2008 10 28 - SS/v CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION\)October 28,2008
6 p.m.
Council Present:RonCovey, Jim Liebrecht,Bill Ecret,BrentReese,Jon Lane,Dick Deane,and Richard
Pearce
The study session was called to discuss dangerous dogs.
The study session was adjourned at 7 p.m.
u
u
^J
<u
o
October 24,2008
CBH Fax 765-8659
KWIQ Fax 765-8901
KBSN Fax 766-0273
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
A special meeting of the Moses Lake City Council has been called by Mayor
Ronald C.Covey for Tuesday,October 28, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.in Council
Chambers located at the Police Building at 401 S. Balsam.
The purpose of this special study session is to discuss the Dangerous Dog
Ordinance.
Scheduling and notice of the special meeting is done pursuant to RCW
34A.12.110 and 42.30.080 and Moses Lake Municipal Code 2.08.020.
cc:City Council
For Information only
<J
^J
u
MEMO
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
WASHINGTON
City Manager 766-9201
CityAttorney 766-9203
Community Dev 766-9235
Finance Dept 766-9249
Fire Dept 765-2204
Municipal Serv 766-9217
MunicipalCourt 766-9201
Parks&Rec 766-9240
Police Dept 766-9230
Fax 766-9392
DATE:10-08-2008
TO:Joe Gavinski, City Manager
FM: Richard H. Pearce,Deputy Mayor
RE:Animal Control Ordinance
The committee appointedby the Mayorto explore ideasabout changing the potential dangerous
dog and dangerousdog ordinancesmet on October 7, 2008.
Please seethe suggestions listed onthe folloowing page thatthe committee thinks should be
made to the current ordinance.
You willnoticethatthereisno breed specific legislation (BSL)suggested.The committeewas
convinced thatBSL's are generally ineffective and difficult to enforce.Ifthe council should
wishto addBSL it could easily be done by stating itinthe definition of potentially dangerous
dogs. The definitions from the RCW areattached.
Whatwe hoped will happen and what Itoldthe committee would probably happen is these
suggestions would be given to you for you and Mr.Whitaker to putinto an ordinance form.
When you have done sothe committee will meet again to see the ordinance.Withthe committee
approvalit will go before the city council.
I did not suggest or promise a time line but all hoped that the proposed changes can be in the
hands ofthe council in November.
SOUTH 321 BALSAM STREET •POST OFFICE DRAWER 1579 •MOSES LAKE,WA 98837-0244 •A.C.509 766-9214
Dangerous Dog and Potentially Dangerous Dog Committee for City of
Moses Lake
u
Committee suggestions:
1.Separate dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs definition Use definitions asintheRCW
2. Add to our present ordinancefor all dogs:.
1.All dog owners must keep records ontheirdogs. The file shallcontain the following:
A. Birthday ofthe dog orthe best estimate in month andyear
B.Breed ofdog
C.Name ofdog
D.City license
E. A briefstatement about how ownership was derived
F. Date when animal was first brought into Moses Lake
G.Any officialactionstakenin regards to the dogby anylaw enforcement
H.Veterinarian records
1.Rabbis shots and other vaccinations
2. Spay/neuterrecords ifappropriate
3. Injuryand sickness records as appropriate
I.Animal shelterrecords ifappropriate
J. Training records ifappropriate
1.Temperance test
ii 2.Obedience classes
3. Owner handling classes
4. Formaltraining for service dogs
K.Service records ifappropriate
L.The file must be available when the license is applied for
M. The file must be made available to any law enforcement agentandmay become
publicinformation
3.Increase the license fee for dogsnot spayed orneutered tobe greater thanthecost ofthe procedure
(approximately $150.00)
4.When adog displays characteristics that will cause ittobecome a potentially dangerous dog these
additional rules must be complied with:
1.The dog must haveamicro chip installed
2. The dog must be spayedor neutered
3. The property where the dogresides mustbe identified with signs
4.The owner must take a handling and dog control class
5.When a dog displays the characteristics ofadangerous dog all the rules for a potential dangerous
dog ordinance will apply plus the rules that are currently in place for dangerous dogs.
RCW 16.08.070
Dangerous dogs and related definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise,thedefinitions inthissection apply throughout RCW 16.08.070 through
\_J 16.08.100.
(1)"Potentially dangerous dog"means anydog thatwhen unprovoked:(a)Inflicts bites ona human ora domestic
animal eitheron public orprivateproperty,or (b)chases or approaches a person uponthe streets,sidewalks,orany
public grounds ina menacing fashionorapparentattitudeofattack,oranydogwitha known propensity,tendency, or
disposition toattackunprovoked,tocause injury,ortocause injury orotherwise tothreatenthe safetyofhumansor
domesticanimals.
(2)"Dangerous dog"meansanydog that(a)inflicts severe injury ona human being without provocation on public or
private property,(b)kills a domestic animal without provocation while thedogisoffthe owner's property,or(c)has been
previously found to be potentially dangerous becauseof injury inflicted ona human,the owner having received notice of
such and the dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans.
(3)"Severeinjury"meansany physical injury thatresults in broken bones ordisfiguring lacerations requiring multiple
sutures or cosmetic surgery.
