Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>.....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.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.