CHAD WARBINGTON: Dangerous dog ordinance needs overhaul

In our City Commission work session this week, what seemed to be a simple discussion of insurance and bond requirements to have a “dangerous dog” in the city, many issues and deficiencies have surfaced related to the city’s dangerous dog ordinance.

Ultimately, the ordinance exists to protect the safety and well-being of citizens and to put strict guidelines on owners who keep a dog declared by authorities to be “dangerous.” With any incident involving a dog that acted in a dangerous or potentially dangerous manner, Animal Control should immediately begin an investigation. At this point, this is where we as citizens, neighbors, friends, family, etc. let each other down.

Because we do not want to offend anyone or hurt a relationship or make things awkward, we will often fail to report the dangerous action of a dog. Also, sometimes the owner puts a lot of pressure on a victim or witness not to report an incident.

Any time a person is attacked or bitten or involved in any other potentially aggressive behavior of a dog, it should immediately be reported to Animal Control. It may just be a small snip one time, but it may be a deadly attack next time.

In the recent incidents I have been made aware of, all were second and third incidents. Had Animal Control been involved earlier, the later incidents potentially could have been avoided.

This coming week, I hope to not only discuss the insurance and bond requirements but the overall “dangerous dog” ordinance itself. There is an Animal Control Board that should be expanded to include more citizens and more animal professionals to make decisions declaring dogs to be dangerous and to decide on euthanizing dogs or setting strict guidelines for a pet owner to be allowed to keep a dangerous dog.

The Humane Society, which is a great partner to the city, houses not only stray animals but also these dangerous dogs. We need the partnership to better protect citizens and not put the safety of citizens in jeopardy to save an animal. A dog declared dangerous should not be housed for 11 months while an owner attempts to comply with our ordinance. A dog involved in an attack should not mysteriously “disappear” before a ruling can be made by the Animal Control Board.

We need a stronger ordinance that allows the city and the Animal Control Board to take swift and decisive actions and then have legal recourse to carry it out to the full extent of the law.

I am not advocating for declaring certain breeds of dogs dangerous, but I am advocating for declaring any dog to be dangerous after one dangerous incident and then taking quick and prudent action to protect citizens’ lives over the life of a dog.

We have work to do on this ordinance, and I appreciate all the calls and emails providing input as we make decisions to protect the lives and well-being of all citizens.

File Photo