This afternoon at 4:00,the city council in Sioux City, IA will be meeting to discuss possible solutions to ending the city's breed ban. The two proposals on the table allow are proposed changes to the current 'pit bull' ban and the current dangerous dog law.
The two proposals include:
1) Repealing the 'pit bull' ban and instead, add 'pit bulls' to the high-risk animal category. This would require 'pit bulls' to be muzzled, leashed with a chest collar, microchipped, and a "Dangerous Dog" sign posted on the property. Licensing fees would be increased to $50 per animal.
2) Changing the vicious animal law to a complaint-driven system or to where Animal control could pursue charges with an an appeal process in place. This would also allow 'high risk" animals to be relocated outside of the city instead of having to be euthanized.
For the life of me, I don't know how #1 works, because if you declare all 'pit bulls' 'high risk" under proposal #1, then they have to be relocated out of the city under proposal #2 (or euthanized if proposal #2 fails). So I'm not sure that helps.
I also don't know why if you have a comprehensive breed-neutral policy that you would ever need a breed-specific one, because if you can get all aggressive-behaving dogs under your dangerous dog ordinance, the only ones impacted by the the breed -specific one are ones that do not behave aggressively -- and I have no idea why you would want to waste animal control resources on non-aggressive dogs.
The city's breed ban and dangerous dog laws have been a source of constant headaches for the city since being passed 18 months ago -- breed idenfication issues, targeting owners who were exercising rights fo free speech, due process issues from forced paperwork signing and a couple of civil suits have all been part of the equation.
At least realizing the law needs to be fixed is a good first step. If you live in Sioux City and can attend the meeting today, then please do.
H/T: Stop BSL
What is a chest collar? A harness?
I got excited when I saw your tweet since I am near Sioux City, but I'm not sure that this is much better than what they already have. Maybe someday they will wise-up. I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Aimee | March 22, 2010 at 03:32 PM
I'm assuming that's a harness. Clearly that idea is not written by anyone who's ever actually walked a young, high-energy dog before. There's a reason people don't use them for training folks.
Make your voice heard in Sioux City -- they're looking for options to make things better. I agree that this isn't (in fact, the two ordinances are kind of contradictory) -- which is why we need educated people to help them find the right solution.
Posted by: Brent | March 22, 2010 at 03:37 PM
I wrote but they didn't seem very interested in logical suggestions from non-residents.
Posted by: Aimee | March 22, 2010 at 03:44 PM
how bizarre that they KNOW they have a problem with their BSL and yet their solution is... another form of BSL! Some people are so wrapped around a (bad) idea they can't see the clear way to a good idea... Denver of course is another extremely notable case in point. How many times do they want to waste money defending the indefensible before they.... stop.
Posted by: EmilyS | March 22, 2010 at 04:45 PM
Add the UK to your list too Emily. They know their BSL has failed, but continue to look for options to add on top of the law to make it "better" vs nixing the law and starting over.
It's like getting rid of the law admits failure vs adding a new law is somehow progress.
Or something.
Posted by: Brent | March 22, 2010 at 04:49 PM