Breed-specific legislation has helped reduce gang-related crime, says Lancaster mayor

Last January, Lancaster city officials voted to adopt an ordinance designed to discourage gangs by imposing penalties on the owners of dogs deemed "potentially dangerous" or "vicious."  You guessed it -- the law singled out two breeds in particular, pit bulls and Rottweilers.  Our colleague Ann M. Simmons has the details on what's transpired since the law went into effect; here's an excerpt:

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.

THERE'S MORE; READ THE REST.

Photo: Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris in 2009.  Credit: Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Be careful who you elect]

"Parris believes there is a correlation between the results of the dog ordinance and a drop in the city's gang crime rate."

Does he also believe in the tooth fairy?

Nonsense
Breed Specific Legislation doesn`t do anything but remove non offending dogs from good homes.

There`s a reason criminals are criminals,they don`t obey laws.

[Sandaili]

Okay, so now they will just get Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, etc....the only reason they used pits was because they were the "cool" dog to have and people are always believing how mean the dogs can be. Look at almost all of the Vick dogs who were adopted out. These dogs are made vicious by the treatment and training they get.

These people will just move onto the other breeds. As a former vet tech, pit bulls were always the sweetest dogs, even when abused. I'd rather work on and own a pit than a rottweiler any day. I have never been attacked by a pit but on many occasions I had to restrain and muzzle rottweilers, and the breeds of dogs that attacked people were often the small dogs (shitzus, chihuahuas and other small dogs), followed by the "friendly" dogs, the golden retrievers. Goldens do not trust non-family members very much in vet settings. Funny how pits would always allow us to work on them no matter what without muzzling.

This is just another ridiculous example of California policing domestic animals. Ferret ban, anyone?

[do not vote for HARRIS]

This guy is a joke , so if you own a Pitbull your most likely a criminal ?

[Outlaw Kennels]

OMG !!! PLEASE DO NOT VOTE THIS GUY BACK IN OFFICE !!!

[Dawn B.]

As the 'people' are the problem why are they not dealing with them? Too scared? Tells us how not so vicious these dogs are when they go after the dogs but are too chicken to go after the real problem...the humans...

[dj]

Why not get the "gangsters" off the street first? Does this guy truly mean everything he said? Did he win the election?

[dj]

Is he serious? lol

[Brianna]

Hi,I just wanted to leave a comment saying that I honestly do not believe that this law is "fair". In the statements you have posted on here from the mayor, I believe that there is not really any relivence to the dogs that are being held accountable for the humans actions. For example,in one of the statements he says that ".. 1,000 of these animals have been removed from our city, along with the fear they create". This statement is only talking about the dogs, but in reality, this is just saying that innocent animals are being removed. I say this because why does it matter that 1,000 ANIMALS are removed, if this is truely about reducing gangs in Lancaster, then shouldn't it say the numbers of gang members?