague
as applied to them. Plaintiff Sanchez, for example, has at least one purebred dog he knows to be what is commonly
referred to as a pit bull. *1542 Dade County dog owners who have already registered their dogs as pit bulls under
the ordinance also know what kind of dogs they have. These people have clearly had notice that their dogs are subject
to regulation by the ordinance. Thus, the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to them, and, therefore,
there are some applications of the ordinance that are valid.
The term "pit bull" has appeared in over 30 published judicial opinions [FN6] and in such magazines of general
circulation as Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Time, Ladies Home Journal, and Sports Illustrated. In South
Florida, the local newspaper, THE MIAMI HERALD, has published over 30 articles using the term pit bull in the last
several years.
FN6. See, e.g., 1. Gibbons v. Chavez, 160 Ariz. 73, 74, 770 P.2d 377, 378 (Ariz.App.1988) 2. Berry v. Superior Court,
208 Cal.App.3d 783, 256 Cal.Rptr. 344, 356 (1989)
3. Cronin v. Chrosniak, 145 A.D.2d 905, 536 N.Y.S.2d 287 (1988)
4. Hayes v. McFarland, 535 So.2d 568, 569 (La.App.1988)
5. State v. Livingston, 420 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Minn.App.1988)
6. Meyers v. Haskins, 140 A.D.2d 923, 528 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (1988)
7. Hampton v. Hammons, 743 P.2d 1053, 1054 (Okl.1987)
8. Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
9. White v. Whitworth, 509 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
10. Champagne v. Spokane Humane Society, 47 Wash.App. 887, 737 P.2d 1279, 1280 (1987)
11. Ward v. Young, 504 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
12. American States Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 484 So.2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
13. State v. Digilormo, 505 So.2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
14. Ash v. State, 290 Ark. 278, 718 S.W.2d 930, 931 (1986)
15. Alaskan Village v. Smalley, 720 P.2d 945, 947 (Alaska 1986)
16. Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So.2d 291, 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
17. Barton v. State, 253 Ga. 478, 322 S.E.2d 54, 55 (1984)
18. Williams v. State, 462 So.2d 771, 773 (Ala.Cr.App.1984)
19. Hargrove v. State, 253 Ga. 450, 321 S.E.2d 104, 106 (1984) 20. State v. J.H.B., 415 So.2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
21. Carter v. Stuart, 433 So.2d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
22. Burgan v. State, 258 Ga. 512, 371 S.E.2d 854, 856 (1988)
23. State v. Sims, 529 So.2d 454, 458 (La.App.1988)
24. State v. Houtenbrink, 130 N.H. 385, 539 A.2d 714, 716 (1988)
25. Bowell v. State, 728 P.2d 1220, 1221 (Alaska App.1986)
26. People v. Collier, 426 Mich. 23, 393 N.W.2d 346, 347 (1986)
27. State v. Rushing, 103 N.M. 333, 706 P.2d 875, 876 (N.M.App.1985)
28. Wortham v. State, 689 P.2d 1133, 1136 (Alaska App.1984)
29. State v. Hunter, 12 Ohio App.3d 75, 466 N.E.2d 183 (1983)
30. Wylie v. Gresch, 191 Cal.App.3d 412, 236 Cal.Rptr. 552, 554 (1987)
31. U.S. v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 149 (6th Cir.1989)
Ordinances regulating pit bulls, which define the breed merely by using the name pit bull and without further description or the addition of the subject breed standards, have been upheld against similar vagueness challenges. In Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F.Supp. 1236 (S.D.Ohio 1989), previously referred to, the federal district judge upheld an ordinance which named the breeds but did not further define them. The court reasoned:
The Court concludes that the definition of a Pit Bull Terrier in this ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague. An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer's guide or any dog book for guidance and instruction; also, the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club have set forth standards for Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers to help determine whether a dog is described by any one of them.
