Your Community. Safer. Smarter. More Humane.
July 3, 2009 Leave a Comment
Tea has a “pit bull” ban in place. Since last December, the city council has been reconsidering the ban. It looks like they are going with breed-specific regulations instead of an outright ban.
Proposed ordinance to be read and discussed on July 6, 2009.
Tea City Hall, 600 E. 1st St., PO Box 128, Tea, SD 57064
605-498-5191
tea@iw.net
Previous alerts: http://stopbsl.com/?s=%22tea+city%22
June 8, 2009 Leave a Comment
Tea has a “pit bull” ban in place. Since last December, the city council has been reconsidering the ban. It looks like they are going with breed-specific regulations instead of an outright ban.
Previous alerts: http://stopbsl.com/?s=%22tea+city%22
Tea City Hall, 600 E. 1st St., PO Box 128, Tea, SD 57064
605-498-5191
tea@iw.net
Proposed ordinance to be read and discussed on July 6, 2009.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20090606/NEWS/906060332/1001
Tea rethinks outright ban on pit bulls
New approach would place series of requirements on their owners
John Hult • Argus Leader Media • June 6, 2009
TEA – The Tea City Council this week outlined a series of changes to its animal ordinance that could allow owners of pit bulls in the town to keep their dogs.
“I think what they’ve put together here is reasonable,” Mayor John Lawler said of the changes. “We’ve got to have some guidelines in place.”
The proposed changes focus on replacing the city’s outright ban on four breeds of pit bulls with a series of requirements that the owners of such dogs would have to meet to keep them.
If the ordinance passes, pit owners would have to carry $500,000 in liability insurance and post a sign in their yard or on their door warning of a pit bull’s presence.
Owners also would need to keep their dogs leashed and muzzled on walks and have the animals spayed or neutered by the age of 6 months.
The council specified that all leashes in Tea must be six feet in length and nonretractable.
The current ordinance specifies that all animals must be fenced in or on a leash while outside the home.
Jennifer McNamara, a Sioux Falls pit bull advocate who brings her animals to the Tea Veterinary Clinic, suggested that the council specify nonretractable leashes within the ordinance because big dogs can break retractable ones.
McNamara said she agreed with most of the proposed changes, but she took issue with the breed-specific language.
Some pit bull owners in Tea have considered moving because of the ban, she said.
“I don’t think you guys realize how many people have pit bulls in town,” McNamara said.
Council member Brian Fowlds said that the changes are meant to allay fears of responsible pet owners while addressing the concerns of the city’s residents.
“Realistically, you can have a pit bull now,” Fowlds said.
The changes also would require all pets to be immunized against rabies within three months and sets a fine of $50 for a first offense and $100 for a second offense for animals that go unlicensed.
The city requires all animals to be licensed, but Assistant Police Chief Brian Tvedt said problem animals often are not.
“Most of the animals we deal with are not licensed,” Tvedt said.
The council will hear the new ordinance, with this week’s changes, at a July 6 meeting.
January 10, 2009 1 Comment
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20090110/NEWS/901100321/1003/BUSINESS
Tea City Council altering dog rules
New regulations to take place of ban on pit bulls
John Hult
Argus Leader
January 10, 2009TEA – Tea might rescind its ban on pit bulls in favor of rules requiring dog owners to spay or neuter their animals and purchase liability insurance.
The City Council voted 4-2 earlier this week in favor of writing a new ordinance to deal with pit bulls and possibly place restrictions on other breeds of large dog.
Council member Herman Otten said he’s convinced that spaying or neutering animals decreases their aggression, and he says requiring the procedure would be preferable to an outright ban.
Otten also would expect the owners of pit bulls and breeds crossed with wolves to carry liability insurance of more than $100,000, initially suggesting that owners have $500,000 of coverage.
A Tea resident who owns two pit bulls asked the council in December to consider removing the 12-year-old ban, generating discussions on dog ownership rules.
Council member Brian Fowlds agreed Monday with Otten on rescinding the ban.
“I’m not against restricting them. I’m against banning them,” Fowlds said.
Chuck Ortmeier and Sid Munsen voted against rescinding the ban.
Fowlds, Otten and Joe Weis will form a committee to draft an ordinance. Otten brought a list of restrictions culled from various municipalities to the meeting Monday and said that many of them could end up in a new ordinance.
