| 1/19/2009 12:27:00 PM | Email this article • Print this article | WSP defines dangerous dog rules
Jennie Betchwars
Review staff
The West St. Paul City Council sank its teeth into an ordinance Jan. 12 concerning dangerous dogs, including tougher requirements for dangerous dog owners.
Police Chief Bud Shaver and City Attorney Kori Land highlighted several changes to an ordinance previously introduced to the council, including new criteria for determining a potentially dangerous dog.
"It was pretty vague in there in how the police department or the city was going to do that," Shaver said during the meeting. "We thought we would add some terminology in there for future enforcers and citizens."
Criteria include whether a person injured by a dog provoked the animal or was trespassing on the pet owner's property.
The size and strength of an aggressive dog and a breed's tendency to bite humans or other domestic animals will also be considered.
"We have one potentially dangerous dog who is a rat terrier right now," Shaver explained. "It's a small dog, but it likes to bite a little bit. Certainly, that dog is not higher like a pit bull or some other dog of that nature."
Mike Fry, co-host of Animal Wise radio and executive director of Animal Ark, Minnesota's largest no-kill animal shelter, said efforts have been made throughout Minnesota to amend dangerous dog laws, often with mixed results.
"Overall, I think [West St. Paul's] approach is really sound, but there are other issues relating to dog bites that should also be looked into," Fry said.
For example, the majority of dog bites are not the result of aggression, according to Fry, and a person could easily provoke a dog to bite without displaying one of the behaviors, such as tormenting the dog or trespassing on the dog owner's property, outlined in the ordinance.
"When humans are interacting with dogs there's a lot of things that take place that aren't really aggression by the dog," Fry explained. "I believe that people need to get much better about understanding those things."
Another approach to dangerous dog ordinances is regulating dog care, such as whether a dog is tied up in a yard or basement for extended periods of time and whether a dog has been spayed or neutered, according to Fry.
"The really progressive dangerous dog ordinances are looking into and getting to the causes of behavior in dogs," Fry said.
The city's proposed ordinance will reflects recent changes to state laws regarding animals and dangerous dogs, including more restrictive requirements for dangerous dog owners. Under the amended ordinance, owners of dangerous dogs must:
• Obtain a license from the city within 14 days after a dog has been declared dangerous.
• Obtain a surety bond or insurance policy for the animal and notify the city if the policy is canceled. The ordinance increases the required amount of the bond from $50,000 to $300,000.
• Display on their property a warning symbol provided by the city to inform residents that a dangerous dog is on the property. A tag bearing this symbol must be worn by the dog at all times.
There are currently five potentially dangerous dogs registered in West St. Paul, according to Shaver. Thirty-five animal bites have been reported in the city since 2004, including seven in 2008. There are no dangerous dogs registered at this time.
Council Member David Wright praised Shaver and Land for their work on the ordinance. "I think this has come a long way from when we saw this only a month ago," Wright said. "I think you put a lot of teeth into it."
Appeals and guidelines
Under the proposed ordinance, owners of a dog declared dangerous or potentially dangerous may appeal the declaration. An impartial hearing officer will issue a decision, which the owner may appeal to the City Council.
"There is a $100 fee for an appeal hearing, just because there are costs associated with processing that," Land said.
The ordinance will require renters with potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs to notify the property owner that a dangerous dog will be living on the premises. Guidelines for owners of dangerous dogs moving into the city and those wishing to transfer ownership of a dangerous dog are also outlined.
"If you have a potentially dangerous dog, and you're living in Apple Valley and you're coming into West St. Paul, you need to let us know," Shaver said. "Also, what we've had is a particular person owned a dangerous dog, and they just simply gave that dog to a relative, trying to evade the dangerous dog labeling there."
The ordinance will also allow city officials to inspect dangerous dogs and their enclosures at any reasonable time and outlines detailed requirements for the proper enclosure of dangerous dogs.
Other cities, including Minneapolis, have ordinances that prohibit people who have committed certain types of violent crimes from owning dogs, according to Shaver.
"We thought that was really restrictive," he said. The goal of the ordinance is to hold dangerous dog owners accountable while also being fair, Shaver told the council. "We want this ordinance to be very straightforward and understandable," he said.
Several changes that apply to the average dog owner were also made to the ordinance, including the addition of an electronic pet containment device, or "electric fence," as an approved method of constraint and the removal of a requirement to have a leash 6 feet in length.
"I didn't think it was prudent to have a poodle stuck on a 6-foot leash," Shaver said.
A public hearing and second reading of the ordinance is expected to be on the City Council agenda for Jan. 26.
Jennie Betchwars can be reached at southwest@lillienews.com
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