Vanater, at 1244 (emphasis added). See also Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 108 N.M. 116, 767 P.2d 355, 360 cert. denied, 107 N.M. 785, 765 P.2d 758 (1988) (an ordinance banning dogs "known as American Pit Bull Terriers" is not unconstitutionally vague); Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 244 Kan. 638, 772 P.2d 758 (1989); State v. Robinson, 44 Ohio App.3d 128, 541 N.E.2d 1092 (1989) (upholding against a vagueness challenge an ordinance that regulated dogs "commonly known as pit bull dogs"); City *1543 of Lima v. McFadden, No. 1-85-22, 1986 WL 7474 (Ohio App.1986) (upholding ordinance that names but does not otherwise define "pit bull dogs").
As suggested previously, ordinance provisions need not be cast in terms that are mathematically precise so long as they give fair warning of the conduct proscribed, in light of common understanding. Stansberry v. Holmes, 613 F.2d 1285, 1289 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 886, 101 S.Ct. 240, 66 L.Ed.2d 112 (1980) ("school" and "sexually oriented commercial enterprise," not vague). See also Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 28, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2617, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) (absolute "god-like precision" not required by the Constitution). "[F]ew words possess the precision of mathematical symbols, most statutes must deal with untold and unforeseen variations in factual situations, and the practical necessities of government inevitably limit the specificity with which the legislatures can spell out prohibitions." Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 340, 72 S.Ct. 329, 330, 96 L.Ed. 367 (1952). See also Ferguson v. Estelle, 718 F.2d 730, 734 (5th Cir.1983) (there are inherent limitations in the precision with which concepts can be conveyed by the English language).
Plaintiffs' claim that the law violates the Florida constitutional doctrine of unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch must also fail. The ordinance delegates no greater discretion to enforcement officers than do drug paraphernalia laws.
While Plaintiffs' final pleading and Trial Brief contain a claim that the Ordinance's exceptions to the confinement requirements are vague, i.e., what is a "lawful dog show" or the sport of hunting by a "competent person" in "an authorized area," no evidence was presented to show how these exceptions violate the due process guarantee against vagueness. Certainly, there was much testimony by Plaintiffs' witnesses concerning dog shows, dog show judges, and the goings on of dog shows. The distinction between a lawful and unlawful dog show is not such as would be incapable of being understood or discerned by the public. Similarly, Florida laws on hunting requirements, and common understanding that to engage in the sport of hunting one must first consult and comply with the legal restrictions imposed by the State, make the challenge to the hunting exemption meritless.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the substantial evidence presented at trial, this court finds that Dade County Ordinance No. 89-022 provides sufficient guidance to dog owners, both in its explicit reference to pit bull dogs, and in its definitional section, to enable pit bull owners to determine whether their dogs fall within the proscriptions of the ordinance. Whether the ordinance will be applied in a discriminatory fashion is a question that cannot be determined in the context of this pre-enforcement action. Certainly there are some applications of the ordinance which pass constitutional muster. As long as the enactment is not impermissibly vague in all its applications, this court must uphold its constitutionality. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the pleadings, memoranda, exhibits and arguments of counsel and upon application of the controlling authority, this court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof and that the Court is required to uphold the constitutionality of Dade County Ordinance No. 089-22.
Accordingly, this Court will grant judgment in favor of the defendants, Dade County and Zoraida Diaz-Albertini and against the plaintiffs, American Dog Owners Association, Inc., et al. A separate judgment will be entered on this day.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court after the Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendants contending that the Dade County Ordinance 089-22 was facially unconstitutional and defective in other respects. The Court, heard and viewed evidence, permitted arguments of counsel and post-trial *1544 submissions. The Court being advised in the premises has entered on this day, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law determining that the Plaintiffs have failed to sustain the burden of proving that the judgment should be entered in favor of the defendants. It is, therefore, ordered that judgment be and it is hereby entered in favor of DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA and ZORAIDA DIAZ-ALBERTINI, and against the Plaintiffs AMERICAN DOG OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF DADE, an unincorporated association and ROBERT SANCHEZ, and that the Plaintiffs take nothing nor are they entitled to the relief they seek as a result of this action. As a result of this judgment, the Plaintiffs' cause is dismissed, with prejudice. Such costs as may be taxable will be considered by the Court upon motion properly filed.