In addition to pit bull regulations, the rules could place restrictions on chows, Dobermans, German shepherds and Rottweilers. Otten’s list of proposals included one to forbid felons from owning those breeds.
The starter proposal also included additional requirements for pit bull owners. “Dangerous animal” signs would need to be posted at the dog owner’s residence, containment areas would need to be surrounded by a 6-foot fence, and the dogs would need to wear leashes and muzzles in public.
Pit bull owners Brian and Cheriee Watterson recently moved to Tea and said their pit has been harassed by other dogs whose owners fail to train them properly.
“I think it would make more sense to enforce your leash law,” Brian Watterson said. “I think the issue you have is with ignorant owners.”
Resident Jennifer McNamara agreed. She told the council she feels breed-specific rules hamstring officers in the event that she or her children are attacked by a dog that isn’t listed as potentially dangerous. Animal ordinances should apply to all dogs, she said.
“I just feel that a breed ban is not the most effective protection for me,” she said.
One additional rule proposal is that owners cited for violations who contest their dog’s status as a pit bull would be required to pay for a DNA test.
Ortmeier said he is concerned with writing a law too complex to be enforced.
“We’re trying to keep up with the ban, and now you’ll have 12 more things to keep up with,” he said.
Any new ordinance would be looked over by the city attorney and subject to two public hearings before becoming law.
January 8, 2009 2 Comments
Fear–and fear alone–is the motivation for BSL in Oshkosh, WI; in Tea, too, apparently, fear is the only reason BSL came about.
http://www.thechampiononline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090107/NEWS/90106007/1001
Breed ban began in 1996
John Hult
Champion EditorFor over a month, the Tea City Council has wrestled with the possibility of changing the city’s banned breed ordinance, originally passed in 1996.
The ban could force Tea resident Megan Hes to either move out of the city or find a new home for her two American pit bull terriers.
The incident that first led the council to tackle the general problem of vicious animals, however, was a series of attacks in 1996 by a Doberman – one of which resulted in a bite.
Dennis Meyer’s wife and a group of her friends were nearly bitten by a neighbor’s dog.
“They had to duck into the garage to get away,” Meyer said.
The same dog later bit his neighbor, he said.
Those incidents, combined with a pit bull attack on a child in Flandreau and a national push to ban the breed, led to the creation of Tea’s vicious animal ordinance. Meyer helped construct that ordinance along with a group of concerned residents.
The rules were refined over months. There were no regulations to deal with vicious animals at the time, and former council member Jo Niles remembers taking a lot of calls about animals on the loose.
“We really discussed that a lot,” Niles said. “It just got out of hand.”
The ordinance that passed requires animals deemed “vicious” following attacks to be chained up or muzzled for a period of time following the incident.
The ban on the pit bulls was passed due to national and local concerns, however. A boy in Flandreau was mauled and killed by a pack of pit bulls in 1995.
According to Dick Dubro, who was Tea’s police chief in 1996, calls about pit bulls within Tea city limits at the time weren’t actually violent.
“I never had any complaints other than them barking or running loose,” Dubro said. “It got all hyped up.”
There were plenty of pit bulls in Tea in 1996, he said.
At the two council meetings prior to Jan. 5 at which the issue of a breed ban was discussed, Mayor John Lawler acknowledged that there still are today, despite the long-standing ban.
On Dec. 15, Tea City Attorney Todd Meierhenry said explained that the ban – and many of them implemented across the country in the late 1990s – is only partially about the dogs themselves.
“I think certain people know that a dog like that will strike fear into the hearts of people,” Meierhenry said.
Banning a preferred species of guard dog used by drug dealers and other criminals was seen as a way of cleaning up the community, he told the council.“The rational basis for a lot of this is if you ban the dog, you ban the owner,” he said. “Unfortunately, you throw out the good with the bad.”
Dubro, who now opposes the breed ban, said the “bad owners” factor had a lot to do with Tea’s problems in the past.
“A lot of people have fear of them,” Dubro said. “My opinion is that (dogs) take after their owners.”
Niles and Meyer both said they hope the ban will stay in place as a precaution. Meyer said no one should be forced to flee from an animal whose owner takes poor care of it.
“This is what happened, this is what will happen again,” Meyer said. “It’s for our protection.”
January 7, 2009 Leave a Comment
Tea, SD, is considering removing the ban on “pit bulls”–but the current proposal replaces the outright ban with various restrictions, and adds breeds to the restricted list. So it’s still BSL and will affect even more dog owners.
