2/20/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There being no others who wished to be heard, the Board closed the Public Hearing. Director Wright felt that common sense has to prevail in determining a vicious dog. He emphasized that ample documentation would be needed and a thorough investigation done by the Animal Control Department before any dog is determined to be vicious. Although the County has only 4 animal control officers, the Sheriff's 110 sworn deputies would be able to enforce the new law as well. He advised that there were 11 reported dog attacks last year, 2 involving children, 2 with adults, and 6 with other dogs and 1 with a cat. The documentation on a vicious dog will be factual and will be defensible before the Code Enforcement Board and later on in court. He emphasized that we cannot wait until someone is killed in this community before enacting a strong animal control ordinance. Chairman Eggert asked about paragraph 3(e) which has been deleted in the proposed ordinance, and Attorney Brennan explained that we decided not to exempt privately -owned security dogs. The circumstances that were listed in the previous exemption are included where the dog is protecting its owner or its property, but we did not want to give a blanket exemption for a privately - owned, security -trained dog. Commissioner Wheeler didn't feel there would be complaints about dogs that have been trained, but Attorney Brennan pointed out that really depends on who the trainer is, because anybody can start a business to train dogs for private security. Chairman Eggert agreed with Mrs. Ellis' comments about exempting law enforcement dogs only during the performance of their police work, and wanted to see the differentiation between "department" and "officer". Attorney Brennan advised that she would clarify that language. FEB 20 11990 33 BUCK o' F,1f L;�a