Westminster, Colorado Council Study Session

There is intelligent life out there! This is from the Westminster, Colorado city council study session, let's hope that they listen to their staffs recommendations:


City Council Study Session Meeting
November 21, 2005


SUBJECT: Specific Dog Breed Ban

PREPARED BY: Mary McKenna, Animal Management Supervisor
Janice Kraft, Neighborhood Services Administrator

Recommended City Council Action:

Direct Staff to prepare an ordinance for City Council action amending the existing ordinance enforced by the Animal Management unit of the Police Department as it relates to vicious dogs.

Summary Statement
Staff surveyed eleven cities concerning how vicious animals are handled by their animal management units and which cities have adopted specific dog breed bans. Only three of the eleven cities surveyed, Denver, Aurora, and Commerce City, have adopted a ban of a specific dog breed commonly known as pit bulls. Denver’s original pit bull breed ban was adopted in 1989 and has been through a variety of legal appeals since then. After successfully winning those appeals, Denver resumed enforcement in May 2005. Aurora and Commerce City just recently passed their ban.

Though Staff recognizes the public’s sensitivity and awareness of recent and much publicized pit bull attacks, they believe that the issue is with irresponsible pet owners, rather than a specific breed of dog. Staff wants to avoid an ordinance that will ban a ‘breed of the week’ animal as other dog breeds, i.e. Dobermans, German Shepherds, Bull Mastiffs, Great Danes, and Rottweilers, etc have been in the public limelight in years past just as the pit bull is now.

Staff is recommending that City Council not ban specific dog breeds, but that the existing code concerning vicious animals be strengthened to deal with the specific violator, the specific animal involved, and the specific circumstances of the incident.

Expenditure Required: $ 0
Source of Funds: N/A

Policy Issue

Should City Council approve modifications of the existing Animal ordinance concerning stricter penalties for owners whose dogs are involved in vicious or bite incidents?

Alternative

City Council may choose to not accept Staff’s recommendation for modification of the ordinance or accept some portion of the recommendation.

City Council may direct Staff to prepare an ordinance that would adopt a specific animal breed ban. Staff does not recommend this alternative as they believe that it would require additional staff and financial resources and that it does not address the real problem of irresponsible pet owners regardless of the breed of animal owned.


Background Information

City Council and the public at large are very aware of cities in the metro-Denver and surrounding area evaluating the merits of adopting specific dog breed bans. Vicious pit bull attacks have become much publicized in the media.

Staff surveyed eleven cities to determine how they perceive the issue of banning pit bulls and plans they may have underway:

Arvada – does not intend to adopt a breed specific ban and will not be making other changes in their ordinance relating to vicious dogs.

Aurora – just recently adopted a pit bull ban. Conditions of this ban are: no new pit bulls will be allowed in the city, current pit bull owners must be 21 years of age and will be required to take out a $100,000 liability insurance policy on their dog, they must implant their dog with a computer chip that will identify dog ownership, they must register the dog with the police department, have the dog vaccinated and either neutered or spayed, they must keep the dog muzzled while out in public and on a leash no longer than four feet, and the dog must be kept in a fully enclosed, tightly locked kennel while at home with warning signs posted on the homeowners property. If a dog owner is found to be in violation of any of these conditions, it would result in the revocation of the license and impoundment of the dog. The dog owner would be served a summons and if the Court determines the dog owner violated the ordinance, the Court will order the dog euthanized or permanently removed from the city limits.

Boulder – does not intend to adopt a breed specific ban and will not be making other changes in their ordinance relating to vicious dogs.

Commerce City – just recently adopted a pit bull ban. The conditions of this ban are very similar to those adopted by the City of Aurora. Commerce City has hired an additional full-time animal management officer to help enforce the new law.

Denver – has a pit bull ban that totally bans the breed. If a dog owner is found to have a pit bull, the dog owner has the option of removing the dog from the city limits in lieu of impoundment, but the dog must be micro-chipped before that happens and the dog owner must provide proof of the location where the dog will be relocated. If the dog owner does not voluntarily remove the dog from the city limits, the dog will be impounded. If a pit bull owner is convicted of a second offense, they are served a summons with fines up to $999. The dog will be impounded and euthanized.

Englewood – does not intend to adopt a breed specific ban and will not be making other changes in their ordinance relating to vicious dogs.

Federal Heights - is in the process of evaluating the effectiveness of their dangerous dog ordinance.

