Posted by Webmaster on March 20, 2008, 9:59 pm
74.2.65.62
Plymouth Journal: Commission revises ‘dangerous dog’ ordinance
Lester L. Holmes, Jr.
Staff Writer
City of Plymouth residents will not have to choose between their pit bulls and their homes as was feared.
Rather, city commissioners approved Monday night the first reading of a revised dog ordinance that focuses on “dangerous dogs” instead of specific dog breeds.
The decision was made in response to a 100-signature petition crafted by Chris and Maureen Schneider calling for the ban of pit bulls and other animals bred for fighting within city limits. The couple began the petition drive when Kyle Kosmyna moved into their neighborhood with a 2-year-old red-nose pit bull. The couple also submitted a petition that called for stronger property and fence guidelines for dog owners.
City Attorney Bob Marzano said the new ordinance is more enforceable than any attempt to ban a specific dog breed.
“One of the main concerns which is always raised with this type of ordinance is whether the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague based upon a municipality’s abilities to accurately identify the target breed which is the subject of the ordinance, said Marzano.
City officials also said if commissioners decided to enact a breed ban, current dog owners would not be impacted as they would be “grandfathered” under the old ordinance.
Under the ordinance revisions approved by commissioners on Monday, any owner of a dog within city limits against which a sworn complaint has been filed alleging serious injury or death to a person or other animal can be summoned to a district court or other municipal court to show cause why the animal should not be destroyed.
If the dog is found to be a danger, the judge or magistrate can order the destruction of the animal at the owner’s expense. If the dog is found to be a danger but has not injured or killed another entity, the court will notify the county animal control authority of its findings as well as ordering the owner to purchase liability insurance for the animal and sterilization.
Other provisions in the ordinance focus on licensing, yard cleanliness and kennel requirements. Marzano said the language in the ordinance is consistent with Michigan Compiled Law code for animals.
While relieved that the city has decided against breed specific legislation, Bob Darden, the Michigan Association for Pure Bred Dogs and a legislative liaison for the American Kennel Club is concerned with the ordinance definition does not go far enough to identify a dangerous dog.
“The definition of a dangerous dog is one who bites and attacks along with causing serious injury or killing,” said Darden whose organization has worked with municipalities across the state to create animal ordinances.
Darden, said his organization is in favor of legislation proposed from the National Animal Interest Alliance, which not only deals with actions of the dog but also “encourages responsible dog ownership”.
Under Darden’s proposal, a magistrate or judge would order obedience school for a dog that is “at risk” or has a propensity for loud barking, snarling and other aggressive behaviors.
To finish the article go to . . http://www.stop-bsl.com/updates.html
  |
|
Message Thread:
|
