The Douglas City Council is making a second attempt at approving a dog ordinance that will meet the needs of the public but not penalize them.
|
|
The new ordinance does not seek to penalize all dog owners, only those that do not care for the animals.
The new ordinance wipes out the two-dog limit and the definition of kennel.
It requires a secure enclosure for the animals in one’s care. A “secure enclosure” means that it has to be a sufficient size to provide the animal with appropriate exercise space and shall be constructed in a manner to minimize injury. It also must be constructed of mansonry, chain link or other fabricated metal. The material must be strong enough to prevent the animal’s escape, and shall include a cover for the animal. Also dogs cannot be permanently tied up or restrained by a rope or chain.
It is unlawfiul for any person owning or having custody of any dog to fail, refuse or neglect to provide such dog with adequate food, potable water and shade or reasonable shelter.
It is also unlawful for any person to maintain a dog or cat in such a manner that constitutes a public nuisance.
The new ordinance also increases the fines for those that do not care for their animals.
The fine for the first offense has increase from $40 to a minimum of $65 or more to $100, plus restitution.
Councilman Ivan Huish commented that he thought the fines were still too low and would like to see them increased, particularly for those that have multiple offenses.
He said that he would even like to see if there is some way to put the animals’ owners in jail if the animal attacked or injured someone.
After making an initial presentation, City Attorney Juan Pablo Flores said the new ordinance does not conflict with state law.
“People don’t like having their ownership limited. They feel it should be the owner’s responsibility. If the owner doesn’t take responsibility to care for their pet or it their pet or its enclosure becomes a problem, that is where the ordinance takes over,” he said.
“This all started with a vicious dog attack on another dog. What we want to make sure of it that a child in a stroller or elderly person are both safe on our streets,” said Mayor Dr. Michael Gomez.
Councilman Mitch Lindemann praised the changes to the ordinance because it did not punish the good owners.
Comments
Scared..... wrote on Sep 23, 2009 11:20 PM:
Is there a reason as to why your dog catcher's don't enforce the city's own dog ordinance requiring all dogs over the age of 4 months to be vaccinated and licensed? If the city doesn't care, why should I care? Curious as to what will it take for the city to enforce it's own law? Another vicious attack on a defenseless dog? A child? An elderly person? An innocent life? Let's hope this never happens. Please, enforce it or do away with it. "
Leroy wrote on Sep 23, 2009 10:58 AM:
Catlover wrote on Sep 16, 2009 6:47 PM:
Questions: What defines a cat as being a public nuisance? "