Bexley bans them. Toledo limits them. And many other Ohio cities are trying to figure out what, if anything, to do about their growing populations of pit bulls.

If a former Toledo man wins his case before the Ohio Supreme Court, municipalities will lose their ability to regulate the dogs, which are loved by some and feared by others.

The court heard arguments yesterday in the case brought by Paul Tellings, who was cited in 2003 for violating Toledo’s limit of one pit bull per household. Tellings’ attorney argued that the municipal restriction — and the state law that defines pit bulls on which the restriction is based — are unconstitutional.

A ruling in Tellings’ favor would wipe out local restrictions on pit bulls as well as the state law defining pit bulls as vicious dogs and requiring them to be physically confined or under the control of their owners at all times.

Although complaints about the muscular dogs are increasing in Franklin County, only one municipality regulates them: Bexley, which doesn’t allow them.

Craig Turk, the county’s assistant animal-control director, said pit bulls account for 1 percent of registered canines in Franklin County but 16.6 percent of dogs that are impounded for running loose, biting people or other reasons. Last year, 2,251 pit bulls were impounded in Franklin County, compared with 1,816 in 2003, Turk said.

Tellings’ attorney, Sol Zyndorf, said there’s no valid reason for the law to treat pit bulls differently than other dogs.

"We feel that the gist of everything is that it’s really a problem with the owner and not the breed of dog," he said. "If it were not for pit bulls, (people) would pick another breed for fighting or to be used in crime."

The case has attracted attention across Ohio and beyond the state’s borders.

Tellings lined up legal support from two groups: the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the American Canine Foundation. In its friend-of-the-court filing, the foundation noted that Tellings’ three pit bulls had never attacked anyone or run loose.

"There is no justification to charge citizens with a crime for owning a specific breed of canine," wrote foundation lawyer Scott J. Saum.

On the other side, Toledo is supported by the city of Cleveland, the Ohio County Dog Wardens Association and Attorney General Marc Dann. They argued that pit bulls ought to be regulated because they are different from other dogs.

Toledo’s attorney, Adam Loukx, said nearly all cases of organized dogfighting involve pit bulls and that lawmakers recognized the breed’s extraordinary strength and ability to bite down for long periods of time when they declared the dogs vicious.

"This (regulation) is rationally related to a legitimate goal," Loukx said.

The Lucas County dog warden, Thomas Skeldon, said a ruling in Tellings’ favor would handcuff animal-control officers in their attempts to regulate dangerous animals.

"If this is decided the way the (6th District Court of Appeals) ruled, the dog wardens are basically impotent as far as vicious dogs are concerned," Skeldon said. "Your only recourse would be a civil case."

Several justices appeared skeptical of Loukx’s arguments.

Justice Maureen O’Connor said it’s unfair to indict all pit bulls as vicious just because they are disproportionately involved in dogfighting.

"You can say that all fighting dogs are pit bulls, but you can’t say that all pit bulls are fighting dogs," she said. "There are some very lovable pit bulls that are family pets that are brought up with children and are very good pets that don’t snarl or bite."

The court is expected to rule in several months.

jnash@dispatch.com