Ft. Collins (includes Loveland, Larimer County, Berthoud and Wellington) - does not intend to adopt a breed specific ban and will not be making other changes in their ordinance relating to vicious dogs.

Lakewood – is in the process of evaluating the effectiveness of their dangerous dog ordinance.

Littleton - does not intend to adopt a breed specific ban and will not be making other changes in their ordinance relating to vicious dogs.

Thornton – animal management staff do not believe that Thornton is pursuing anything regarding a specific breed ban change to their ordinance.

The term pit bull is commonly used to describe a variety of registered and unregistered dogs, including the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, the bull terrier and the bulldog and many mixtures of these breeds with one another and with other breeds. The American Kennel Club (AKC) registers the American Staffordshire terrier and the Staffordshire bull terrier breed. The United Kennel Club (UKC) registers the American Pit Bull Terrier breed. Attached to this Staff Report is a copy of a brief history of this breed printed from the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club web pages.

One of the difficulties with trying to enforce a pit bull ban would most surely be controversy over the ability of animal management officer to positively identify individual dogs as pit bulls particularly if they are a mixed breed. What percent of a specific breed in a mix warrants exclusion and how can animal management officers determine that percentage?

The Clerk of the City and County of Denver has certified an official UKC American Pit Bull Standard, an AKC American Staffordshire Terrier Standard and Staffordshire Bull Terrier Standard for Denver Animal Control Officer’s use in determining if a dog qualifies as a pit bull. These standards identify the physical traits of head, neck, muzzle, ears, eyes, nose, neck, shoulders, back, chest, ribs, tail, legs, feet, thigh, coat, color, size, and weight. Denver certified four of their sixteen animal control officers based on these adopted standards and their determination of the individual officer’s skills and experience with identifying the breed. It should be noted that this certification has no official outside sanctioning agency. These animal control officers perform an evaluation of the dog and determine if the animal does/does not display the majority of physical traits of the American Pit Bull Standard, American Staffordshire Terrier Standard and/or Staffordshire Bull Terrier Standard.

Specific breed bans displace the problem rather than solve it. If a specific breed is banned in a particular community they are many times relocated to, given to, or adopted by people in adjoining communities. Staff believes that the issue behind vicious and dog bite incidents is usually a human variable - irresponsible owners or owners that are ignorant of the breed of animal and the care, control, and treatment that animal requires. Based on a study by the Centers for Disease Control, in the 1970s German Shepherds were the dog breed involved in the most fatal attacks on humans. Then for a couple of years the dog breed involved in most vicious dog complaints was the Great Dane. Rottweilers topped the list of killer dogs through most of the 90’s.

Westminster Animal Control Officers and Police Officers have also noted there are owners they come in contact with who appear to want to establish a reputation for themselves as being ‘mean’ by owning dogs that society perceives as ‘mean.’ In the recent past that ‘mean’ dog has been Dobermans, German Shepherds, Great Danes, and Rottweilers. These are the same breeds that have fallen out of favor with society due to much publicized vicious dog complaints – very similar to today’s controversy over pit bulls.

Denver’s experience to date is that the pit bull ban has not reduced their vicious dog calls; in fact, the most common dog breed involved in vicious and dog bite cases in Denver is the Chow breed.

Statistics for Westminster cases involving vicious dog complaints and dog bites are:
▪ Vicious 2005 YTD – 240 2004 YTD - 216 Percent Increase – 9%
▪ Dog Bites 2005 YTD – 128 2004 YTD - 114 Percent Increase - 9%

Statistics for type of breed involved in vicious dog complaints July 2005 – October 2005:
▪ American Bulldog – 1 ▪ Chow – 3 ▪ German Shepherd – 2
▪ Irish Setter – 1 ▪ Labrador – 1
▪ Pit Bull – 3
▪ Shepherd Mix – 1

 

Continued....

The pit bull breed was involved in only ¼ of the vicious dog complaints in Westminster during this time period – equal in number to the Chow breed.
It is difficult to know how many pit bulls there are in Westminster as there is no requirement to register animals. A possible indication of pit bulls as part of the total dog population might be what percentage of dogs are pit bulls in the total number of dogs that are impounded at Table Mountain Animal Center (TMAC). TMAC is the shelter facility that is used by all agencies in Jefferson County.
▪2005 YTD total number of dogs impounded at TMAC – 4,204.
▪517 of total dogs impounded, 12%, are pit bull breed, pit bull mixed breed, Staffordshire Terrier breed, and bull dog breed.
▪Of the 517 pit bulls impounded, 88 came from Westminster, 17% of all the pit bulls impounded.
▪Westminster’s pit bull impounds are only 2% of the total dog population impounded at TMAC through the end of October 2005.