(4)"Proper enclosure ofa dangerous dog"means,while onthe owner's property,a dangerous dog shall be securely
confined indoors orina securely enclosedand locked penorstructure,suitable to prevent the entry ofyoung children
anddesigned to prevent theanimal from escaping.Suchpenor structure shall havesecuresidesanda securetop,and
shall also provide protection from the elements forthe dog.
(5)"Animal control authority"meansan entity acting aloneorinconcert with other local governmental unitsfor
enforcementofthe animal controllawsofthe city,county,and state andthe shelter and welfare ofanimals.
(6)"Animal control officer"means any individual employed,contracted with,or appointed by theanimal control
authority for thepurpose ofaiding in theenforcement ofthischapter oranyotherlaw orordinance relating tothe
licensure of animals,control ofanimals,orseizureand impoundment ofanimals,and includes anystate or local law
enforcement officer orother employee whose duties in whole or in part include assignments that involve theseizure and
impoundment of any animal.
I J (7)"Owner"means any person,firm,corporation,organization,or department possessing,harboring,keeping,having
^--^an interest in,or having control or custody of an animal.
[2002C244 §1;1987 c 94 § 1.]
Notes:Severability -1987c 94:"If any provision of this act or its application to any person orcircumstance is held
invalid,the remainder oftheactortheapplication ofthe provision toother persons orcircumstances isnot
affected."[1987 c 94 §6.]
U
To: City Council Members
O*September 24,2008
Regarding:Proposed PitBull Ban forthe City ofMosesLake (BSL 17 -A)
It canbe argued that aPitBull, which includes the StaffordshireTerrier,is like any other
dog. There aregood socialized ones, and there arepotentially dangerousones.
However,the recent violent attacks reported in Moses Lake,Seattle,Alaska,and Ontario,
Canada havebeen by Staffordshireterriers, andpitbulls, not any other dog. These
attacks were violent and and each took place on tide victim's property.
A Breed Specific Ban has stopped dangerous attacksby Pit Bulls in some communities.
However, atotalban penalizesresponsibledog owners,interfereswith dog shows and
other safe kennel club and community activities.And,it is a law that has to be enforced.
It has been my experience that Moses Lake police officers and dog catchers do not
enforce the laws that arein placeto control dogs. I have had first hand experience with
irresponsible pitbull owners andwiththe policeand thedog catcher.And Ihaveheard
people saythat ifyou have aproblemwith a dog don't expect any help.
Forover two years we hadproblems withneighborswho chose not to keep their pitbull
on their own property. I talked to them (nicely) threeor fourtimes, and told them we
didn't wanttheirdog running around our neighborhood.It was in our back yard andin
\^J our garage targeting our dog.Eventually it attacked her on our front lawn.It punctured
her face and ear and clawed herbellyuntilit wasredand swollen.Duringthe attack she
was screamingbecause she knewthe pit bull was goingto kill her.
After the attackon our dogthey continued to lettheir dog get out. A second dogwas
attacked. One daytheir Staffordshire came afterme, and my dogs, asI was unlocking
my car.I putmy dogsinandjumpedintothe drivers'side with thepitbull lunging atthe
car window- biting and scratching.
Eachtime I called the police,anofficer arrived andpickedup the dog,and returned it to
its owners. Apparently they knewthe pit bull ownersandwere laughingwith them about
it. These same neighbors hadasecondpit bullthatslipped out ofitscollarwhiletheir
children were walking it andthat dog attacked anotherneighbor's dog.
After the attack at my car last December my husband talkedto the Chief ofPolice anda
ticket was issued.The dogownersare currently involvedinthe court system fighting
their charges.The City Attorney,JimWhittaker,isthe prosecutor onthe case.Thanksto
him loose pit bulls areno longerasafety issue in our neighborhood
Perhaps a ban onpitbulls thatallowed responsible people to obtain aspecial permit to
havethem incitylimitswouldbea reasonable solution.No permit,no pit bull.A no
tolerancepolicy. Sincerely, Kay Acres
u
MOSES LAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITYOF MOSES LAKE
vs
WINFORD,CHRISTOPHER ALLEN
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF GRANT
I, JoeFrey,declare:
NOI#074603
Iam aPolice Officer for the City ofMoses Lake,andmake the following statement concerningthe Moses Lake Municipal
Code infraction notice issued totheabove named Defendant on 10-04-2008.
STATEMENT:
On 10-04-2008,at approximately 2043 hours,dispatch advised ofabrownpit bull in thebackyard ofthe complainant's
residence,locatedat815 SageBay.Dispatchreported the dog attempted to attackfhe complainant's dog and had been
aggressivetowardsmecomplainantinthepast.Iarrived in the area with OfficerFulbright,Tufte and Cole.Wechecked
the area and were unable to find the dog.Iwas informed the dogpossiblylived atthe complainant's back yard neighbor,
^-^located at 812 Edgewater.
Iwent to Edgewater and contacted Christopher A.Winford,date ofbirth 04-29-1961.Officer Cole soon advised the
brown pit bull was walking westbound on Edgewater.I observed the dog walked into the yard of 812 Edgewater.