DONE AND ORDERED.
APPENDIX A
Amended Alternate Agenda Item No. 2(a) 4-4-89
ORDINANCE NO. 89-22
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE CODE OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF "PIT BULL" DOGS AND OWNERS OF "PIT BULL" DOGS;
PROVIDING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING
FOR CONFINEMENT OF PIT BULL DOGS; PROVIDING FOR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF
OWNERS OF PIT BULL DOGS; PROVIDING REGISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT, TIME OF
COMPLIANCE AND PENALTIES; AMENDING CHAPTER 8CC OF THE CODE TO ADD CIVIL
PENALTY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, in recent months Dade County has experienced a tragic series of incidents in which citizens have been attacked and seriously injured by pit bull dogs; and
WHEREAS, concurrent with these attacks upon human beings, the community has also experienced an increasing number of animal killings resulting from pit bull attacks; and
WHEREAS, pit bull breeds were developed for the purpose of fighting dogs and other animals; and
WHEREAS, to increase its effectiveness as a fighter, certain pit bull traits have been selected and maximized by controlled breeding, including 1) a set of powerful jaws with an exceptional ability to grip, lock and tear when the dog bites; 2) a unique insensitivity to pain that causes pit bulls to be exceedingly tenacious in the attack; 3) an unusually aggressive temperament towards human beings and animals; and 4) an extraordinary directness in their method of attack that does not include the common warning signs such as barking or growling displayed by other breeds;
WHEREAS, for the above reasons, pit bull dogs present a danger to the health and welfare of the citizens of Dade County, different in degree and kind, from the dangers presented by other breeds of dog,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The aforementioned findings are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof.
Section 2. Section 5-17 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida shall read as follows: [FN1]
Sec. 5-17. Legislative Intent.
This article is intended to utilize the authority and powers of Metropolitan Dade County in order to secure for the citizens of this County the protection of their health, safety and welfare. It is intended to be applicable to dogs which are commonly referred to as "pit bulls" and which are defined herein. This article is designed to regulate these pit bull dogs and to ensure responsible handling by their owners through confinement, registration, and liability insurance. The unique history, nature and characteristics of pit bull dogs have been determined to require the special regulations and provisions contained within this article which the County Commission hereby finds reasonable and necessary.
Section 3. Section 5-17.1 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, shall read as follows:
Sec. 5-17.1. Definition and Identification of a Pit Bull Dog.
(a) The term "pit bull dog" as used within this article shall refer to any dog which exhibits those distinguishing characteristics which:
(1) Substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers; or
(2) Substantially conform to the standards established by the United Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers.
(b) The standards of the American Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club referred to in subsection (a) above, are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "Exhibit A" and shall remain on file with the Animal Services Division of the Public Works Department of Metropolitan Dade County.
(c) Technical deficiencies in the dogs' conformance to the standards described in subsection (b) shall not be construed to indicate that the subject dog is not a "pit bull dog" under this article.
(d) Testimony by a veterinarian, zoologist, animal behaviorist, or animal control officer that a particular dog exhibits distinguishing physical characteristics of a pit bull shall establish a rebuttable presumption that the dog is a pit bull.
Section 4. Section 5-17.2 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, shall read as follows:
Sec. 5-17.2. Confinement of Pit Bull Dogs.
(a) Because of the pit bull dog's inbred propensity to attack other animals, and because of the danger posed to humans and animals alike by a pit bull dog when running loose or while running together in a pack, pit bull dogs must at all times be securely confined indoors, or confined in a securely and totally enclosed and locked pen, with either a top or with all four sides at least six (6) feet high, and with a conspicuous sign displaying the words "Dangerous Dog."
