Exeter proposal would regulate certain dog breeds
BY HILLARY S. MEEKS
hmeeks@visalia.gannett.com
February 6, 2010
After a neighbor’s pit bulls killed her 5-pound malti-poo, Benji, Kathy McDaniel went to the Exeter City Council with a plea for the city to put more restrictions on dangerous dogs.
On Tuesday, the council will consider an ordinance that would do just that. Some critics say the restrictions would be akin to “racial profiling.”
“I really stand with the American Kennel Club — they say they strongly oppose any breed-specific legislation,” said Geraldine Card, an Exeter resident who owns Denzel, a blind pit bull.
Card, who adopted Denzel this summer through Fresno Bully Rescue, said he is a gentle and sweet dog. He lets her 2-year-old twin daughters play with him and, because of his disability, he never attempts to get out of the yard.
But Denzel would be affected by the proposed ordinance, as would any other dog identifiable as an American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier or any mix of those breeds. Other breeds included in the ordinance are:
- Chow
- Rottweiler
- Akita
- Anatolian shepherd
- Doberman pinscher
- Wolf/wolf hybrids
- Any dog the City Council deems, on an individual basis, to be dangerous or vicious.
Kelly Austin, director of the Valley Oak SPCA, said that, to her knowledge, no other cities in Tulare County impose breed-specific restrictions. Housing in the shelter would be affected because any dogs in violation of the Exeter ordinance would be sent there.
The rules have been a long time coming, Exeter Police Chief Cliff Bush said.
“We’ve had, in the last couple of years, several attacks by dogs on other dogs and dog bites on people. Primarily, every time it’s the same breed of dog, which is pit bull,” he said.
The ordinance
Some of the rules that dog owners such as Card would have to follow are:
- Owners would have to have the animals spayed and neutered.
- The listed breeds would be limited to one per household.
- The breeds would not be allowed outside, even in a fenced yard, unless in a “securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel, except when leashed and muzzled.” The pens would need a secure top, and any structures built to house dogs would have to comply with city zoning and building regulations.
- A “Beware of Dog” sign would have to be put on the premises.
- All owners or others with such dogs would have to within 10 days of ownership provide proof of public liability insurance for a single incident of $50,000 for bodily injury or death or for damage to property.
All pet owners currently are required to register their dogs with the city, but those who own these “dangerous or vicious breeds” would have to also provide two color photos of the dog and file a report if the dog leaves the city or dies, or if the owner moves within the city.
Violations of the ordinance include a fine of $200 to $500 for an infraction. The penalty would be the same for a misdemeanor, but the court could sentence the defendant up to 30 days in jail. In either case, the dog would be taken from the owner and removed from the city.
Felix Ortiz, interim city administrator, said removal from the city would mean placing the dog at the Valley Oak SPCA in Visalia.
Ortiz said that if any individual dog were deemed vicious or dangerous, the ordinance would also apply. These could include very small dogs that harm people or other dogs.
“It’s sad that we have to do this, but a lot of it has to do with the owners and not the dogs,” he said.
The last straw
McDaniel said the violent death of her little dog wasn’t the reason for the proposed ordinance, but that it was the last straw for a city that has experienced problems with dangerous dogs.
She agrees that it’s not good to stereotype the animals, but her experience has led her to believe that it’s better to err on the side of caution.
“There needs to be a balance, as long as safety comes first,” she said.
McDaniel’s maltipoo was killed, and her other dog, a larger mixed breed named Nilla, was wounded Sept. 22 by pit bulls owned by Amber Ruiz, who lives near McDaniel. Ruiz said only two of her dogs were out of their kennels and broke through the fence that day. McDaniels said it was all three of the pit bulls Ruiz owned.
After the incident, Ruiz and her husband decided to have all three dogs euthanized. They made the choice voluntarily, she said, and it was difficult for them. The dogs belonged to the Ruizes’ three children.
“We didn’t want anything like this happening again,” she said.
After the incident, Ruiz said she felt that people believed they had raised their dogs to be aggressive. But the dogs had never bitten anyone before, and the only other time they had harmed another dog was when a neighbor’s canine broke into their backyard, she said.
“We live in a nice neighborhood. I don’t want [people] to take us as horrible people who raised their dogs to be violent,” Ruiz said. “It was just a bad, bad incident.”
The Ruiz family paid McDaniel for property damage, veterinary bills and the cost of Benji, and sent a letter of apology to her, all on their own accord.
The family still has one pit bull, which was a puppy of two of the euthanized dogs. All their dogs were registered with the city, though none was neutered or spayed. That was because they were United Kennel Club registered and could be bred, Ruiz said.
Ruiz said the city needs more dog restrictions.
“I know the old ordinances weren’t up to par,” she said.
Backlash
Once members and volunteers for Fresno Bully Rescue learned that the Exeter City Council was voting on an ordinance aimed at regulating vicious dogs, they started rallying the troops.
“It’s a very emotional subject,” said Bridgette Booth, director of the organization, which rescues bull-breed dogs and places them in good homes.
The organization has been contacting friends, families and other supporters to attend the City Council meeting Tuesday.
“Our guns are loaded with facts and figures and examples that it’s the people, not the dog,” Booth said.
Such arguments won’t sway Exeter City Councilman Jack Allwardt, who said he had a major hand in what went into the proposal.
“The problem is, I can’t license dog owners. I can license dogs,” he said.
Ortiz, the interim city administrator, said it’s still not fully outlined how the city would enforce the ordinance. He said officials would start by sending notices to people who have registered dogs that fall into categories in the ordinance.
“I’m sure at the beginning we’ll have to work with the owners a lot,” he said.
If the ordinance passes Tuesday, it would take 45 days before it becomes law.
Additional Facts
How to attend
- What: Exeter City Council meeting
- When: 7 p.m. Tuesday
- Where: 137 N. F St., Exeter
Information: 592-9244
Follow via Twitter
stopbslcom
weigoba