Minutes 04-08-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

permission to do so, i.e., the absence of express consent. b. Gross negligence on the part of the bite victim. 2. Consider further whether there can be ordinance language that discriminates between children and others for the purposes of determining whether a willful trespass has occurred and if so develop such language for Board discussion 3. Develop language for a two-step process for "non-severe bites" on the property of the dog owner under the Unified Ordinance's vicious animal provisions a. A citation for a first bite that serves to notify the owner of his or her dog's propensity without declaring the dog vicious in a manner that imposes conditions and restrictions. b. A vicious animal declaration for a bite occurring after the issuance of the citation at step one that imposes conditions and restrictions on the dog. WATCH DOG Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-37. - Definitions.; Sec. 4-42. - Control of vicious animals; security dogs. 1. Exclude watch dogs from the general category of security dogs in the proposed ordinance 2. Develop language to exempt a dog from being deemed vicious if the dog is being protective of person or property in circumstances in which either or both of the following apply: a. There is an absence of consent (expressed or implied) for the bite victim to have entered the property on which s/he was bitten b. The bite victim could have avoided the bite by responding to signal behaviors from the dog and removing him or herself from the property (or some portion thereof) of the owner of the biting dog. Michelle Walker said as the ordinance is currently written, it simply states "in the case of trespass." She said this can be problematic under the law because there are varying definitions of trespass. She said the proposed ordinance adds the term "willful trespass." She said this proposal attempts to strike a balance of allowing dogs to act like dogs in appropriate situations, but also protecting innocent people that come onto other people's property. She said for trespass the two main insights were regarding the issues of consent and gross negligence. She said express consent can be used to decide if someone is a trespasser, considering situations of invitation or implied consent to enter a property. She said it is difficult to write an ordinance to address every situation that may arise, and the goal was to cover as many scenarios as possible. She said this is embodied in that term "willful." She said one thought was to add language that makes it clear that the ordinance is saying willful trespass without implied consent, which might make it clear that implied consent will be considered. Michelle Walker said the other issue is watchdogs, which are a particular exception to the vicious dog declaration, but this was not clearly defined as anything other than a dog that barks or alerts. She said any dog could fit into that definition. She said the recommendation had been to eliminate that exception, as it could swallow the rule. She said the group thought it might make sense to make it explicit that the presence of a dog exhibiting watchdog-like behaviors would also go into the above consideration of whether someone was trespassing or not. She said this might go into the express or implied consent and gross negligence considerations. She said the recommendation would be that a willful trespass would be an exception, and that the presence of a dog exhibiting watchful behavior could be taken into consideration. Susan Elmore said there is a good flowchart on page 39 illustrating how to determine if a trespass was willful.