(b) At any time that a pit bull dog is not confined as required in subsection (a) above, the dog shall be muzzled in such a manner as to prevent it from biting or injuring any person or animal, and kept on a leash with the owner or custodian in attendance. Provided, however, that no pit bull dog may be walked within fifty (50) feet of any public school ground nor enter onto such school ground.
(c) An exception to these confinement requirements is hereby provided for any pit bull dog in attendance at, and participating in, any lawful dog show, contest or exhibition sponsored by a dog club, association, society or similar organization.
(d) An exception to these confinement requirements is hereby provided for any pit bull dog when the dog is actually engaged in the sport of hunting in an authorized area and supervised by a competent person.
Section 5. Section 5-17.3 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, shall read as follows:
Sec. 5-17.3. Liability Insurance or Other Evidence of Financial Responsibility Required to be Maintained By Owner of Pit Bull Dogs.
In order to protect the public and to afford relief from the severe harm and injury which is likely to result from a pit bull dog attack, every owner of a pit bull dog shall maintain and be able to provide evidence of the owner's financial ability to respond in damages up to and including the amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) for bodily injury to or death of any person or damage to property which may result from the ownership, keeping or maintenance of such dog. Proof of ability to respond in damages shall be given by filing with the animal control office a certificate of insurance from an insurance company authorized to do business in the state, stating that the owner is and will be insured against liability for such damages; or by posting with the animal control office a surety bond conditioned upon the payment of such damages during the period of such registration; or by posting a personal bond secured by a mortgage in real property or security interest in personal property; or a sworn statement of the owner of his/her financial ability to respond in damages up to and including the amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00).
Section 6. Section 5-17.4 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, shall read as follows:
Sec. 5-17.4. Registration of Pit Bull Dogs.
(a) Every owner of a pit bull dog in Metropolitan Dade County shall register the dog with the Animal Services Division of the Public Works Department of the County. The registration shall include the following: Name, address and telephone number of the dog's owner; the address where the dog is harbored, if different from the owner's address; a complete identification of the dog including the dog's sex, color and any other distinguishing physical characteristics; a color photograph of the dog; a description of the method of compliance with the confinement requirements; proof of the liability insurance or other evidence of financial responsibility required pursuant to this article; and a registration fee.
Section 7. Section 5-17.5 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, shall read as follows:
Sec. 5-17.5. Enforcement.
It shall be the duty and responsibility of all Metropolitan Dade County animal control officers to enforce the provisions of this article.
Section 8. Section 5-17.6 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, shall read as follows:
Sec. 5-17.6. Time for Compliance.
(a) All persons subject to this article shall have ninety (90) days from the effective date of this ordinance to comply with all confinement, registration, and liability insurance requirements.
(b) No pit bull dogs may be sold, purchased, obtained, brought into Dade County, or otherwise acquired by residents of Dade County anytime after the passage of ninety (90) days after the effective date of this ordinance. No such newly-acquired pit bull dogs may be kept, maintained, or otherwise harbored within Dade County, and each day any such newly-acquired pit bull is so kept, maintained, or harbored shall constitute a separate violation of this section.
(1) Violation of subsection (b) may result in the issuance of a civil violation notice, and
(2) Humane destruction of the pit bull dog by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. The County Manager or his designee may apply to the court for such order pursuant to this paragraph.
(c) Failure to register a pit bull dog as required by this article within the ninety (90) day grace period shall be prima facie evidence that the pit bull dog is a newly-acquired pit bull dog.
----------
Section 11. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 12. Nothing in this article shall prevent municipalities from providing for more stringent regulation of pit bull dogs and pit bull dog owners.
Section 13. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relet
 

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, there are 4.5 million dog bite injuries annually, with 750,000 people requiring medical attention and sending 334,000 to emergency rooms

There is one dog bite every 40 seconds. Between 1980 and 1996, 304 people died from dog attacks
The Insurance Information Institute reported that insurance companies paid an estimated $250 million in dog bite liability claims in 1996.

The American Veterinary Medical Association reports that dog attacks in the U.S. are the No. 1 public health problem for children, with more than half of all children bitten by age 12.