Winfordadviseditwashisdog.Hetookthedoginside.IMormedhimofmecomplaintandthathewouldbereceiving
a Moses Lake municipal code infraction for dog at large.I then cleared thecontact.
On 10-05-2008,1 contacted the complainant,identified as Heidi Stone,date ofbirth 02-25-1977.Stone said the brown
doghad growled ather when she was outside in her backyard.Thebrown dog tried charging at her dog that was in her
yard.She screamed at the brown dog when itcharged and got her dog inside the house.The brown dog then growled
at her.
Onl0-05-2008JissuedWMord,aMosesLakeMuiri^
and keeping vicious animal first offense.The infraction was to be routed bymail.
\^J Ideclare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and
correct.Executed at Moses Lake,WA on October 5,2008.
Officer J.FREY4^/
#119 MLPD(10/90)
S»^
INFRACTION D TRAFFIC E NON-TRAFFIC I 07 4803
IN THE D DISTRICT ffij MUNICIPAL COURT OF GRANT _WASHINGTON
D STATE OF WASHINGTON ,PLAINTIFF VS.NAMED DEFENDANT
D COUNTY OF GRANT
6gCITY/TOWN OF MOSES LAKE
L.E.A.onii:WA0130200 |co»»T ORI I:WA013013J
THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES ANDSAYS THAT IN THE STATE OFWASHINGTON D
DRIVER'SLICENSENO
w+iftM&mj%
NAME:LAST
STATE ,photoi.d.matched
Qyes Dno
ADDRESS
FIRST MIDDLE COL
QlFNEW ADDRESS
•PASSENGER«ftf*gPfcrglOATfeg.
CITY STATE ZIPCODE LOCATION
KflffSS U
nuto'i&i(
\TE OF BIRTH (RACE.SEX.HEIGHT WEIGHT EYES HAIR(M.-*M.\\vi\h\tr<&lam,I t**>Liad
iSIDENTlAL PHONE NO.CEU/PAGERNO.WORKPHONENO.
VIOLATIONDATE
ONORABOUT
WONTH UAY.--sT5Kk/y^/TV 3ZQg TIME
24 HOUR £M5 •INTERPRETER NEEDED
LANG:,i
<Jff»«bUNTYOF
/DID OPERATE THE FOLLOWING VEHICLE/MOTOR VEHICLE ON APUBLIC/HIGHWAY^ND ^
#1 VIOUTION/STATUTECODE ,-—
'pMArLAMG I ^9.K)
HOLATIOWSTATUTECODE /_.1.11,c Y^flfr.flrflfrR-gteftk-U.-LCSPtts,4^'aMM^4
#3 VIOLATION/STATUTE CODE
HlOpo
•Served on Violator
^Sent to Court for Mailing
•Referred to Prosecutor
rEDI _.«-_.DATE ISSUED'
ICERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDERTHE LAWSOF THE STATE OFYWSHIN8TOHTHAT I
HAVE ISSUEDTHISONTHE (WTE AND ATTHE LOCATIOH ABOVE.THAT IHAVE PROBABLECAUSETO
BELIEVE THE ABOVE NAMED PERSON COMMITTED THE ABOVE OFFEHSE(S)
INF RESPONSE
OFFICER p J 'l
INFRACTION
PENALTY SUSPENOEO
FNDG/JDGT
DATE
<
o
C7>
O
Sturgis council passes pit bull ordinance »RapidCityJournal.com#commentdiv#comrnent...Page 1of 5
RapldCilyJournal.com»Home E-Edilion Suhscribor Services Ask theExpert Smloku ContactUt
("ttA REFRIGERATED CONSOLE
•LEARNMORE
Home
Search SSHSIB
Sturgis council passes pit bull ordinance
City says it hopes toensure responsible pit bull ownership and safety of
citizens.
By Hoathor Karl,Meade County Times Tuesday,October 07,2008
30 commenl(s)Increaselonl Size
STURGIS --Trie Sturgis City Council on Monday unanimously passed the second and final reading ofan
ordinance placing stringent regulations on theowners ofpit bulls within city limits.
MayorMaury LaRuemade clearIhalthecity's
Related Articles I Most Commented I intention is to hold owners responsible for theirII|pets,not toban the breed from Sturgis.
The Fives:Kimbo Slice meets Ross Perot -•sniping
the all-hypo team
Local lenders say days of easy loans are over
Fire marshal warns of homo hazards
Miracle cat survives2-1days without food,wator
Mansought for probation revocation
rapidcitySouth Dakotaapt rental
Find YourRapid CityApartment. Get
Virtual Tours&Expert Advice.
www.Move,com/rapidaty
rapid city catholic single
Find Your Rapid City Soulmale
Today. Catholics Join Free.
www.TogclherChristian.com
RaRld_CJly-AccouptantS
CompareAccountants in Rapid City
and gel quotes.
wwwjnalchpoint.com/accountonts
Ads by Yahoo!
According toSturgis AnimalControl OfficerCurt
Nulle, the number of attackson dogs and humans
by pitbullshas steadilyincreased inthe past few
years.Nulle's statisticsshowpilbullshave been
the main breed responsible for canine attack
incidents withinthe city. In fact, he saidthere's
been one pilbull attack on a human and oneon
another dog justsince the council's last meeting.
