2/20/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ M M requiring that a dog be caged in the back of an open vehicle, that we require the dog to be cross -tied so that the dog will not slip back and forth with the momentum of the vehicle. Attorney Brennan recommended that if we include cross -tying that it be to a harness, rather than a collar, which might result in injury to the dog. Chairman Eggert advised that the Board would consider the inclusion of cross -tying after getting input on the subject during the Public Hearing. Attorney Brennan noted that the cage provides shade since dogs generally are in the vehicles for a substantial amount of time, but emphasized that the primary purpose of this provision is to protect people who are walking by this vehicle from being bitten. The secondary purpose is to protect the dog from the sun. Commissioner Scurlock was sure that it was well intentioned, but didn't feel a cage was necessary when you are going out for a short time. He would like to see item (9) on page 4 be a little more liberal by requiring cross ties affixed to a harness. Commissioner Bird didn't know where we would draw the line between protecting children -and adults and allowing dogs to ride in the back of a pickup truck. He wanted to protect the dogs, but he didn't want to go too far, because the next thing you know we will have them inside the cab in some kind of protective seats. He didn't want to go overboard on this. He also had a problem with the $100,000 insurance requirement, but Commissioner Wheeler felt that if it has been determined that a dog is vicious, there should be a special insurance on that dog to cover injury and damages. Generally, homeowner's insurance provides that coverage for your dog, but once it is established that a dog is vicious, extra coverage should be required. Either that, or get rid of the dog. 26 FEB2 0 1990 LI