New Dog Ordinance Omits Pit Bull References

Springdale, AR -- Pit bull owners who say their dogs are innocent canines won't have to worry about Bentonville outlawing their animals unless they attack, under a new ordinance submitted Friday.

The words "pit bull" aren't found anywhere in new city legislation proposed by Bentonville animal control officers.

Instead, the nine-page document redefines dangerous and hazardous animals, keeping several requirements included in a previous document that attracted local and national attention.

It is also time for the Bentonville City Council to discuss the 2006 budget, hire a firm to write the city's general plan and approve a builder for Bentonville's $15 million water line.

Council members will meet today and Tuesday to discuss the updated dog ordinance and budget, along with their other agenda items.

The council tabled a proposed ordinance last month targeting pit bull breeds. Twelve of 16 dogs on the city's dangerous-animal list were pit bulls, and police were looking for a way to address the problem. Opponents said it was unfair to target specific breeds when any dog could potentially cause harm.

Bentonville police officers regrouped and submitted the new ordinance.

"If you just outlawed pit bulls, it wouldn't solve all the problems we have. This is a broad approach to handle all problems," Police Chief James Allen said Friday.

"I expect it to get a lot of discussion," he said.

The new proposal keeps several elements of the tabled ordinance, such as requiring registration of animals police label dangerous or hazardous. The language also requires owners to keep dogs secured by lock, post warnings that children can understand and sterilize the animal.

The ordinance also prohibits keeping animals in rooms where window screens and doors are the only things keeping them inside.

Bentonville's proposed ordinance follows one recommended to the city by the American Kennel Club.

Sgt. Mike Smith said he liked the additional definitions of when an animal isn't considered dangerous or hazardous. An animal isn't considered hazardous or dangerous if it is protecting its litter or if it is attacking in response to defending a person or attacking a person or animal who is trespassing.

Another new addition requires the owner to microchip the dog so owners' information would pop up when scanned.

Dangerous animals are defined as attacking a person or domestic animal without provocation, inflicting serious physical harm or death.

A hazardous animal is defined as an animal that poses a threat to public safety as a result of "chasing or approaching a person upon the street, sidewalks, or any public grounds in an apparent attitude of attack," or any animal that attacks a person or domestic animal without provocation.

The definition also includes any animal found running at large and impounded by the animal control officer three or more times within any 12-month period.

Animal control officers would keep a registry of any dangerous or hazardous animal.

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2005/11/07/news/bentonville/03advance.txt

 

this is what the law should look like everywhere. punish the guilty not everyone. leash laws and tough ordinances on guilty parties is the way to go. not broad ban regulation due to breed. Racial profiling.

 

good for them for not giving in! Atleast theres still a bit of hope somewhere.

 

YES! That's what I'm talkin' about!

Dangerous dog laws~that's what's needed.

 

And more education, instead of legislation.

 

Well, I might relocate then. Unless, something gives here.

 

this is what we have,,,, me and two other guys here in town fought it and this is exactly what we got instead of looseing our dogs,,,ppl in Arkansas maybe down in the backwoods but at least we don't have give in our dogs,,,lmao cause they know sum us come out fighting

 

Good for ya'll up in arkansas!!!

Still sounds as if there could be some loop holes had on that tho, I personaly would like to see how exactly the ordinace is written.

Regards.

 

I agree, I'm all for bridging the gap between owners and their pets. Wouldn't it be great if the only law to be enforced was a leash law? For the fines that our local ac and husu collect a yr, could realy make a difference in this particular area "Bridging the gap".

Don't know about ya'll, but I would much rather show someone how to care for their animals, contain a animal, or vx, somthin as simple as dropping off a dog house with hay. Then seeing that animal end up in the custody of org mentioned above....or fining some poor ignorant ppl, that in the end still teaches them nothing and they end up with a new animal the following week.

I say for real change they need to start back at their basics, it's not a APBT or any other specific breed problem that plagues this country. It is a all domestic pet problem. Bridge the gap on our local governs, for real change.

Regards.

 

i'll try to get a copy and put iy on here so otheers who run into this bsl thing can throw it to there city council and maybe they'll be as lucky as we were.But its very indepth and trots all the way around the pit bull and yet we don't have to deal with the band of them ,,,

 

You raise some very good points. That would be nice if they could take some of that money and put it into educational programs.

That is true..the same people are still not learning. And not everyone should own APBT's...in fact there are so many people who should not. There is so much involved with this breed, and many people are not ready for this type of responsiblity and dedication that it brings.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it's great that people rescue these dogs out of shelters but how well do shelters screen the people? Of course people should be conducting their own research and try to educate themselves before they adopt this type of dog, but it's quite obvious to all of us that many people do not.

I would really like to become involved in some type of program that helps educate people. I need to find out what, if any of these types of programs exist.