Changes and Concerns Regarding Proposed Ordinance

Browse Search

WORKING DOCUMENT 4 needed impound) dogs that are within their jurisdiction and believed to be a threat to public safety. Another is that bites that occur on an owner’s property are not covered by state laws unless they are severe. This is regardless of whether the victim is a guest, a neighbor who innocently came onto the property, or a delivery person. 3. Watchdog definition: A concern voiced by several individuals was the removal of “watchdog” from the unified ordinance’s language and definitions. These individuals felt that their own dogs were watchdogs for their person and property in rural areas of the county. They felt this was an important definition to retain and that eliminating it could cause their animals to be at an unnecessarily high risk of being declared vicious or dangerous. Staff maintains that the “watchdog” exemption in the existing ordinance creates the ability for abuse. In the first place, the term has no definition and such dogs lack any qualification. Thus it can easily be used to excuse a dog and its owner from being held responsible for behaviors that are not consistent with actual protection of person or property. In addition, the proposed ordinance maintains the definition of a “security dog,” which is one that is used for protection but which must meet training standards and be registered. Owners who have their animals deemed as “security dogs” will not be subject to those animals being declared as dangerous or vicious when protecting property or citizens from potential harm. Finally, allowing any dog that is on an owner’s property to be excused for biting with no parameters by which an act is measured is a dangerous policy from the standpoint of public health and safety. Such a policy allows for known aggressive animals to be excused from behaviors of which the public deserves to be aware and protected. 4. Trespassing and what it means: Perhaps the largest issue raised was that of trespass. This issue was closely related to the rural/town and the “watchdog” issue, but went further in contending that the unified ordinance should protect any dog attacking a person that was on its owner’s property, regardless of intent. Some speakers felt strongly that a notion more complex than simply being on another’s property without invitation, was not needed and would not protect their rights as landowners to protect their property by any means. Staff maintains that the new ordinance does need a more articulated notion of trespass to assure public safety as well as the rights of dog owners. By considering whether there is criminal activity as well as whether a property is posted “no trespassing,” it prevents animals from excusably attacking those who are innocently or unknowingly trespassing in a civil sense. Letter carriers, political campaigners, neighbors, children playing, and many other people could easily be on another’s property without knowing or without malicious intent, and staff believes the community expects those people to be protected from attack by a dog.