VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:36:56 04/07/02 Sun
Author: Peggy for Sue Navarro
Subject: AmCan to pursue study of dangerous animal law

.....this was in the Vallejo Times...

AmCan to pursue study of dangerous animal law
By Dan Judge, Times-Herald staff writer
AMERICAN CANYON -- The City Council has decided that a law designed to collar dangerous dogs and other animals will need more grooming before it's ready for approval.
The council on Thursday continued a public hearing on the proposed law -- which imposes penalties for dangerous animals, including euthanasia -- until several provisions are refined and clarified.
"In my opinion, there really are a lot of issues that need to be resolved here," Mayor Don Colcleaser said.
The law would allow the city to take stern actions against dogs or animals deemed either dangerous or a nuisance.
The ordinance would create three categories of dangerous animal behavior and subsequent punishments.
An animal would be declared Level 1 if it displays menacing or threatening behavior, which could result in an order that the animal be restrained while in public.
A Level 2 infraction would be declared if a dog or other animal bites a person or kills a domestic animal. In those cases the city could require that the animal be confined and muzzled any time it is off its owner's premises.
If an animal causes the death or serious injury of a person, is engaged in or trained for exhibition fighting or commits a second Level 2 offense, it would be deemed Level 3. Those animals would be put to death.
The ordinance also creates several provisions and fines for animals engaged in nuisance behavior such as barking.
Several residents recited their own horror stories about being attacked or chased by dogs, and voiced support for the law.
Others encouraged the council to also define how other nuisance animals such as cats would be addressed in the ordinance.
Some, however, felt it was far too confusing and vague.
One detractor was Kevin Keith, who recently lobbied to house the baboons from his Primal Instinct performing animal business in American Canyon.
"It seems like it's piggybacking all animals on something meant for dogs," Keith said. "It seems like there's a lot of power over other animals but it's not very specific."
City Councilman Cecil Shaver agreed, rolling out a long laundry list of criticisms.
"I think it covers too much and a lot of this is covered inadequately," he said.
Among other complaints, he noted that the law doesn't define certain terms like what "periodic" means when it comes to barking or what is specifically meant by "loud."
He also argued that the ordinance gives the city manager too much power to decide issues that should be heard in a court of law.
Shaver was particularly irked by a provision that the owners of a barking dog can be forced to post a $50,000 bond.
"Someone has to put up a $50,000 bond because their dog barks?" Shaver asked. "It's giving power without restraint."
Planning Director Chris Gustin freely acknowledged that the ordinance was a work in progress and needed to be refined.
Nevertheless, he said the law was basically sound and was the result of a call for action from the community to address the issue.
"I think it's a very reasoned response to a very small number of irresponsible dog owners," he said. "If you do nothing, there's a chance of something much worse happening later on."
The council is expected to take up the issue again at its April 18 meeting.
The council is asking residents interested in the law to contact the city so their opinions can be considered in the law.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.