Libby residents call for removal of 27-year-old pit bull law

A city ordinance in Libby that disallows pit bull dogs within city limits has dog lovers in an uproar.

Some have created a Facebook page, which as of April 27 had 300 members asking for the ordinance, 7.44, to be removed. The page claims that “breed specific law doesn’t protect people, pets or communities from dangerous dogs. All dogs should be judged on individual behaviors, not their breed, or perceived breed type. All dogs have teeth, and can be dangerous, regardless of breed, or perceived breed type.”

Opponents of the ordinance have also made videos to highlight the personal effects of the ordinance, and a petition destined for Mayor Brent Teske has been created on change.org, which as of April 27 had 821 electronic signatures out of a stated aim of 1,000 signatures.

Troy and Eureka have no such ordinance.

“I have seen the petition,” Teske said. “But what I saw was that there are signatures on there from Finland. Everyone jumps on the social media bandwagon, but they don’t even know what the bandwagon is. Nobody has come to city council to voice their concerns. Removing the ordinance has not been seriously considered because no one has come forward.”

City Council member and former chairperson of the ordinance committee Peggy Williams wants to clear the record regarding the history of the ordinance.

“The pit bull ordinance dates to 1990,” Williams said. “But it has lost its historical dating because of changes that have been made over the years. We made two changes in 2013, the first being when the entire animal chapter was re-drafted, and the animal ordinances aligned with the county’s except in the case of the pit bull and livestock ordinances, which are unique to Libby. That same year, we also changed the wording after realizing that any dogs who had been grandfathered in were long dead, and that we had neglected to have a clause about possible annexation. So the grandfathered-in clause was changed to an annexation clause about dogs caught up in changing city limits being allowed to remain. The ordinance was changed again in 2016, when we realized there were two versions with slightly different numbers so we corrected that and the ordinance is now dated with that last change, which has led some people to believe this is a new ordinance, created in 2016.”

Advocates say the ordinance is unnecessary because factors other than breed — such as an animal’s socialization or its lack of being spayed or neutered — are more likely to cause a dog to be aggressive and bite.

“An animal that is not spayed or neutered, and an animal that is roaming and not on home territory is more likely to bite,” Eureka Animal Control Officer Wendy Anderson said.

About 4.5 million dog bites are reported in the country every year, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Prevention and Control, resulting in 20 to 40 deaths. Pit bulls reportedly account for about 70 percent of those deaths, but inaccurate identification of dog breed might inflate that figure.

Anderson said dog bites happen often in Lincoln County, “especially in the summer when dogs are out in parks and public places.” Victims are typically a friend or family member of the dog owner, she said, and most often the bite just breaks the skin.

“In most cases, (dog bites) can be avoided by humans understanding a dog’s language and supervising the dog,” Anderson said.

Anderson said animal control quarantines for 10 days any dog that has bitten someone, whether or not the animal is current on its rabies shot.

Any dog can bite, and the consequences are the same. One of the risks, the transfer of diseases such as rabies, can be mitigated by enforcing vaccination of animals, which 7.44.020 does. Another potential consequence is the liability of compensating those who are bitten and need medical treatment. The ordinance requires $100,000 worth of insurance held by the dog owner and renewed annually for registered pit bulls in Lincoln County.

“We don’t judge a dog on breed,” Anderson said. “It’s very much an individual, case-by-case approach that we take at the county.”

“Although the ordinance exists, it’s really there to discourage problem animals before they become a problem,” Teske said. “I don’t think it’s a high priority to actively hunt down dog owners and enforce it at this time.”