Don Peitzman /
parkerchronicle@ccnewspapers.com
Parker resident and assistant Denver attorney Kory
Nelson, right, plays with his 4-year-old pure bred German shepherd
Heidi and his daughter Alyssa, 2. Nelson is sought all over the
country as a consultant to local governments on breed specific dog
legislation.
By Chris Michlewicz
When it comes to arguments about man’s best friend, everyone has
an opinion.
Parker resident Kory Nelson, 45, an assistant city attorney for
Denver, has been at the center of controversy over dog legislation,
specifically bans on pit bulls.
Suburban communities and big cities alike across the country
have used his legal arguments to help determine whether
breed-specific legislation is right for them.
Earlier this year, Parker considered its own restriction on pit
bulls and about a dozen similar breeds. The new law would have
prevented pit bulls from moving into town and required current
owners to register their dogs and take specific
precautions.
Town council reconsidered the ordinance after a public outcry
from veterinarians, breeders and dog owners, who said every dog has
the propensity to bite.
Nelson, who now works in the prosecution and code enforcement
division of the Denver city attorney’s office, did not help craft
the initial 1989 legislation against pit bulls in Denver.
However, he staunchly defended the law in 1991 when it was
challenged by an attorney from the American Canine Association, who
claimed it was unconstitutional. The case went as far as the
Colorado Supreme Court, which decided that the law was appropriate
because, among other reasons, pet ownership is not a constitutional
right, Nelson said.
The issue resurfaced in 2004, when Gov. Bill Owens signed bill
1279 and made breed-specific legislation illegal. Prior to that,
Nelson testified before a House committee about the 1991 ruling and
made a valid argument for differential treatment of pit bulls based
on science.
Denver challenged the constitutionality of the state decision
and the court decided there was no reason to overturn the 1991
ruling. The judge in the case said it was an issue of local concern
and individual home rule municipalities should make their own
decision, Nelson said.
Nelson’s work on the 1991 challenge has been used as case law,
which establishes a benchmark ruling for other judges and attorneys
to refer to. Occasionally, he has been called on to speak at
various events about the reasons for upholding laws against animals
that display dangerous tendencies.
Parker even contacted Nelson about creating a pit bull ordinance
before deciding to pursue a law that deals with dangerous animals
as a whole. The ordinance is still being reworked with council,
town staff and Parker area residents.
Aurora also came to the city of Denver for assistance when it
decided to pass a ban on pit bulls. Denver shared its research
material and Nelson was contacted by Aurora’s attorneys, although
he did draft, review or testify about the possible law before it
was passed.
But having dealt with hundreds of cases involving dangerous
dogs, Nelson considers himself somewhat of a savant when it comes
to dealing with the issue.
“Any suburban community should have concerns about public health
and safety, including the prevention of dog bites to humans and
other domesticated animals,” he said.
Nelson, who moved to Parker in June, attended a town workshop
aimed at fine-tuning the dangerous animal ordinance and was met
with opposition from dog fanciers who had heard about his previous
work. Nelson said he often gets a bad rap for the work that he has
been involved with.
“People have a problem with me because of my willingness to
share information. I don’t care what they think of me,” he said. “I
certainly believe there are legitimate reasons to enforce a ban on
pit bulls and jurisdictions typically do not have expertise or know
the legal grounds for doing it.”
Critics have accused Nelson of siding with extremist animal
rights groups and having a personal vendetta against several dog
breeds.
Now that breed-specific legislation is off the table in Parker,
Nelson said there are ways outside of a ban to implement a
proactive system instead of the reactive policies that are being
proposed.
He suggested hiring a full-time animal control official, who
would review the circumstances of a dog complaint and be able to
react quickly to a situation. Nelson said the possession of a dog
should be dependent upon the owner’s ability to properly contain
the animal. The dog should be taken from the owner until they
comply with the regulations, he said.
Often times, the jurisdiction waits for something bad to happen
before dealing with the situation, Nelson said.
“The criminal justice system is not the one to determine how a
dangerous dog should be managed. Attorneys and judges do not
understand what proper dog management should be,” he said, adding
the animal control official should have discretion.
However, pit bull bans are the most effective for smaller towns,
he said. Since only fatal dog bite cases are reported by the
Centers for Disease Control, the “numbers don’t tell you
much.”
“The propensity of one breed to attack is something that’s
beyond scientific research. The question is, which one is going to
cause more damage?” he said. “The litigation has gone forward and
the courts upheld BSL because it’s clearly a problem that should a
pit bill attack, it’s more likely that it will result in more
significant injuries or death. It goes back to the question, would
you rather have a grenade or a firecracker in your hand when it
goes off?”
Contact Chris Michlewicz at cmichlewicz@ccnewspapers.com