Some Cities Want to Pass 'Pre-Bite' Ordinances

You’ve probably heard of breed specific legislation (BSL) before. BSL is a term used for laws that ban certain dog breeds or place restrictions on owners who choose to adopt those breeds.  Most states have breed specific laws and many cities and towns do as well. Now, one Ohio city is trying to take BSL to a whole new level by enacting a ‘pre-bite’ dog ordinance.

I’m not going to say that I agree or disagree with breed specific regulations, but a pre-bite ordinance? It’s not as crazy as it sounds.  One councilman on the Avon Lake City Council has referred to the measure as “the most comprehensive and thorough animal-dog legislation in the state of Ohio.” After months of debate, the council approved the legislation this week.

RELATED: How to Deal with Dog Aggression Without Training Collars

Some Cities Want to Pass 'Pre-Bite' Ordinances

The discussion began after two canine attacks that left two small dogs dead and an 81-year-old dog owner injured. Much research has been done and the council has now passed two pieces of legislation that are intended to prevent dog attacks and deal with dogs that have been deemed dangerous in the event that an attack takes place.

One of the ordinances has become known as ‘pre-bite’ legislation, and it will give officers on the Avon Lake police force the authority to define potentially aggressive dogs before an attack or dog bite takes place. Councilman Dave Kos explained the new legislation in layman’s terms:

“A resident who feels a dog is a potential threat or is showing aggressive behavior can contact police, who will dispatch an animal control officer to the scene.”

In order to make things fair for dog owners as well as those registering complaints, anyone who files a complaint is required to formally document it and sign it. Kos says the council did not want to accept anonymous complaints because that can be a slippery slope and there are sure to be more false complaints given if someone can leave one anonymously.

He says that anyone documenting a complaint must agree to appear in a hearing if that ends up being required. Kos says that the council did the best they could to provide guidelines that would make the complaints as true and accurate as possible. Animal control officers will be able to consider prior incidents, how the dog is raised and any photographs or videos that show aggressive behavior to help them in determining whether the dog is a nuisance.

On the other hand, officers can also decide that the dog is of no threat. I actually think this is a good idea. It isn’t biased against any breed in particular. The measure simply allows any concerned citizen to report a dog that they believe is dangerous. Isn’t that what we do with people that we believe to be dangerous?

Some Cities Want to Pass 'Pre-Bite' Ordinances

The second piece of this legislation will place strict requirements on owners of dogs that have previously attacked a person or another animal. These requirements include:

  • A non-retractable leash for the dog
  • A yellow neon vest and collar that must be worn whenever the dog leaves his owners’ property
  • The dog must be placed inside a secured, self-latching fence that is at least 6 feet high or a locked pen at all times
  • Signs need to be posted to inform anyone entering the property

RELATED: Dog Abuse: Lets Fix This, One Dog at a Time

These regulations also give police the authority to remove a dog from his owner’s care pending its release by order of Municipal Court. Kos says that in an effort to be as fair to the pet owner as possible the new law also has provisions that will remove the “nuisance” designation if the owners comply with provisions of the ordinance, which would require a certain period of time to pass without any recurring incidents and the passing of an obedience class.

I like the fact that this ordinance offers incentives to owners that are willing to take corrective action. Dogs can attack at any time for any reason, and it isn’t always because they are genetically prone to being aggressive. Accidents do happen and because dogs are very unpredictable, the chances of an accident happening with a canine are more common. Giving dog owners the chance to correct any issues without losing their pet is a great alternative.


  1. I find it very odd that the two attacks that were the catalyst for this prebite legislation were by Pit Bulls yet the breed was withheld. Is this a cover up? I find it even odder that since the two attacks were by Pit Bulls, that all the pictures shown in the story were of non Pit Bull breeds. More cover up? What happened to reporting the facts?

    Also how is prebite legislation going to deter Pit Bull maulings and attacks when so many Pit Bull advocates attribute the Pit Bull’s problem to high prey drive?

    This is what the ASPCA has to say about prey aggression: From the ASPCA website: “Predatory aggression is very different from other classifications of aggression because there’s rarely any warning before an attack. A predatory dog doesn’t growl or show her teeth first to warn her victim, so predatory aggression can seem to come out of the blue. Predatory behavior can be especially disturbing if it’s directed toward a human baby. Sometimes the sound of a baby crying or the movement of lifting a baby out of a crib can trigger a lightening-fast reaction from a predatory dog.”

  2. The town used to have a pit bull law, and they repealed it. Two dogs are now dead — never coming back — thanks to pit bulls. Gee, how preventative is that? I’d call that pretty final!

    • Councilman Kos is directly responsible for dropping the breed ban. He lobbied for dropping the breed ban for fully 3 1/2 years and told council in 2012 that the changes in state law brought about by HB 14 required changes in Avon Lake law. There was no truth to this claim.

  3. I stopped reading after you wrote, “I’m not going to say that I agree or disagree with breed specific regulations”. If you, as a blogger about dog issues, can’t come out and point-blank say that you disagree with breed specific regulations, then I have no interest in your opinion on dog laws.

  4. I apologize for my previous comment. I should have done a search for your articles on this site first. I still don’t understand why you would make that statement, but it’s obvious from looking at your other articles that you’re not pro-BSL, so my previous comment was hasty and not fair to you.

  5. There is no such thing as a “dog genetically prone to being aggressive”. There are dogs that gave been poorly trained or socialized and there are abused dogs. Often dog’s react out of fear. Like most dog laws this one is barking up the wrong tree. All pre bite laws will do is give bad neighbors another way to harass people. There need to be laws holding dog owners accountable for controlling and training their dogs.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here