|Shadow NPC,- MDM|
Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
|Barked: Mon Dec 8, '08 6:48am PST |
|[BSL-UPDATES] Fw: Portage, IN: Proposed BSL for pit bulls, Rottweilers, GSDs, Akitas, Dobermans
The next city council meeting is January 6, 2008, at 6:30 PM. The news article below says the city council might vote on the proposed BSL during this meeting. I do not have an agenda for this meeting, but residents may certainly show up and voice their concerns regardless of whether the proposed ordinance is on the agenda.
City Hall Council Chambers, 6070 Central Avenue, Portage , IN 46368
Contact information for city council:
Olga Velazquez , Mayor, 219-762-5425,OVelazquez@portage-in.com
Elizabeth T. Modesto, 1st District, 219-763-1482
Brendan Clancy, 2nd District, 219-406-4732, ClancyPortage2@hotmail.com
Ted Uzelac, 3rd District, 219-742-3789, TUzelac@portage-in.com
Edward Gottscling, 4th District, Council President, 219-762-5251
Richard M. Turnak, 5th District, 219-762-7784
Sue Lynch, At-Large, 219-762-7784
Steve Sonaty, At-Large
Of particular concern is this part of the article below (emphasis mine): “The new city language would align with state statute by defining a vicious dog as one ‘deemed to be vicious if it belongs to a breed of dog that does, or has been deemed to have a propensity toward a violent disposition regardless of the actual nature of the dog.’” This does not make sense. Indiana State law does not define the term “vicious dog,” nor does it specify that certain breeds of dogs are “vicious.” (State law does have restrictions on wolf and coyote hybrids.)
City looks to expand animal control ordinance
BY JOYCE RUSSELL
219.762.1397, ext. 2222
Sunday, November 23, 2008
PORTAGE | A City Councilman is looking to put some additional teeth into the city’s animal control ordinance.
Second District Councilman Brendan Clancy is asking his fellow council members to consider adding language to city codes that would define vicious dogs and establish penalties for those dogs defined as vicious and for “repeat offenders.”
“The intent is to protect residents, but also the dogs from bad owners,” said Clancy, who is proposing the new language after receiving complaints from residents living in Swanson North subdivision after several incidents there.
The new city language would align with state statute by defining a vicious dog as one “deemed to be vicious if it belongs to a breed of dog that does, or has been deemed to have a propensity toward a violent disposition regardless of the actual nature of the dog.”
The definition includes, but doesn’t limit, vicious dogs as being wolf hybrids, coydogs, rottweilers, pit bulls, German shepherds, akitas and Doberman pincers.
The proposed language further states that a dog deemed vicious under the new definition will be destroyed “as a direct result of biting any individual, including the owner/handler, regardless of whether the dog is on the owner/handler’s property or not.”
It also provides that while owners can reclaim a dog considered non-vicious if it bites someone one time after following regulations regarding quarantine and paying fines, that the same dog, if charged with a second bite, also will be destroyed.
The proposal would help animal control officers dealing with repeat offenders in the city. Presently, owners can be cited for abusing or neglecting their dogs or for dogs running loose or causing a nuisance.
The proposal would cause the owner to lose his or her right to license a dog within the city if he’d been issued three written tickets, infractions or other memoranda of violations within an individual year. The denial would be subject to the discretion of the animal warden.
The proposed amendments were distributed to members of the council’s Ordinance Committee this past week for review. Clancy said the committee will continue its review at its next meeting, and he’d like to see the amendment presented to the full council at its January meeting for action.
Copyright © 2008 nwi.com
|my page | msg me | gift me | become pals|