The ordinance definesthe pit bull breed and
requires registrationofany dog withincitylimits
that fits the description.Pit bulls willneed to be
securely confined indoors, or ina secureenclosed
fence, pen orkennel. When outside the approved
enclosurethe pit bull must be on a leashno longer
than four feet and will not beallowed to be kept on
the leash outsidethekennelarea unless the
owner is inphysicalcontrol of It.Owners will be
required to carryS250.000 of public liability
insurance,place a public sign on their property
statingthe breed of the dog, and provide the
animalcontrolofficerwith identification
photographsof the dog.
Sturgisresident and pit bullownerJason
Klingenberg told the council that he agreesthat
owners should be responsible for their dogs but
opposed a breed-specific ordinance. Saying he is a responsible owner, Klingenbergsaid he already carries
liability insurance on his pit bullsand doesn't have a problemwith that requirement but said, "To push
(regulations) towards one breed is not fair."He urged the council to make alldog owners complywiththe
regulations they planned to impose only on pit bull owners.
Judi Bendl of Piedmontcalled the insurance requirementof the ordinance "unconstitutional."She said Ihat after
contacting area insurance agents,she was unableto findanyonewillingto provide a liabililypolicy for pit bulls.
Bendt said thai Sturgis is no different than any other communityand that the problem is "dogs at large, not a pit
bull problem." She encouraged the council to raise fines fordogs at large rather than impose a breed-specific
ordinance.
Animal Control Officer Nulle informed council that he had researchedthe issue and insurance policies for pit
bulls are availablelocally.Nulle also said that ordinances regulating pil bulls had been tried elsewhereand have
held up in court.
"IImight have been easier to ban pil bulls altogether,bul Ididn't want to do Ihat," he said.
Nulle said Ihal becauseof breedingand genetics,pit bulls have aggression issues and Ihal passing this
ordinancewillhelp reduceattacksand ensure the safety ofSturgis residents.
Previous Story Ilext Story
Prnil tin:,stop/.Email1Mbstory.Share ThisStory: - What'stlilsV I '3E3
Rapid Reply
30 commont(s)
Two Sides
wrote on Od8. 2008 6:37 AM:
"What does it take to gel officials to make a dangerous intersection safer? Acouple of fatal or near fatal
accidents?Ifthere had been a lolofattacks recentlybyanother breedoldog wouldn't theybe theissue
Hide Comments
24 MPG"*SEVEN-SEATOlOSSOVER
fa GasPrices %Lottery &V Horoscope
Bankwest
•mortgage
Fast Friendly. Flexible.
Lorl Lyrtass
BankWosi Mortgage
700 MainSI Rapid City.SO B7701
006-30EM211 or U77-B06-228S
wwtvJjankwegl-sd.com
•fatfir|unlHousing,Ltwxloi
flft'ljI'•'*''•""•'''
Marketplace
Homes Jobs I Autos :Ads \Services
Top Homes
Trademark Real
Estate
3bed(s).1bath(s).
$119,900
.B.I!!...Y.Q.ung
3bcd(s).2balh(s),
$158,500
Kaski Homes
3bed(s).2balh(s).
$274,900
MoreHcfnesa
giveaway
Until the Weekendto Win?
W5.57B.15M
www.CadillacJacksResorl.com
httn://www.ramVir.ifviniimal.com/articles/2008/10/07/news/local/doc48eb765b448al93775...10/8/2008
Sturgis councilpassespit bull ordinance »RapidCityJoumal.com#commentdiv#comment...Page2 of 5
here? Allowners should be accountablefor their dogs as there is a dog at large ordinance,which you pay a
fine and take yourdoghome.IfIhe bileIhen theyare destroyed.Noonewanls tosee Ihalhappen.
Iknowofone pilthat had killed a dog when thai dogentered itskennel.Theproblemwas itwasviciously
guarding itskill afterwards.Many animalsdo,buthow could youtrustthisanimal now?
Afriend of mine alsohasa pil bull,she is a wonderful dog.Guessewhat, he already had Ihe exact things in
placethaiare nowto be mandated.Itis nota hardthingtodo.itis a responsiblethingtodo.Jusl makesure
Ihese animals stay safe,and others are sale fromthem."
Face It
wrote on Ocl 0,2000 12:37AM:
"Unlorlunalcly llieres alwaysexcuses, and ignorant peopleas well.Wecan banallthings
becausewe don't understand them. We canjudge all Ihmgs.even though Ihe good book tells us nol to
becausewe know ifwe ask lor forgiveness we willrecieve.Pilbulls aren'l astatus symbol forall. In fact you
find peoplewith thebiggestheartsadoplingthemnow,tofighl theinhumane Irealmenl ofsuchanimals.The
worst is we are being lorced to be Ihe same.To thinkthe same. Just because some prejudiced people out
there gel self-righteous and thinkwe should conform to theirstandards.
