Mobridge, SD: Council resurrects the dog ordinance (BSL proposed)

Crossposted from BSL Updates

City of Mobridge
City Hall, 114 1st Ave E, Mobridge, SD 57601-2604
(605) 845-3555
(605) 845-3521
FAX: 605-845-3309
steveg@westriv.com (City Administrator Steve Gasser)

Mayor – Kyle Jensen
Ward I – Thomas O’Connell
Ward I – Jamie Dietterle
Ward II – Dennis Wheeler
Ward II – Tony Yellow Boy
Ward III – Rick Godkin
Ward III – Gene Cox

City council meets at 6:30 PM on the first and third Monday of each month. Next city council meeting: Nov. 16, 6:30 PM.

Previous alerts for Mobridge: http://stopbsl.com/?s=mobridge

http://www.mobridgetribune.com/articles/2009/10/23/local_news/news01.txt

Council resurrects the dog ordinance

By Katie Zerr
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:03 PM CDT

Ongoing problems in the city were the focus of the Mobridge City Council Monday, Oct. 19, as the dog ordinance was resurrected and nuisance properties discussed.

[Irrelevant text elided]

Dog Ordinance

Jensen told the council he had put the first reading of Ordinance 881 (concerning pets), that died for lack of majority at the Oct. 5 meeting, back on the agenda.

“We started this discussion a few months ago and gave to the Police Advisory Board. They put a lot of work into this,” he said. “We need to get something done on this.”

Councilman Tony Yellow Boy said he voted against the first reading because he disagreed with the requirement that a licensed veterinarian must administer the required vaccinations in order for an owner to be able to get a pet license in Mobridge.

The license specification was written into the ordinance to cover any legal action taken if an incident should occur. According to Cain and the PAB, if a licensed veterinarian does not inoculate a dog, the state veterinarian would not recognize the vaccinations as legal.

The requirement is for the city’s protection in a legal action.

Cox said his disagreement with the ordinance is that it only requires pit bull owners to adhere to the special requirements for ownership that includes a six-foot fence, with signage noting the presence of the dog and proof of $250,000 in liability insurance. He said other breeds should be included in those restrictions and that is why he voted against the first reading.

“What everybody is misunderstanding here is that this is just the first reading,” said Councilman Tom O’Connell. “Stopping this ordinance from moving on was just stupid.”

Cain told the group who had problems with the ordinance or with a specific paragraph of the ordinance should contact himself or Nehls.

“We will have the opportunity to make some changes and offer alternatives to the council,” he said.

In a vote on the first reading of the ordinance, the council approved it by a three to one vote, with Cox voting against the ordinance and Ward III Councilman Rick Godkin absent from the meeting.

[Irrelevant text elided]

–Katie Zer