Animal Management Officers handle vicious dog calls in the following manner:

Staff encourages citizens to report vicious animals and become witnesses.
Staff takes every opportunity to provide public education concerning vicious dogs and dog bite avoidance. Animal Management Officers attend COG meetings and always offer to attend HOA meetings to make these types of presentations.
Staff’s response time to a vicious animal call for service is quick and a police officer responds with an Animal Management Officer if the incident is serious.

When the situation warrants the service of a summons to municipal court, the animal involved is impounded at TMAC with a court hold – the animal cannot be released by TMAC until the court orders that release.

If the court finds the defendant guilty, Staff asks the court to have the animal removed from the City permanently or euthanized if the situation involves an attack or bite. It is also recommend that the dog owner be responsible for all fees and costs for the impoundment and restitution to the victim if required. If the court agrees with the Staff recommendation, the owner of the dog signs the animal over to TMAC and these animals can be adopted out or they are euthanized depending on an animal behavior analysis done by TMAC and the court’s order.

The current language in the ordinance allows for the judge to have discretion in the terms and conditions applied upon a guilty verdict. There have been situations where the judge has supported an Animal Management Officer’s recommendation and other situations where they have not and a dog has been returned to its owner.

The current municipal code language defines vicious animals as any unprovoked animal that bites or attacks a person or other animal or threatens to attack regardless of the presence or absence of the owner. It goes on to state that a definition of a vicious animal includes an animal that demonstrates tendencies that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the animal may inflict injury upon or cause the death of any person or other animal. Additionally, a vicious animal is one that has engaged in or been trained for animal fighting.

Vicious animals are declared unlawful in the municipal code. The code authorizes the animal management officer to impound an animal if that officer reasonably believes the animal is a present threat to the health or safety of the community. If impoundment of the animal cannot be made with safety to the officer or other persons, the animal may be destroyed by an animal management officer or peace officer without notice to the owner or harborer.

The code also states that an animal impounded may be held pending court proceedings for any violation of the provisions of this chapter. Upon finding that the animal is vicious and that it presents a clear and present danger to the citizens or other animals in the community, the Court may order the animal to be euthanized.

Vicious animals are deemed criminal violations in the municipal code and any person who violates the ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor. The municipal code states that a first offense gets an assessment of a mandatory fine of not less than $300. If the animal has been neutered or spayed, the fine shall be reduced to $100. Second and subsequent offenses increase the fines by $50.

Staff proposes the following changes to strengthen the existing ordinance as it relates to vicious animals:

▪ An increase in the mandatory minimum fine from $300 to $500 for a first offense.
▪ No reduction in the first offense minimum fine if the animal is spayed or neutered.
▪ Upon conviction of a first offense, the owner will be required to pay all impound fees, costs and restitution if the incident involved a bite or injury to a person or other animal.
▪ Upon conviction of a first offense, the owner will be required to keep the dog in a fully enclosed, tightly locked kennel, approved by Animal Management, while the dog is at home. The homeowner’s property must be posted with warning signs.
▪ Upon conviction of a first offense, the owner will be required to keep the dog muzzled and on a leash no longer than four feet while out in public.

▪ Upon conviction of a second offense, the mandatory fine would be increased from the $350 to $999.
▪ No reduction in the second offense minimum fine if the animal is spayed or neutered.
▪ Upon conviction of a second offense, the owner will be required to pay all impound fees, costs and restitution if the incident involved a bite or injury to a person or other animal.
▪ Upon conviction of a second offense, the court will order the dog to be euthanized.

Staff believes that it is also important to point out that if City Council would pursue the specific pit bull breed ban, it is projected that the additional calls for service could necessitate an additional Animal Management Officer. Denver has sixteen animal control officers and a full one-half of their time is spent on calls for service relating to this pit bull ban. Commerce City, when adopting their pit bull ban, authorized an additional Animal Management Officer.
Cost implications for Westminster of adding another Animal Management Officer are estimated at:

Salary and benefits: $47,690
Uniform/Equipment $ 1,200
New vehicle $35,000
Total $83,890


Respectfully submitted,
J. Brent McFall
City Manager

 

that great I love it!!!!!!!!!