UNFORTUNATE"
To in RE to Gypsy
wrote on Ocl 7.2008 10:28PM:
"DidyouJustsay pitbullsare great withkids??? Areyoukiddin me???Ihave a relativewhowas attacked by
one of those familyowned pilbulls Ihat the familyhad fora lew years wilhoulmcidenl.The kidwill never look
Ihe same and did nothing but walk past the idiot dog that took il's last brealh shortly after Ihe attack. My
relatives willneverown anotherpil bull and have no problem telling their slory to those who Ihinktheir lovely
pel is harmless. They are not against dogs but theyare no longer so ignorant to thinkthat a kidis safe
around a pilbullor Ihal a pitbullis "great wilhkids".Alol ofthings happen inIhewhile house,bul Ihal
certainlydoes not mean they are Ihe righlthing to do."
To watch out BDC
wrote on Oct 7.2008 10:20 PM:
"There is a big difference between a scratch on a nose and lifeinjeopardy. Be real. Acat is not going to
threaten a kid's lifeand morethan likely willnot even scarethe kid but a pit bull certainly can take a lifeand
Iheowners need to "AT LEAST" be required to have the insurance coveragein Ihe event an attack occurs.
Unfortunatelythough, a lifecannot be replaced so the insurance does littlebut cover plastic surgery when
someone isattacked but fortunate to survive. That is why Ido not understand whyanyone would even want
toowna pitbullalthoughthatquestion mayhavejust been answered on a previouspost. Some mustthink
they look cool owning a very dumb animal."
Why own a Pit Bull
wrote on Ocl 7,2008 10:13 PM:
"Congrats toSturgis.PitBull ownersare someofIhemoslirresponsible people.Thedogsare stupidlo
beginwilh and any dogwill have it'smomentand bilesomeone. The difference with a pitbullisthat it'sbileis
moresevere and they are not likelyto stop likemosl other dogs. There is absolutely no reason to own a pit
bullexceptforthose weaker individuals whoare attempting lolooklikea "toughguy"walking theirlittlecritter
aroundbulinstead,they lookquitewhimpy.Iowngunswhichcan be used forprotectionbutIdon'tstrut
around the neighborhood witha sholgun across myshoulder lo looktough."
in RE to Gypsy
wrote on Oct 7,2000 10:10PM:
"istronglydisagree wilhyouifyoulookbackinhistory PitBulls were Iheamericanbreed one even lived in
thewhite houseand theyare greatwilhkidsiadoptedonefrom ourlocalshelterfromybdayandshe isthe
greatesdogihavehadaroundmy4 kidsand Iheyare8 yrslo7monlhsand sheletsmybabygirl crawl all
overherand tugherears andjustlaysthereorlicks hertodeathLICKS herand theonlyproblem ihavewilh
her is her constantwant of attention she wanlslo be loved asalldogs do aggretion onlycomeswhen you
miss treat them from Iheageofapuppy youreally needlodoyour research onthisbreedandifyour talking
interms ofthem being used lofight the you might wanna takea second look atyougerman shepard the2
mosluseddogsindogfighting are pitsand german shepardswhycause theywanltopleasethereowner
theywill doanything togetpraised andwhal ilcomes down toDONT PUNISH THE BREED punish Ihe
owner Ihey arenol baddogsitstheowners behind thedogs!!oh3nd my sister alsohaspits andshetrusl her
dog wilhher kidsIheyjusl wanl attention and to be loved "
Gypsy
wrote on Ocl 7,2008 9:2s PM:
"Pitbulls arebannedinsomestalesIhey should bebanned inall 50slatesIhey aredangerous animals,I
love dogs Ihave two myself.German Shepard anda Yorkie.Pilbulls were breed tobemean andmore than
half turn onthere owners.There nol good wilh children.Theychew people todealh all over the world.The
owners ofIhese cruel breed should be fined and go lojailforthere dogs actions."
Punish the Deed NOT the Breed
wrole on Oct 7,2008 7:02PM:
"Of course Ihey aren'l going lo pass Ihe law for all dogs Ihen the city council members who own "Black Labsgoodbirddogs"which bile would have lo become responsible aswell.Yes we do have an issue with dogs at
large.bul within a3week time frame of outwalking my dog Icame upon5differenl dogs,on 5different
occasions olwhich were nolofa pitbull breed.TheCity Council was presented with aeducational pack in
''Click Hen.-to Visit]
f[HomesforSale j
>•:•••'•/'
UCTIONS
Going Going Gone*H
Sections
•Homeparje
•News
•Sporl6
•Features
•Entertainment
•Obiluanes
•Classified
•Jobs
•Cnrs
•Homos
Services
•Advorlisc on Our Site
•ContactUs
•Online Photo Store
•Subscriber services
•RSS
•Careersat theRapid City Journal
Other Publications
•Lawrence CountyJournal
•Meade County Times
•BelleFourche Postand Bee
•NIE
•The Patriot
•The Chadron Record
• Hot SpringsStar
•Black Hills Patriot
Search
Go
A Lee Enterprises subsidiary
Other Lee Websites
bttn://u^ww.raDidcitviournal.com/articles/2008/10/07/news/local/doc48eb765b448al93775...10/8/2008
~
~
U
vj
U
Sturgis council passes pit bull ordinance »RapidCityJoumalxom#commentdiv#cornment...Page 3of5
Back to top Copyright 2008. Rapid CityJournal.RapidCity,SD |
regards toIhe breedaswell assome other options tohelp,bul noone choose lolake Ihese into Terms ofService and Privacy Policyconsideration.Ihey came with all oftheir minds made uprjusl like when Iconlacled myCity Council man.
