1. Welcome to Game Dog Forum

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

    Dismiss Notice

TX: Dallas council votes for ordinance requiring finder of stray dog to seek owner

Discussion in 'Dog Ordinances & Laws' started by Vicki, May 26, 2010.

  1. Vicki

    Vicki Administrator Staff Member

    UPDATED: Dallas council votes for ordinance requiring finder of stray dog to seek owner

    10:45 AM Wed, May 26, 2010 |

    UPDATE (10:45 a.m.):
    This item just passed. The only vote of dissent came from council member Vonciel Hill, who said: "I am very concerned about this ordinance. I think that this ordinance places an inordinate burden on any person who is trying to show some kindness to a stray ."

    You've got to give Brad Kirby credit for persistence. For at least two years, he's been lobbying City Council to create an ordinance making it illegal to keep or sell a loose dog without making an effort to find its owner.
    He may finally get his wish today. The council is set to vote on this ordinance change, which would, according to the agenda:
    create an offense if a person takes possession of a stray dog in the city and knowingly fails to make, within 72 hours after taking possession, a reasonable effort to locate the dog's owner by: (1) calling the telephone number listed on the dog's tags; (2) taking the dog to a licensed veterinarian for a microchip, tattoo, or other identification screening and calling the owner identified through the screening; (3) calling 311 to request that animal services pick up the dog for identification screening and impoundment; or (4) delivering the dog to the city's animal shelter for identification screening and impoundment. A violation of the proposed ordinance would be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500.
    Here's Kirby's story, from his Web site:
    "I had my two huskies stolen...from my yard, with tags on them, and they were micro chipped, but the Dallas police could not make the thief give back my dogs or tell me who he gave them to. I would like this ordinance to be a law so creeps...can't get away with stealing our dogs."

    The ordinance that council will finally vote on tomorrow looks remarkably similar to one that was proposed by Kirby and shot down in February by city officials who said it was "impractical and unenforceable." I'm not sure what gives.
    Council member Ron Natinsky said he will move today for council to approve the ordinance change.

    "I think it's a good solution to the problem," Natinsky said. "It might help avert some of those problems in the future that he [Kirby] encountered."
    Kirby told me in an e-mail last night that he was pleased with the ordinance change before council.

    "That's what I have been asking for the whole time!" he wrote. "I have been working for this for two years and would not give up when it looked like all was lost last in January when they turned down the same ordinance."

    But Kirby said even if council passes the item, he's not stopping there.
    "There are still too many dogs being stolen every day and never get home," he wrote. "After Dallas passes this ordinance I will be going out to the other cities in the DFW area and getting this law passed. And then the state!!"

    Word to state legislators: better just go ahead and listen to him -- he won't leave you alone until you do.

    UPDATED: Dallas council votes for ordinance requiring finder of stray dog to seek owner | DALLAS CITY HALL Blog | dallasnews.com
  2. Kristi

    Kristi Big Dog

    Re: TX: Dallas council votes for ordinance requiring finder of stray dog to seek owne

    so how the hell do they intended to enforce this?

Share This Page