AURORA | In early returns, Aurora voters appeared poised to repeal a years-old ban on pit bull dogs.
Measure 3A, which would repeal the 20-year-old ban, led by about 53% of the vote in Arapahoe County and 59% in Adams County.
The pit bull ban in Aurora was initially enacted in 2005 with some leniency for people the city had previously issued a license. In 2014, voters approved a referendum to keep the ban. In 2021, however, Aurora City Council approved the removal of dog breed restrictions from the city ordinance — without going back to voters for permission.
Later, in 2021, Aurora resident Matthew Snider sued the Aurora City Council over the vote because it did not include voter support. He argued that the council broke city charter language and that Aurora voters decided on the issue and must decide on any changes. By 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Snider.
So, Aurora lawmakers asked voters whether the city should repeal the restricted breed ban and allow residents to own American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers.
Pit Bulls 3A results
| Aurora Ballot Question | Arapahoe County | Douglas County | Adams County | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3A Pit Bull Ban Repeal | Yes | 47097 | 1241 | 5235 | 53573 |
| 3A Pit Bull Ban Repeal | No | 41369 | 1715 | 3605 | 46689 |
Veterinarian stance
“We had a big moment of panic when we saw that the repeal had been overturned because we do see a big difference when we have breed-specific legislation on the books,” said Senior Director of Advocacy and Education at the Dumb Friends League Ali Mickelson, “but they are not enforcing that ban right now. So we haven’t felt that yet, but we are preparing for it.”
She said that when there is a breed-specific ban, there is an influx of banned breeds brought to the shelter, and it is very challenging to find them new homes.
Many shelters are usually already at maximum capacity, so having a breed-specific ban overwhelms shelters with finding placement for them. Mickelson said that many shelters are moving away from destroying unwanted dogs, and Colorado shelters have a strong network for moving animals.
When there was a pit bull ban in Denver, and Aurora was fully implementing its breed-specific ban, the shelter would have to label the kennels, warning people that they might live in a place with a ban on that breed.
“We have these families that come in, and they’re so excited to find out more about a dog, and then they find out that they can’t adopt that dog because of the restrictions in their community,” Mickelson said. “It just results in us having dogs that stay longer.”
Denver Dumb Friends League sits at the border of Aurora and Denver. When there was a ban in both cities, Mickelson said they had difficulty finding homes for those breeds.
“When those two communities had those bans, that just really, really limited our doctors for those breeds,” she said.
Let’s wait and see when the first pit bull attack is.
The last ban didn’t have any effect on pit breed populations, at least now owners are not discouraged from training, socialization, veterinary care or insurance. If a ban works, use it. If it has literally no effect on increasing public safety, then it needs to be reworked CP
I’m glad that on this at least, the voters made the sensible choice. May Snider be mauled by a pack of ravenous chihuahuas as his eternal punishment for being a perennial candidate and sore loser.
All Snider expected is that the council follow the law. He recognized better than anyone that the council was unwilling to follow the voter’s mandate. And he proved the city attorneys at that time were faulty with their advice to the council to perceive this legal. On the other hand, perhaps the city attorneys knew this was a bad idea, advised as such and council did what they wanted anyway. Then the city said Snider did not have “standing” to sue. He overcame that legal hurdle as well in another state court decision. “sore loser” or determined? Now he is in the pool because of the one seat vacancy and could be an appointed councilman. I think he is worth considering.
If that is the case, why did Matt Snider completely ignore the 18 months of public comment and public survey done by AAS prior to overhauling Animal Code? It was never offered as evidence in the trial, (mis)leading the judge to believe that City Council just did because they wanted to?
This was a stupid move to repeal the ban. It’s well known Pit Bulls are bread to be aggressive and they’re difficult to train and control. Now every gang-banger in the city is going to own one and they’ll be on every corner with the homeless bums too. Great decision Aurora, you morons!!
Not only is this completely false, the exact opposite is true. Studies show breed bans do not reduce incidents, and breed is not a predictor for aggression. That is why every professional animal and civic organization in the world who has looked at the issue is against it. ASPCA, AVMA, ABA, CDC, NCRC and a hundred others. Stop pushing disinformation, the ban is repealed forever.