ASAB agenda 062018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Pa g e 2 result in a declaration with associated restrictions. A more refined version of this approach might allow the declaration for serious first offenses (e.g., severe injury for a person or a pet). 2. Propensity rather than incident based declaration: One suggestion for addressing the “oops” incident is to seek to establish a definition based on the dog’s propensity to be dangerous. The idea is that a dog may act aggressively because of an isolated instance in which an owner does not have effective control (e.g., the fence gate was left open and the dog got out and chased after a pack of bicyclists) ; or a dog may have ended up in a situation prompting it for the very first time to be reactive toward others pets or people and the owner learns from the experience how to manage the dog to avoid such situations. My own opinion is that it will be hard to have an satisfactory definition of propensity that is not based upon actual (reported) incidents (which is why there are regulations that provide notice on the basis of the first incident and impose requirements based on a subsequent incident). However, others appear to hold a different opinion and there is thus a need for discussion. 3. Rescinding a dangerous dog declaration: A process could be incorporated into the ordinance to allow for a declaration to be reviewed and lifted under very specific conditions. The absence of such is now a significant concern for pet owners who are generally responsible but have an unfortunate incident in which their dog does something leading to a dangerous animal declaration. An example is provided by Minnesota’s dangerous dog regulations, specifically, 347. 51 Subd 3a “Dangerous dog designation review. Beginning six months after a dog is declared a dangerous dog, an owner may request annually that the animal control authority review the designation. The owner must provide evidence that the dog's behavior has changed due to the dog's age, neutering, environment, completion of obedience training that includes modification of aggressive behavior, or other factors. If the animal control authority finds sufficient evidence that the dog's behavior has changed, the authority may rescind the dangerous dog designation.” Amendment of Public Nuisance Provisions for Cats 1. Sec.4-45. (8) v a. Language: “Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by neighboring residents of their property because of its howling, whining, crying, or other noise making.” b. Alternatives i. “Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by neighboring residents of their property.”