(whal ajoke).l was preltymuch told heddin'l care (o hear my solutions hewas lor Ihe petion.Good Luck
SturgisstayuneducatedIhenll!*
Watch out BDC
wroleonOct7.2008 5:32 PM:
"Many peopl8 do nol know Ihe difference between aBoxer and aPil Bull.(Google some pictures.Ihey look
NOTHING alike!)
My neigbor's cal was in our back yard and ourBoxerjumped Ihe fence lo chase II back into their yard.They
called Ihe police,who maced my dog over the fence (my dog was back in my yard).The responding officer
said they gol acall ofavicious pil bull on Ihe loose and theywere frightened.
Igot aticket for animal al large,even though bythis lime,my dog was backon my property.Iasked why myneighbordidn't gel aticket for Ihe cat being"al large".The officer responded because it'sjust acat.
This jusl goes lo show howirresponsible some pel owners are.Il's OK for your pel lo jump into my yard,bul
not the same in reverse.
BTW:thecalwasunhurt,butmydog had abiggash init'snosefrom gelling scratched."
BDC back to RE BDC
wroteonOct7.2008 3:32 PM:
"In response toRE BDC.Iappreciate you concern over child attacks,bul please let meclaify mypoint.Ido
understand thatsometimes children gelattacked bydogs.Iwasattacked byaGolden RetrieverwhenIwas12.It happened because Iprovoked the dog and ilhad adefensive reaction.Children donot get attacked by
Pits orotherdogsbecause dogs arenaturally mean.Dogs thai arenol properly socialized lochildren,orare
mislrealed.mislrained develop behavior problems.Secondly,youshould neverleaveasmallchild alonewilh
apetbecause small childrendon't always understand how totreat animals and animals will react to
mistreatment nomailerwhatIhebreed(asinmycase).Child attackshappen becauseofmistreated animals <orlack of supervision,notdog breed.Ihope Ihal clarifies my meaning.BTW Ido not currently haveaPil (my !
Isat one died last year),Inowhave agentle,child socialized,loving Boxer."j
People
wroteonOct7.20081:42pm:
*Its getting ridiculous.We don't hold people accountableanymore.Banguns,banpits,banabortion.Lets !
see howmuchlonger freedom will ring.Asfar asjuslpassingtheinsurance liability,shameonthepoliticians
ofthecityyoumoneygrubbln fools.You'll allow anythingas longas yougetadimeoutofit.Itwould be i
sickening, ifwe weren't already used to it."
njd
wroleonOct7.20081:22pm:•
"One more fineexample ol lettingthe government tellyou how lo liveyourl!fe...manythanks to Ihe
supportersof this totallyunfairand ineffectualgovernment regulation!"
wow
wroteonOct7.20081:16PM:
'Inthsirepublicanstate we are now have dog prejudicecause they bile.
Guns killpeople but try and regulate them and mosl of you closedminded people here wouldhave a temper
tantrum. LEt's makepeoplecarryliabilityinsurance since sometimes people shoot other people with their
guns.
wow this stale lovesto make funny laws.
What's next?Ifyou have a kidand he is aggresive you need lo get insuranceon himincase hebeals up
anotherkid???some kids are aggressive aren'l Ihey??"
AKASara Palin Law
wrote on Oct7,200B1:07 PM:
"Putlipstickon them and runem foroffice.GladSturgis is dealingwith"real'issues and ignoring Ihe
violenceassociatedwiththerally!"
bsl Is bs
wroteonOct7.200B 12:30pm:
"Ican'tbeleivethislawpassed.Iown 2bullybreeddogs and have a 3 yearoldson. Mydogs areneutered
and Ihave never had any problemswilhthem beingaggresive. The problemw/aggressive dogs is due lo
badowners.Ifyou lieany dogup inIhebackyardand never playwilhItorgiveiltraning orattentionIheywill
become aggressive. Simple Fact!Next the citycouncilwillbe tellingme Ican'ldrivean SUV because it's
harmfultothe environment.Whalhapppen loAmerica'sfreedomandliberty lo pursuehappiness.Iguess it's
justlo SUEinsteadof pursue."
RE BDC
wrote on Oct7.200s 11:35am:
brtr)://wwwTani-Hr.itvi'oiiTT»fllr.nm/artir.1es/2008/10/07/news/local/doc48eb765b448al93775...10/8/2008
Sturgis council passes pitbull ordinance »RapidCityJoumalxom#conunentdiv#comment...Page 4of5
""Ihaveowned pit bullsalarge portionofmylife andIhaveNEVER hadanaggression problemwilh them"
Whata coincidence.Thai'sexactlywhalPBownerssay loihepolice aflerIheir pethas mauleda child."
RE Deuces
wroteon Oct 7.200s 11:33 am:
""There are no bad dogs,jusl bad owners."
The child,who is being mauled, reallydoesn't carewho takes blames.
Ithinkthisordinance isgreal!Ifyouwanlloownan"edgy"breedofdog.youcan paythe price.MoslPB
ownershavethemas a statussymbol. NowIheycanbragthaitheirdogis nolonlydangerous.Itsexpensive
loo.
