Category Archives: Colorado

Holyoke, CO: Resident requests breed ban

Although state law prohibits municipalities from passing BSL, “home rule” communities are exempt from this prohibition. Holyoke is “home rule,” so the city could pass BSL or a breed ban if it chooses.

Holyoke is a small town of about 2,500 people, and has no online presence. If you are a resident or local and are able to track this issue for us, we would appreciate it.

Contact info for Holyoke:
City of Holyoke City Clerk, 407 West Denver Street, Holyoke, CO 80734
(970) 854-2266

City looking into dog pound

TUESDAY, 10 APRIL 2012 20:17

[…] Prior to the pound discussion, Jim Yakel spoke to council members last Monday telling them about how his granddaughter was recently bitten by a pit bull in Amherst. Yakel said he knows the incident didn’t occur in Holyoke but said he hopes the council would consider making pit bulls and other dangerous dogs illegal.

[…] “I would like the board to have some discussion on it,” Yakel said. […]

Full article retrieved 4/11/12 from

Denver, CO residents: Online petition and opportunity to get involved

The below is submitted from Team Pit-A-Full, which continues to battle Denver’s breed ban. They are seeking signatures from Denver residents who oppose the ban:

DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN DENVER OR NEIGHBORING DENVER METRO CITIES? Please share, cross post, like, etc. (Yes, you out-of-towners and your signatures are important… but not to the city of Denver. We need their “constituents” (aka the people who can re-elect or not re-elect city officials) to come forward and be heard.)

Visit the petition for more info:

Hayden, CO: Resident will ask council for breed ban, Nov 3

At tonight’s council meeting, a local intends to ask the town of Hayden to ban “pit bulls.” Colorado state law prohibits municipalities from passing BSL; “home rule” municipalities can get around state law, but Hayden is not a “home rule” municipality. So it is unlikely that this request will get anywhere, assuming the town council is familiar with state law.

This issue is NOT on the agenda, and the council is NOT officially considering it. Locals may wish to attend the Hayden Town Council meeting tonight to make sure the council receives accurate and fair information about BSL and “pit bulls,” and to recommend effective breed-neutral solutions (although, from the Police Chief’s quote, it does not sound like there’s much of a dangerous dog problem in the community).

Hayden Town Council meeting
Thursday, November 3, 2011, 7:30 p.m.
Hayden Town Hall, Hayden, CO
Contact info for town council.

Hayden Town Council to hear pit bull ban request

By Scott Franz Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Hayden — […County resident Carolyn] Montieth said she would like to see the Town Council adopt an ordinance that would ban all pit bulls.

“I’m scared to death of them, mainly because of the publicity they get and what they can do to people,” she said Wednesday. “It’s no secret pit bulls have killed.” […]

“There haven’t been a lot of problems with them in Hayden, but pit bulls are naturally on people’s minds because of the publicity they get,” [Police Chief Gordon Booco] said. “We get a couple animal bite calls a year, but nothing out of the ordinary. Most of them are for a dog attacking another dog.” […]

Full article retrieved 11/3/11 from

Aurora, CO: Council considers partial breed ban repeal

Aurora, CO city council has agreed to consider a repeal the breed ban on seven breeds (American Bulldogs, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Fila Brasileiros, Presa Mallorquins, Presa Canarios, Tosa Inus, and any mixed breed dog resembling one of these), but the ban on “pit bulls” (APBT, AST, SBT, and mixes resembling one of these) will remain in place. There will be an exemption process for service dogs.

The council only had ears and eyes for “pit bull” bite numbers, and ignored the data that demonstrated that non-restricted breeds’ bites, including severe bites, have not decreased since the ban went into place. Evidently, Aurora city council doesn’t care about its residents unless they are bitten by a “pit bull”-looking dog.

All alerts for Aurora:

City Council compromise: Breed ban would stay, list would shrink

Posted: Monday, April 11, 2011 8:34 pm | Updated: 10:52 pm, Mon Apr 11, 2011.
SARA CASTELLANOS, The Aurora Sentinel

AURORA | A proposal would allow pit bulls in Aurora only as service dogs while whittling the list of restricted breeds from 10 to three.

That was the compromise that Aurora City Council members came to at their Monday study session meeting. The issue will come before them for a formal vote on April 25.[…]

Full article retrieved 4/12/11 from


Aurora, CO: Committee to consider repeal of BSL, April 11

Aurora city council will contemplate a variety of actions regarding their current BSL, including a possible repeal of the law. Notably, staff is referencing Dogsbite and quotes from a very old news article to support their BSL, while their own bite statistics clearly demonstrate that the BSL has not improved public safety whatsoever.

What: City Council Study Session, 1st Floor Aurora Room, Monday, April 11, 2011, 5:30 p.m

Thanks to Jodi for this additional info:

The meeting in which they are discussing changing the law is the study session meeting, prior to the city council meeting… While you can not speak at the study session meeting, it gives a huge message to council members when there are several people in the room. They will not be discussing this matter at the regular city council meeting at 7:30, but you can speak with a time limit of 3 minutes at that meeting if you wish.

Email for questions.

View the council discussion packet here:

Aurora Mayor and City Council, 15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Fifth Floor, Aurora, CO 80012

Aurora, CO: Council to consider breed ban revisions, March 17

On March 17, Aurora city council will consider revisions to their breed ban, which currently bans American Bulldogs, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Fila Brasileiros, Presa Mallorquins, Presa Canarios, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Tosa Inus, and any mixed breed dog resembling one of these. Per city documents, the ban was passed due to public perception and fear of these breeds—not because of any public safety data indicating these breeds were problematic in Aurora.

City council and other officials have touted the “success” of the breed ban by observing that bites from restricted breeds have decreased. It should be noted that bites by non-restricted breeds have NOT decreased. In fact, non-restricted dog bites are above pre-ban levels.

Courtesy of the city, from January/February 2011 council packet:
2003   Total bites: 213     Restricted breed: 28       Non-restricted breed: 185
2004   Total bites: 211     Restricted breed: 33       Non-restricted breed: 178
2005   Total bites: 137     Restricted breed: 27       Non-restricted breed: 110
Breed ban enacted in 2006, dog-on-animal bites now included in data(?)
2006   Total bites: 137     Restricted breed: 8       Non-restricted breed: 129
2007   Total bites: 172     Restricted breed: 15     Non-restricted breed: 157
2008   Total bites: 224    Restricted breed: 8        Non-restricted breed: 216
2009   Total bites: 229    Restricted breed: 9        Non-restricted breed: 220
2010   Total bites: 194    Restricted breed: 6        Non-restricted breed: 188

In 2008 and again in late 2010, council received bite data as well. It should be noted that the numbers provided in 2008 and 2010 do not match the numbers provided in 2011 and in fact paint a less-sunny picture. For instance, the 2008 report provided the following data for 2006 and 2007 (dog-on-animal bites not included, for comparison purposes).

2006   Total bites: 182     Restricted breed: 11     Non-restricted breed: 171
2007   Total bites: 180     Restricted breed: 13    Non-restricted breed: 167

It is not clear why the numbers differ. In 2008, the city acknowledged past record-keeping inaccuracies, but claimed to have corrected both the data and the data collection process at the time of the 2008 report. It stands to reason that if the data was accurate as claimed in 2008, there should be no difference between 2008 and 2011 data. Why, then, do over 40 bites disappear from the 2006 data when reported in 2011?

The city has also continually struggled with a mingling of dog-on-human and dog-on-animal bites and has apparently accounted for these different types of bites inconsistently over the years. The city claims that 2006 through 2010 data includes both dog-on-human and dog-on-animal bites, whereas pre-2006 data was dog-on-human bites only; therefore, the numbers from 2006 through 2010 appear deceptively high when compared to pre-ban numbers. However, Aurora does not provide exact data for dog-on-animal bites, leaving us to make an educated guess. The 2008 bite report does call out dog-on-animal bites for 2006 and 2007; it was 30 and 18 bites, or 14% and 9% of total bites, respectively. Even if we subtract the higher percentage (14%) of dog-on-animal bites from each year starting in 2006, doing so does not reveal a trend of decreasing total dog-on-human bites; post-ban dog bites remain (mostly) higher than pre-ban dog bites.

Additionally, while the city currently puts forth the idea that restricted breeds “tend to” inflict more-severe bites than non-restricted breeds, the city has not provided data to prove this assertion—and the city’s 2008 report actually disproved this mantra. The 2008 report broke bites down by severity for 2006 and 2007. Over 90% of severe (AND over 90% of moderate) bites were inflicted by non-restricted breeds in 2006 and 2007. The breed ban did not appear to reduce severe dog bites—in fact, severe bites increased from 2006 to 2007, and non-restricted breeds were the ones implicated (restricted breed severe bites remained steady at one per year). No more recent data regarding bite severity has been made available, making it difficult to challenge the city’s current claim.

You can view the 2008 data here:

It is not clear how the city can declare the ordinance a public safety “success” when they don’t have any numbers to prove it. I would also think last year’s 188 victims of non-restricted breeds’ bites would have something to say about the purported success (namely, “What about us?”).

Aurora city officials have nevertheless staunchly recommended that the ban remain in place. The proposal to “loosen the ban” or eliminate it altogether has been met with much skepticism from city officials and councilmembers.

Please provide intelligent, polite public input to encourage Aurora city council to do away with their breed-specific law, for the sake of public safety.

Aurora Mayor and City Council, 15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Fifth Floor, Aurora, CO 80012

Aurora will reconsider ban on pit bulls

By Carlos Illescas, The Denver Post
Posted: 03/14/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT

AURORA — The city is considering loosening its ban on pit bulls, just as a new federal ruling kicks in Tuesday stating that any breed of dog can be used as a service dog.[…]

On Thursday, an Aurora committee will discuss several options to the current ban. Those include doing away with the ban and keeping the ban but allowing pit bulls as service dogs.[…]

After Thursday’s meeting, the Neighborhood Services Policy Committee will forward a handful of proposed ordinances to the City Council for consideration.[…]

Full article retrieved 3/14/11 from

Aurora, CO to consider service dog exception to breed ban

Aurora City Council set to change course on service dog rule

Sunday, February 6, 2011 8:09 pm
SARA CASTELLANOS, The Aurora Sentinel

[…]The proposal to allow restricted breeds, including pit bulls, as service dogs within the city but still uphold the city-wide ban on those breeds will be formally voted on at a meeting later this month.[…]

Council members also decided at the meeting that they want to re-evaluate whether there should be a breed-specific ban in the city or whether they should pare down the list of restricted breeds.

“It would be my preference that we have a dangerous animal ordinance,” said Councilwoman Renie Peterson.[…]

Full article retrieved 2/7/11 from

All alerts for Aurora: