Please donate to support our work

DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

23 thoughts on “Mayor of Denver Vetoes Pit Bull Ban Repeal Legislation, Slowing the Hasty Repeal Effort. Watch Press Conference.

Please review our comment policy.

  1. Thank God Almighty for one sane, sensible, reasonable person who is in a position of power, who is in the Spirit of Gods’ love, who is so moved to utter forth true words of love for ones’ neighbor, instead of words that show hate for ones’ neighbor.

  2. I prayed and prayed that the repeal would not go through. I’m so thankful to God right now that this mayor put the safety of the citizens of Denver first.

  3. Apparently stories and photos of victims had more impact on this mayor than pictures of pit bulls in flower crowns. As it should be! I can only imagine the backlash of hate this man will receive for his thoughtful decision. I hope that the nature of the attacks he is likely already receiving will just help confirm his decision. When hate messages and death threats come and he realizes that each one represents a pit bull supporter, then it should be clear that he is dealing with unhinged people who would never have been responsible to register their dogs or keep them on leash if the ban had been lifted. I am hoping that their emotional and angry response speaks for itself.

    You can tell that he was given all the usual pro-pit talking points, because he referenced some of them. What stood out particularly was that he had been told over and over again by those against the ban that “all dogs bite.” Thankfully he looked past the silly nature of this claim to learn that not all bites are the same.

    This man took the time to listen to actual doctors and victims instead of pit lovers who care more about their supposed right to own a particular breed of dog than they do about maimed and dead people. May there be more like him in the future!

    I have sent him a message of thanks for being thoughtful, reasonable, and for placing the safety of Denver’s citizens above the demands of some.

    • Yes, I too sent an email to Mayor Hancock thanking him for putting the safety of the citizens of Denver above the desires of activists. I told him that his doing so put Denver at #1 on my list of possible cities to move to and that I hoped his brave and correct stance gains him national attention for doing the right thing, and that pit advocates might be vocal but they are NOT the majority, either in Denver or nationwide. I told him that I’m sure he’s getting a lot of flack from those advocates but that he should keep in mind that millions of other people support him.

      I urge everyone reading this to do the same. He needs the support of rational people to counteract the hysterical threats and rants of the pit brigade.

  4. So many pit nutters are flooding this man’s recent Facebook posts with horrid messages talking about how upset they are. Most of their posts are predictable, a pit in a picture either sitting next to a young child, wearing a silly outfit, or a combo of both. I wonder if they realize that many pits have been photographed in the same way prior to killing someone…

    I’m thrilled that the mayor made the decision for protect the safety of his citizens. I sent him a thank you email.

    • Pit nutters on Facebook. Yeah, I know all about them. They beat up my business page to the point where I had to take it down.

      And it’s highly likely that one of these charmers left a one-star business review on Google. Tried to get Google to remove it, but they won’t.

      I replied to that one-star by saying that it was a bogus rating from someone I’ve never heard of or done business with.

  5. So happy Mayor Michael Hancock was able to veto this insane ‘pit bull ban veto’ legislation. Loved his calm reason. I don’t live in Denver or even Colorado, I just care that there exist places to reside that disallow pit bull dogs in the community. Wish there were more areas like this.

  6. I’m glad he made the right decision. It seems like a no brainer to me that these dogs need to be banned not just because of their potential harm to other people and animals but the dogs get abused themselves by idiots.
    When will the entire nation ban Pit Bulls?
    It needs to be nationwide!

  7. This decision was for the best. This man made the choice to keep people, especially children, safe.

    It’s sad to see that this man is getting so much hate from this; demands to remove him from office, calling him a coward and the like. But it’s expected with pit owners. Some of the comments are just plain ridiculous. I saw a woman who claimed that she NEEDED a pit for her PTSD. I don’t even understand how somebody could even get to the conclusion that anyone NEEDS a pit for anything. We need more politicians like this man. Those who aren’t afraid to fight against the pit lobby.

    I wonder how many of the people whining about this verdict actually live in Denver. Seriously? How many are actually citizens, and how many are people who will never go there a day in their life? The citizens of the city are the mayor’s priority, not bully breed ‘advocates’ who just want to swarm the nation with pits. I’m sure the sensible residents are quite content to know that they won’t have to be dealing with pits invading their city.

    • Look, I have also had PTSD.

      And I’ll give you one lousy guess as to what I did not need for it. If you guessed “Pit bull!” you are right on the money.

  8. This mayor handled this press conference very well. Very clever of him to point out that only 20% of dogs are even registered. He kept bringing it back to safety and victims.

    My city has wimpy BSL. Pit owners are supposed to pay $50 (?) per year for dangerous dog defined as dogs with powerful jaws. I don’t think my city has a single registered pit bull.

  9. Finally, a politician with some backbone. I have taken the time to write him a thank you note, even though I live on the other side of the country. As I said to the mayor…you have made Denver a safer place.

  10. the veto was proper and welcome. however, the way in which the mayor described his position on the proposal and the pit bull menace in general does not give confidence that he will maintain that veto posture. there should not have been ANY “back and forth” in his stance on it; it should have been a very firm and intractable “no,” from the moment it was proposed.

    • He stated that compromise is how he works. So we expect to see another repeal proposal down the road. That or, the issue being placed on the November ballot.

  11. Did anyone see on TMZ actress Heather Elizabeth Parkhurst got mauled by her two pit bulls and is hospitalized with crushed bones, torn ligaments and tendons to one of her hands and forearms? This was sparked by jealousy. Petting one pit caused the other to attack. Of course, she and her boyfriend are pit advocates and going to keep the dogs.

    • They can keep both dogs. However, the fighting will only worsen, as one of the two is still a puppy.

      So they will need to keep those dogs separated which they won’t do. Her current injuries could be quite minor compared to her future injuries.

      Will the people let these dogs fight until one or both is severely injured or dead? Will the people risk life and limb trying to split a fight?

      • We need new severe breed neutral laws.

        Charge the owners, keepers, handlers of any dog that severely injured or kills humans or other domestic animals with felony animal neglect and cruelty.

        This would include the owners who are also the victims.

        Found guilty, they all receive a lifetime ban on any dog ownership or contact.

        All dogs later found on the property or in their possession would be immediately confiscated.

        They failed to understand and keep their dogs safe and prevent their attacks, so they should not be permitted to own or live with any dogs.

        • I agree in the main, but would add that the law needs to apply to those whose dogs attack *without provocation.*

          I was playing in the park with my GSD a couple of weeks ago when I was threatened and almost attacked. Luckily i managed to hold GSD back–and my would-be attacker leaped back when they realized that advancing threateningly with an arm raised at a woman with an almost-full-grown GSD at her side was a big mistake–but it was very touch-and-go for a second there. He was NOT going to allow me to be hit by that person!

          The law in my state says my dog/I would not be responsible if he’d bit that person, since he was defending me from legitimate threat of physical harm (and I had witnesses that I did nothing wrong and was threatened and advanced upon while repeatedly trying to get away, and that I kept screaming, “Get away from me! Don’t come near me! My dog will protect me, don’t come near me!”), and I think your law should have the same provision. Otherwise, a police dog who bites a fleeing suspect would be confiscated etc., or a trained guard dog who stops an attack on its owner, or, again, a pet who genuinely protects its owner from physical harm–which is one reason a lot of us have dogs to begin with.

          Obviously there would need to be some guidelines of what it is for a dog to legitimately protect–“defending itself’ from a child trying to pet it is not legitimate; defending itself from a child beating it with a stick is–but still. I don’t want to see dogs like mine get euthanized, and myself branded neglectful and not allowed to have another dog, just because some crazy person tried to attack me and my dog did what many dogs will do in that situation.

          (That or carefully define what “seriously injured” is. My GSD could do serious damage with one bite just by virtue of being a GSD. So there would need to be a clear definition there.)

          Like i said, I agree in the main and think it’s an excellent idea, just that there needs to be a provision for dogs who legitimately protect their owners from harm.

          • While there is difference in severity between bites of different breeds, a bite never equals a mauling. Dog owners should be held liable for maulings, regardless of the provocation (since maulings go far beyond self-defense/defense of owner….this is no different from how a human is allowed to defend themselves, but there is a point where they will be held liable for assault/murder because their defense response was far to great.)

  12. It’s comforting knowing that the veto survived an attempt to overturn. I am sure that the Dangerous Animal Industry will outspend victims on its advertising campaign in the months leading up to the November ballot initiative. The DAI generates megabucks that they will spend on campaign advertising, while the victims do not generate money; instead, they spend their money picking up and repairing the pieces of their shattered lives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *