Agenda - 04-08-2014 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

19 Attachment B(4) WATCHDOGS Background Differences of opinion emerged between Commissioners and others in regard to whether there should be an exception to vicious animal dedarations for a dog that bit someone on its owner's property while watching over the property. While closely related to discussions of trespass, it became dear in the course of further consideration and consultation that the issue of watch dogs is best treated separately (as it is in this section). Under the existing ordinance, security dogs are generally defined as dogsthat are kept by an"owner or keeper for the purpose of protecting any person or property' (Sec.4-37). They are dassified into patrol dogs,which must be registered and which are trained or conditioned to act aggressively upon command; sentry dogswhich must be registered and which are trained or conditioned to act aggressively without command; and watch dogs,which act protectively but do not require registration or training.Awatch dog is more specifically defined as a"dog that barks and threatensto bite any intruder that has not been specially trained or conditioned for that purpose." Under the county's existing ordinance, a"security dog' (5rc.4-37)may not be deemed a vicious animal for"causing physical harm through bitesto people(a person)" or biting or killing another animal except in limited circumstances. Thus the exclusion of watchdog from security dogs in the Unified Ordinance raises the question of whether dogs may legitimately watch over and protect a person or property without the risk of being deemed vicious for their behavior In discussion of the Unified Ordinance,those who favored preserving the exception for watchdogs expressed the view that many dogs are kept to watch over private property(and persons on a property) and should not suffer consequences if they bite someone in performing their function. One Commissioner maintained that under the proposed ordinance residentswould only be able to have dogs as watchdogs if these dogs qualified as security dogs. 9nce qualification as a security dog requires the costly training and registration of dogs, he lamented that many residentswould no longer be able to keep dogs to watch over their property and persons. Those opposed to keeping the category of watch dogsexpressed the view that their exemption from being dedared vicious in the current ordinance amounted to a"blanket" exception. They stressed that there was not a cogent way to distinguish between watchdogs and other kinds of dogs. Because a ii dog that bit someone on its owner's property can be described as a watchdog(provided it barks or threat ens to bite),there ends up being a general rather than limited exception. This results in a lads of effective authority for exerdsing control over dogs that bite someone on their owner's property wi t hout cause in an effort to limit the future risk that the same dog may bite again without cause. The discussion with Professor Wall and her associate cut both ways in the context of these opposing views. On the one hand, it affirmed the original decision to exdude watchdogs as a distinctive category of security dog because it essentially was the"exception that swallowed the rule" in the current