COLUMBUS — After years of being kept in the legislative doghouse, a bill ending Ohio’s distinction as the only state that automatically deems a breed of dog to be inherently vicious cleared a major hurdle Tuesday.

The Ohio Senate, previously reluctant to take up the measure, voted 27-5 to send the revised bill back to the House. The House has twice passed such a measure, but will not consider Senate amendments until Feb. 8 at the earliest.

House Bill 14, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Sears (R., Monclova Township), strikes references to the “pit bull” from Ohio’s 25-year-old definition of “vicious dog” that automatically triggers strict liability insurance, restraint, and other restrictions on its owner.

The Ohio Statehouse doors were seemingly thrown open Tuesday as another bill penned up for years to increase regulation of so-called “puppy mills” won committee approval and was placed in position for a potential full Senate vote Wednesday.

House Speaker Bill Batchelder (R., Medina), meanwhile, said he intends to take up a third bill that a petition effort has placed before lawmakers to ban dog auctions. Lawmakers could have ignored the initiated statute effort and left the group behind it to gather additional signatures to directly place the law on the ballot.

Lawmakers face an early May deadline to act.

Current law defines a “vicious dog” as one that, without provocation, has seriously injured a person, has killed another dog, or is of the general breed known as “pit bull.”

Critics contend the law discriminates against a specific breed based on its appearance rather than its behavior.

House Bill 14 would overhaul definitions of both “vicious” and “dangerous” dogs, create a new lesser category of “nuisance dog,” provide a legal process for dog owners to appeal their dogs’ classification, and increase registration and other fees.

All of this brought the official support of the Ohio County Dog Wardens Association, although that support was not unanimous. The group had previously fought the bill when it simply removed references to the “pit bull”.

“This has been an ongoing issue with the dog wardens, how they can appropriately and meaningfully enforce the laws,” Ms. Sears said. “The law deals with the constitutionality issue in the prior law. We’ve solved that problem.”

Lucas County Dog Warden Julie Lyle said she was pleased the bill passed the Senate.

“That’s a big step,” she said. “This law gives us the tools to categorize dogs by their behavior as opposed to their looks.”

Unlike in the House, where opposition often came from urban Democrats concerned about the use of “pit bulls” in dog-fighting and the guarding of drug dens, the Senate opposition consisted solely of Republicans.

“I come from an urban area, and the police are very concerned about ‘pit bulls’ right now, because a lot of drug dealers use them,” said Sen. Jim Hughes (R., Columbus), a former prosecutor.

“Sometimes they debark them. In this county we have an awful lot of problems. We have dogs that have mauled kids as well as mauled officers and drug dealers. To me it’s still a vicious dog.”

Recently, two people were hospitalized in Dayton after their own dog, identified as a male “pit bull,” was apparently spooked during a family argument and turned on them.

All northwest Ohio senators supported the bill’s passage. In addition to Mr. Hughes, “no” votes came from Sens. Kevin Bacon (R., Columbus), Bill Beagle (R., Tipp City), Tom Patton (R., Strongsville), and Tim Schafter (R., Lancaster), all representing urban and suburban areas.

“Vicious dog,” the most severe classification, would be limited to one that has seriously injured a person. In most cases, such a classification would lead to the dog being confiscated and euthanized.

“Certainly, the reality of it is, that if a dog is declared vicious, it will be very difficult to comply with insurance requirements and other requirements,” Ms. Sears said.

“Certainly a dog can be rehabilitated, and some folks will try that. But proactively, from the standpoint that it is going to be complicated, but not impossible, that will become a factor.”

A “dangerous dog” would be redefined as one that, without provocation, has injured a person, killed another dog, or is a three-time offender as a nuisance dog. This would trigger liability insurance and additional registration and restraint requirements.

The newest category of “nuisance dog” would be one that, while off its owner’s property, menacingly approaches or attempts to bite a person without provocation.

Dog wardens argue that this will put problem dogs on their radar screen sooner while opponents have countered that it means that owners of “pit bulls” wouldn’t be armed with liability insurance for injury a “pit bull” causes until after the first bite has occurred.

The burden of proof that a dog belongs in a particular category would be borne by the dog warden or other law enforcement.

“Ohio is the only state that discriminates against this type of dog,” said Sen. Mark Wagoner (R., Ottawa Hills), who led the Senate Judiciary Committee that worked on the House bill. “In fact, many states go the other way and prohibit breed discrimination.”

Staff writer Jim Sielicki contributed to this report.

Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.

First Published January 31, 2012, 7:49 p.m.