Lancaster's dog ordinance is cited in helping to drive down gang crime

A Lancaster ordinance imposing stiff penalties on owners of  “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” dogs is reaping positive results, and may have even helped to drive down gang crime in the city, officials said.

The law, adopted in January 2009, was primarily aimed at preventing gang members from using dogs, such as pit bulls and Rottweilers, to bully people or cause physical harm, officials said.

City officials said that 1,138 pit bulls and Rottweilers were impounded last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Of those, 362 were voluntarily surrendered by their owners in response to Lancaster’s ordinance.

“A year ago, this city was overrun with individuals -- namely, gang members -- who routinely used pit bulls and other potentially vicious dogs as tools of intimidation and violence,” Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris said in a statement.

“These individuals delighted in the danger these animals posed to our residents, often walking them without leashes and allowing them to run rampant through our neighborhoods and parks. Today, more than 1,100 of these animals have been removed from our city, along with the fear they create. Lancaster is now a great deal safer because of it.”

Parris believes there is a correlation between the results of the dog ordinance and a drop in the city’s gang crime rate. Lancaster’s violent gang crime, which includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, fell by 45% last year, and there was a drop in overall gang crime by 41%, Parris said, citing statistics from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Under the dog ordinance, a hearing officer can deem a dog to be potentially dangerous, for example, if the animal becomes aggressive when unprovoked. The dog can be impounded, and the owner must have it properly licensed, implanted with a microchip and vaccinated at his own cost before the animal’s release.

Dogs deemed to be vicious can be destroyed if they are determined to be a significant threat to public safety, according to the ordinance.

It also requires owners of potentially dangerous dogs to ensure proper leashing and muzzling, complete a dog obedience training course, spay or neuter their animals, and pay a fine of up to $500 for each offense.

Owners of dogs deemed to be vicious face fines of up to $1,000 per offense, and they could be prevented from possessing any dog for up to three years.

Though city officials praise the dog law, some residents continue to challenge its fairness. They argue that “breed-specific” legislation is an injustice to canines, because irresponsible owners are to blame for a dog’s behavior, not the dog.

-- Ann M. Simmons

Comments

[Kevin]

"Though city officials praise the dog law, some residents continue to challenge its fairness. They argue that “breed-specific” legislation is an injustice to canines, because irresponsible owners are to blame for a dog’s behavior, not the dog."

Dogs don't kill people, people kill people.

[MT]

I doubt the dogs were telling these thugs to be gangbangers. Blaming them is ludicrous. I've owned Rotties my whole life and never had one that would become irrationally violent towards anyone.

If the city is too dim to recognize that gang activity is down because a once fairly poor area (Lancaster) has seen an increase in it's standard of living due to mid-upper-middle class Angelenos being driven north by increasingly exorbitant rent prices in the SFV and Hollywood then all hope is truly lost for Lancaster residents.

[JT]

Lancaster thinks this program is working. Statistics can be used to prove anything.

Gang members or other psychos that want to use a vicious dog to intimidate people can still get a German Shepherd, Huskie, Alaskan Malamute, Doberman Pinscher, Chow Chow, Presa Canario, Boxer, Dalmatian, or Labrador, etc.

All dog owners should have to prove they are competent, not just the owners of Pit Bulls and Rotts.

[Too Tom]

To "MT" I respectfully suggest you check your facts.

As a 40 year resident of Lancaster, I can say with certainty Lancaster was a middle to upper-middle class area, with a fairly high standard of living from generations of natives to the area, and incoming (primarily aerospace and military) WORKERS that moved to the area. When Lancaster came under a very bad administration, and SOLD OUT to the City of Los Angeles to help "relocate" (read "make your welfare/section 8 dollar go farther") the "people" (loose term) of SOUTH CENTRAL Los Angeles so they could build a freeway (the 105), along with a presidency that denied the importance of a strong national defense, indeed the standard of living began to decline.

The benevolent "Angelenos" to which you refer are not the salvation of Lancaster, you need to understand they began its decline and eminent demise. They increased the gang problem exponentially, brought a lower quality of life, exposed neighborhoods with residents who had been there for 50 years to a subculture beyond their comprehension, causing the "old timers' to relocate and the new residents to decrease an established neighborhood's curb appeal. Don't believe me? Take a drive down any city street, and count the number of vacant/foreclosed/abandoned homes from former residents who lost hope in their hometown.

I for one am thankful to have a Mayor like Parris who is willing to finally take a stand. The problem is, it may be too little, too late.

[Too Tom]

To MT,

However, I do agree with you wholeheartedly that the dog is not the problem, it is the owner. Since the City is prohibited by the ACLU and the like to focus on the problem (gang members, thugs, general low lifes) and treat everybody "fairly" under the blanket of political correctness, the dog law is a tool, nothing more.

[Detroit]

Breed specific? Tell that to one of the children that was chewed to death. Oh, that's right. You can't tell them that because they were chewed to death. My bad!!!

[selwyn marock]

Well done LA,now you have got rid of the dogs,have the gangsters packed it in and become choir-boys.What Rubbish

smarock10@yahoo.com

[ER RN]

It IS the dog... once a pitbull attacks, there is nothing the owner can do, short of causing the animal pain, to stop it.

Not a single public law enforcement agency in the United States use pitbulls in their K9 units, because these animals cannot be reliably controlled. The dog's bite strength of 1200 lbs/sq.in. often results in broken bones, which is considerably more force than necessary to subdue a suspect (exposing the agency to 'excessive force' liability). (There are many private security firms that use pitbulls as deterrent guard dogs).

Although Rottweilers have a bite strength of 800-900 lbs/sq.in., they are much easier to handle (that is, they 'let go' when ordered) and can be reliably trained, which is why they are used by law enforcement. They are much more appropriate for personal protection, especially around children, and with this breed, the owner does influence the animal's behavior (for good or bad).

[HonestyHelps]

What "fairness"? Fairness to those who own pits bulls? I would say that this shows the types that own pits pretty clearly and it also shows why pits need to be regulated at least. Those who claim to be responsible owners should love to show how responsible they are by doing the things such as muzzling, etc. Only those who are not responsible would talk in terms of fairness. If this means cutting down on crime, how can one say that is unfair? To do so shows disrespect for the rest of us and that is unfair. To see just how fair it is, you have to know the damage being done by the pits daily at www.DogsBite.org and www.pitattacksbystate.blogspot.com

[anthony]

Too Tom,

We haven't needed a strong national defense for over a decade. We aren't fighting the soviet union anymore. It's not my job to subsidize your salary. Find another industry. There are many factors involved in the dynamics of a community.

[syscom3]

Pitbulls and rottweilers should be considered as loaded weapons ready to go off at anytime under any circumstance.

[Ricky Outlaw]

I fond this very disturbing and i feel sorry for the dog owners of Lancaster. This is against our rights and this negative attention that the mayor is bringing is ridiculous. I would suggest you guys very highly to not vote for this guy again.

I will try to start a campaign against this current mayor.

I cannot believe he says BSL helped lower crime and puts Gangs and Pitbulls together ...wow

[JPT]

Oh yay, it's the "Correlation equals causation" game!! I want to play too. What else happened over the last year that could possibly be connected with this ordinance?

Because pit bulls have to be neutered, Windows 7 came out at last! Because of the pit bull ordinance, we had the craziest weather in decades. Ummm... because of the dog ordinance, Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize.

Or maybe the drop in gang crime is part of an area trend unrelated to the dog ordinance at all. In Feb. 2009 the sheriff's office was celebrating the same reduction in crime, in the San Gabriel Valley. Maybe Lancaster's "success" is because more attention has been given to its gang problems recently by authorities, or maybe a change in economy has driven gang members into different areas of the state, or the recent mudslide evacuations have forced everyone to postpone gang-related crimes.

I mean, gee, the mayor thinks that gang members (read: blacks and Hispanics, per the mayor's racist comments when the ordinance was passed) are giving up crime because of the dog ordinance, so who knows, maybe it's really because they watched The Blind Side and realized the error of their ways. Or maybe they were inspired by President Obama and realized that anyone really can become president, but not if they're gang members. Yeah, I think we should probably credit Obama with this one.

The mayor apparently was asleep when his sixth-grade teacher explained that correlation does NOT equal causation.

How about waiting to draw conclusions about the dog ordinance until a real statistician can have a look at the big picture?

And if dogs "running rampant" was the big problem in Lancaster, why not just enforce the leash law? (Oh, well, we all know gang members won't follow the leash law... but they'll follow a neuter law, right, mayor?)

[jeff shaver]

What a joke . Crime stats have nothing to do with destroying dogs .Some of the pro-law comments here are just laughable .....