Many home owner's insurance will nolcoveraggressive breeds ofdogs.Icanonly imagine theprice of
liabilityinsurance onIhese altentiongetters.*
Call on...
wroteonOct7.20O8 11:33AM:
"Sturgis needs loinvest inCesar Milan "the dog whisperer"!!!He canteach thosebaddogs tobehave.
BDC
wrote onOct7.2008 11:09 AM:
"Ihaveowned pit bulls a large portion ofmylife andIhaveNEVER hadanagression problem with them
towards meoranyotherperson,strangers included.II comesdown tohowYOU raisethedog.Enforcing
responsible pit bull ownership...absolutely.Making ablanket lawIhat affectsevenresponsible ownerspaya
finacial penally (buying insurancecostsmony)...badmoveSturgis.While IdonotliveinSturgis.Icertainly
fee!foril'sresponsibledog owners."
Re Mad Dog
wroleon Oct7.200s10:47 AM:
"iiotaly agreewithuon theordinance ontheIP.LOL LOL."
wroteon Oct 7.200810:40 AM:
"Hopethe lawcoverspitbulls withlipstick as well.'
Ridiculous
wroteon Oct 7.200810:30AM:
"For somanyreasons.Ignorant,ignorant fools.Watch out.your dogisnext.'
TOWONDERING
wrote onOct7.2008 10:29 AM:
"Nol really.Any breed canbeexcluded from any policy soeven alab may notbecoveredasinsurance can
refuse tocoveranydog orspecific dogs ordogs ofacertain sizeirregardless ofbreed.This isunfroluanle fro
dog owners.Insurance could costuploS1000 per year for a dog with nohistory tothousands ifyour dog has
bitten before."
Soccer Parents
wrole On Oct 7.2008 10:25 AM:
"These are Iheworst. Don'tthinkthey've hasd theirshots.'
Deuces
wroteon Oct 7.2008 10:11 AM:
"This is absurd.There are no bad dogs,only bad owners.If the intention ofthe ordinance islomake ownersresponsible Ihen
they should actually draft anordinance Ihal addressesdog ownership.Breed specific regulations tonol
address that.Anybreed ofdogcanbeaggressivewilh improper handling ortraining"
Mad Dog
wroleOn Oct 7.20089:53 AM:
"Now ifwecould getsomekind ofordinance passed lor Iron Pigs....yeah Ihey don't bite bul bullets hurt jusl
Ihesame.Yikes."
r>
n
Wondering f ^.
wrote onOct7.2008 9:40 AM:
"II you own ahome,wouldn't this already becovered byyourhomeowners insurance and ilyou donl own
yourhome,whal wouldthis kindof a policycost?'
htto://ww.raDidcitvioumaUon^^10/8/2008
_
Sturgis council passes pit bull ordinance »RapidCityJournal.com#commentdiv#comment...Page 5of 5
Hockey moms
wrote on Ocl7.20089:34 AM:
"Walch out lor hockey moms,tool"
CRST-EB
wrote onOct 7.20089:15 AM:
"Good!!!"
ALL dogs havo tho potential to bo dangerous
wrote onOct7,2008 9:13AM:
"Well Ihat isone stepinthe nghl direction.However.Iagree wilh Ihe argument Ihal Ihey shouldn't single oul
a particular hreed.They should make Ihis a requirement lor ALL dogs.Hold ALL owners accountable.IhavebeenattackedbyasmallTerrierbeforeandIhebitesrequiredstitches.The owner's dog insisted Ihal HER
dog didn'l bile and couldn't possibly lump over Ihe fence.Ihad to pay several hundreds ol dollars in medical
billsas Ihadnoaclual proolofwinchdog bitme."
Send us your Rapid Reply
Name:
Emal
(optional)|
Comments:
ImageVerification:
'<mm,Post Comment
The proceeding ate commentsfromthe readers.Inno way do theyrepresentthe views ofthe Rapid CityJournal orLee
Enterprises.
The opinions above are from readers of rapidcltyjournal.com and Inno wayrepresent tho views ofthe Rapid CityJournal oi
Lee Enterprises.
Rapldcltyjournal.comencouragesreaders to offertheiropinionson our localstories.We willneveredit or alter your
comments,but we do reservethe right to not post or to remove comments thatviolate our code of conduct.For this reason
comments are first reviewed and may not postImmediately,especiallyduring overnlght/weokendhours.No commentmay
contain:
Potentially libelous statements.
Obscene,oxpllclt,or racist language
Personalattacks,Insults,or throats
Commercialproducts or promotions
Termsof Use |Privacy Policy
httD://www.raDidcitvioumal.com/articles/2008/10/07/news/local/doc48eb765b448al93775...10/8/2008
u
Chapter 6.06
DANGEROUS DOGS
Sections:
6.06.010 Definitions.
6.06.020 Unconfineddangerousdogonpremisesof owner.
6.Q6.03Q Dangerous dogoff premises.
