Omaha continues to use laws to target the wrong people

Earlier this week, a woman in Omaha has lost the ability to own animals for the next 4 years.

The woman, Sheri Frizzell, is a dog trainer who also works in rescue. However, she has now been busted by the Nebraska Humane Society for violating animal control ordinances on three separate occassions in the past 2 years and has now lost the 'privilage' of pet ownership for the next four.

Frizzell's violations?  One did involve a foster dog that got loose and was running at large, the other two involved being over the pet limit with dogs that were with her temporarily as she was looking for foster homes for them.

So instead of helping the city with their problem of homeless pets....she now has had her own pets, a Chihuahua, a cat and a Boston terrier, taken from her by the Nebraska Humane Society.

Three years ago when Omaha passed their new dangerous dog law, the reckless owner part of the law was the one part I kind of liked (at least in theory). I do like that it gives animal control a tool to target habitually negligent dog owners and prevent them from owning pets -- because we know that a small number of the pet owning population is actually responsible for the majority of the problems.  The law was passed a couple of years ago to "safeguard the public against those irresponsible dog owners whose dogs pose danger to the public."

Unfortunately, instead of targeting people who's dogs are habitually running at large, who are cruel or negligent in their treatment of their pets, or who's pets are habitually aggressive toward others -- they appear to be targeting people who are habitually, gasp, trying to help rescued puppy mill dogs.

This fits the trend though for the Nebraska Humane Society and the Omaha law. The law also requires muzzling and specific insurance for dogs of certain breeds -- unless the dogs get their Canine Good Citizen certificates. So instead of targeting irresponsible owners, it essentially just creates some hoops for the responsible owners (who were never going to be a problem in the first place) to jump through to be able to keep their dogs unmuzzled.

While the NHS continues to focus their efforts on people who aren't really problems, the city has seen increasing dog bites over the past 2 years -- and had a major political group call their dog laws "a waste of taxpayer dollars."

And as long as they continue to focus their enforcement efforts on non-problem people, this will continue to be the case.

I'm still supportive of the idea of reckless owner las, but certainly think there needs to be some distinction between major and minor violations. People shouldn't have their pets taken from them (and likely killed) for minor animal control violations like not being licensed, being over the pet limit, or their dogs escaping and causing no harm. But they should if their animals are severely neglected, cruelly treated, or their dogs are responsible for major cases of aggression.  There has to be some logical distinction here -- and apparently leaving the law open to "common sense" interpretation isn't going to work in Omaha (or likely, elsewhere).

For more on this case, see YesBiscuit! - Thanks for your community service, we're taking your pets

Comments

[Rebecca]

In an effort to look like they're doing something (rather than actually doing something constructive) most enforcement of these types of laws seem to go after the low-hanging fruit. I fail to see how taking away the dogs of a rescuer and precluding her from owning ANY dogs for 4 years benefits anyone.

Were there no actual cases or abuse and/or neglect going on that needed addressed?

[Lori]

I haven't read the reckless owner part of the Omaha ordinance, but it sounds like it's a fixed number of violations in a fixed period that results in punishment. Perhaps the systems needs to be more nuanced making each violation worth a certain point value. If you get too many points in the time period you lose your pet owning privilege. (And no, I don't think "over limit" should incur any points because I don't think there should be a limit. The "limit" should be based on the person being able to provide quality care without disturbing neighbors with odors, noise violations, etc.)

[JenniferJ]

Sacramento, California has a strict limit on the nunmber of dogs one can harbor.

And harboring, according to the AC, is any animal on your property for any length of time.

e.g. You have three dogs, and a friend comes to visit with a dog and leaves it in their car in YOUR driveway, you are over the limit. And if someone reports you, AC will issue a citation.

I wish to hell that I was exaggerating, but that is from the horses mouth. It has put a crimp in foster homes for independent rescues.