Jan 23 2008
03:37 pm

We have spent a great deal of time in discussion of the Pit Bull bans. I have referenced the ban in Harriman more than a few times. I owe Harriman an apology. You see Pit Bulls are not banned in the City limits of Harriman! You can have the allowed number based on the size of your property, the same as any other breed. I have 4 acres (not in the city) and as such could have 10! There is no insurance requirement. There are consequences for ANY dog that runs at-large, or bites/harms.

Here is where it gets iffy. The problem is that Vicious dogs in Harriman have to have special handling. They require outside housing to consist of a concrete pad, heavy gage wire, top and locked siding. While in public, they must be muzzled and on a 3 foot lead. The public requirement does not apply to dogs at sponsored events going between crate and event or government trained dogs.I do not have a problem with these limitations. I have a problem with their definition of vicious dog...

"Dangerous or vicious animal" shall mean and include:
(a) Any domestic animal which attacks a human being or
domestic animal without provocation; or
(b) Any domestic animal with a known propensity, tendency, or
disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury to or to otherwise
reasonably endanger the safety of humans or other domestic animals; or
(c) Any dog known by the owner to be a pit bull terrier, which
is defined as any American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, or
American Staffordshire terrier breed of dog, or any mixed breed of dog
which contains as an element of its breeding any of the characteristics of
the aforementioned breed so as to be identifiable as partially of any or all
of these aforementioned breeds.
(d) Any domestic animal declared by the animal control officer
to be a dangerous or vicious animal, as defined herein, or any animal
determined to be a dangerous or vicious animal under the authority of
title 10, chapter 6, section 10-602 of this code.

This declares my dog who has NEVER bitten to be vicious and under such limitations while the dog down the street (not a pit) who has attacked several small dogs has none.

So with this logic, can we say that most rapes are committed by men, most of these men are 20 to 35 and live at home with their mother (actually I made those stats up and do not have a clue what they really are) and therefore ALL men 20 to 35 who live at home with their mother are rapist. Yes, yes, I know that is flawed reasoning and a little(maybe a lot) over the top, but can you see why BOTH thought processes are a problem? Why was it even necessary to add Pits to the definition? They were on such a roll with the behavioral issues and they had to use such over-kill.

So again, I apologize to Harriman and officials for reporting the incorrect information. I have corrected my error by posting the corrected information as well. I still wish they would remove the Pit Bull from the definition of the vicious dog.


I agree, W

What I suggest is that folks come up with alternative language for consideration that effectively deals with bad actor dogs and dog owners.

We have some examples to put forward. My biggest problem is the lack of oversight or appeal beyond the animal control officer. Too much is left to judgement of a city official here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid / TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.