6.06.035 Registration of dangerous dogs.
6.06.040 Disposalofdangerousdogs.
6.06.050 Impoundingauthority.
6.06.060 Penalties.
6.06.070 Severability.
6.06.090 General duty.
6.06.010 Definitions.
The following words and phrases,whenever used in this chapter,shall be construed as defined inthis section:
A. "Dangerousdog"means:
1.Any dog with a known propensity,tendency,or disposition to attack unprovoked,to cause injury to,orto
otherwise endanger thesafety ofhumans orother domestic animals;or
2.Any dog which attacks ahuman being orother domestic animal without provocation;or
3.Any dog known bythe owner tobe apitbull terrier,which shall herein be defined as any American Pit Bull
Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American StaffordshireTerrier breed of dog or any mixed breed of dog
which contains as an element ofits breeding thebreedof American Pit BullTerrier,Staffordshire Bull Terrier or
American Staffordshire Terrier as to be identifiable as partially of the breed of American Pit Bull Terrier,
Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier;or
4.Any dog that frequently or habitually snarls or growls at or snaps at orjumps upon or threatens persons
VJ lawfully uponthepublicsidewalks,streets,alleys,orpublicplaces ofthecity;or
5.Anydogknownby theownertobeawolfor wolf-hybrid.
B."Owner"means any person or legal entity having a possessory property rightin a dog or who harbors,cares for,
exercises control over,or knowingly permits any animal toremainonthepremises occupied by them.
C. A dangerous dog is "unconfined"ifsuchdogisnot securely confined indoors orconfinedin a securely enclosed and
locked pen or structure upon the premises of the owner of such dog.Such pen or structure musthave secure sides anda
secure top.Ifthepenorstructure hasnobottom secured tothesides,thesides mustbe embedded into theground noless than
one foot.
D. The structureorpen describedin subsection C of thissectionmaybe inspectedbythe animalcontrolofficeror any
policeofficertomakesuresuchpen or structure complies withthe requirements of thischapter.(Ord.2008-10§2).
6.06.020 Unconfined dangerous dog on premises of owner.
The ownerof a dangerousdogshall not suffer or permitsuch dog to gounconfined.(Ord.2008-10 § 2).
6.06.030 Dangerous dog off premises.
The ownerof a dangerous dog shall not suffer orpermit such dog to gobeyondthe premises ofsuchperson unlesssuchdog
is securely leased by a leashno longer than six feet in length, and muzzled,or otherwisesecurely restrained and muzzled.
(Ord.2008-10§2).
6.06.035 Registration of dangerous dogs.
A. In addition toany other registration and licensing requirements provided in this chapter,itisunlawful foranyperson
to keep a dangerous dogwithout a certificate of registration issued underthis section.This section shall not applyto dogs
usedbylaw enforcement officials forpolicework.
. B. The city shall issue a certificate of registration to the owner of a dangerous dogif the owner presents to the city
\_y sufficient evidence of:
1.Aproper enclosure toconfine the dangerous dog and theposting ofthe premises with clearly visible warning
signs that there is a dangerous dog on the property.In addition,the owner shall conspicuously display warning
symbols thatinform children of the presence ofa dangerous dog;and
2. Asuretybondissued bya surety insurerqualified underChapter 48.28 RCW in a form acceptable tothecity
in the sum ofat least $250,000,payable to any person injured by the dangerous dog;or ^-s.
3. A policyof liability insurance,such as homeowner's insurance,issued byan insurerqualified under RCW
Title 48 in the amount of at least$250,000, insuring the owner against liability to any person for injuriesinflictedby
the dangerous dog.
C. A feeof$100.00shallbepaidto thecitybyany person seekingtoregistera dangerous dog. (Ord.2008-10 § 2).
6.06.040 Disposal of dangerous dogs.
In the event a dog is determined to be dangerous,pursuant to this chapter,by reason of the dog's viciousness,molesting
people,or attacking people or other animals,where such behavior results in conviction for a violation under this chapter,
then,in the discretion of thejudgewhopresidedover the courthearing wherein theconvictionwas entered,andbasedupon
theseverity ofthe behavior involved,thedog shall be impounded anddestroyed inahumane manner.(Ord.2008-10 §2).
6.06.050 Impounding authority.
The animal control officer or any police officer shall have the authority to impound a dangerous dog, pursuant to the
procedures provided inChapter 6,04 GMC.(Ord.2008-10 §2).
6.06.060 Penalties.
Any person,firm or corporation violating theprovisions of GMC 6.06.020.6.06.030 and 6.06.035 shall be guilty ofa gross
misdemeanor andmaybepunished bya fine ofnotmorethan$5,000 orimprisonment ofnotmore thanoneyearinjail,orby
both such fineandimprisonment.(Ord.2008-10§2).
6.06.070 Severability.
If any one ormore of the sections or provisions provided inthe ordinance codified in this chaptershall be declared by any
court of competent jurisdiction tobe contrary by law,then such sections or provisions shall be null and void and shall be /"-v
deemed separable from the remaining sections or provisions in the ordinance codified in this chapter and shall in no way '
affect thevalidity oftheremaining sections orprovisions inthe ordinance codified inthis chapter.(Ord.2008-10 §2).
6.06.090 General duty.
Nothing inthis chapter is intended tocreate a cause of action orclaim against the city orits officials oremployees running to
specific individuals.Any duty created herein is intended to be a general duty running in favor ofthe public citizenry.(Ord.
2008-10 § 2).
r*s