Tea City Hall, 600 E. 1st St., PO Box 128, Tea, SD 57064
605-498-5191
tea@iw.net
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20090106/UPDATES/90106064/1001/news
Tea to revisit dog ordinance; German shepherds, other breeds could face restrictions
John Hult
Argus Leader Media
January 6, 2009Tea may rescind its ban on three dog breeds in favor of rules requiring dog owners to spay or neuter their animals and purchase liability insurance.
The City Council voted 4-2 in favor of writing a new ordinance to deal with pit bulls.
In addition to pit bull regulations, new rules could place restrictions on chows, Dobermans, German shepherds and Rottweilers.
Council member Herman Otten said he’s convinced that spaying or neutering animals decreases their aggression, and feels a requirement for the procedure would be preferable to an outright ban.
Otten would also expect the owners of pit bulls and breeds crossed with wolves to carry liability insurance of over $100,000.
“I feel the changes need to be made,” Otten said. “After doing some more reading … I don’t have a problem moving forward.”
Council member Brian Fowlds agreed.
“I’m not against restricting them, I’m against banning them,” Fowlds said.
Chuck Ortmeier and Sid Munsen voted against rescinding the ban.
Fowlds, Otten and Joe Weis will form a committee to draft an ordinance.
Any new ordinance would be looked over by the city attorney and subject to two public hearings before becoming law.
For over a month, the Tea City Council has wrestled with the possibility of changing the city’s banned breed ordinance, originally passed in 1996.
The ban may force Tea resident Megan Hes to either move out of the city or find a new home for her two American Pit Bull terriers.
The incident that first led the council to tackle the problem of vicious animals, however, was a series of attacks in 1996 by a Doberman – one of which resulted in a bite. Those incidents, combined with a pit bull attack on a child in Flandreau and a national push to ban the breed, led to the creation of Tea’s vicious animal ordinance.
January 5, 2009 Leave a Comment
Tea City Council will reconsider their breed ban on pit bulls on January 5, 2009, at 7:00 PM at Tea City Hall.
Tea City Hall, 600 E. 1st St., PO Box 128, Tea, SD 57064
605-498-5191
tea@iw.net
Original alert:
December 17, 2008 1 Comment
Tea City Council will reconsider their breed ban on January 5, 2009, at 7:00 PM at Tea City Hall.
Tea City Hall, 600 E. 1st St., PO Box 128, Tea, SD 57064
605-498-5191
tea@iw.net
http://www.thechampiononline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081217/NEWS/81216001/1001
Pit bull rules stay for now
Council may reconsider rules at Jan. 5 meeting
John Hult
Champion EditorA rule banning three dog breeds from Tea city limits will remain on the books – for now.
The Tea City Council voted late Monday night to study the possibility of requiring the banned breeds to be spayed or neutered to decrease aggressive tendencies.
Such a revision would allow owners of American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers or American Staffordshire terriers within city limits to keep their animals.
Opponents of the breed ban offered the spaying/neutering requirement as one of several changes they said would be preferable to the current rules.
Lori Lockman, the Vice President of Pit Rescue of the Great Plains said there is no evidence that the pit bull is vicious breed.
“Pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other dog,” Lockman said. “It’s down to the owner.”
Lockman said ordinances to prohibit chaining or tethering dogs, to prohibit guard dogs and to require that certain breeds be spayed or neutered would be more effective. Those steps decrease canine aggression, she said.
Rosie Quinn of Second Chance Rescue Center, said a breed ban is difficult to enforce and noted that several pit bulls live in Tea.
“I think you need to strengthen your vicious animal ordinances and drop your breed ban,” she said.
Quinn and Lockman’s suggestions were initially ignored. The council decided to reconsider possible changes after a closed-door session that lasted until nearly 10 p.m. The council did not discuss the ban during the private session, which it went into to discuss personnel issues. The initial vote on amending the ordinance, taken at 8 p.m., fell 3-2 after nearly an hour of debate.
For the first vote, during which advocates for the pet owners were present, council members Chuck Ortmeier, Sid Munson and Herman Otten voted against amending the rules. Council members Brian Fowlds and Joe Weis voted to study possible changes. Council member Nathan Peterson was not present.
Fowlds said he was glad the council was willing to consider the changes.
“I was actually kind of surprised,” he said. “I thought after it didn’t pass and we didn’t change the ordinance, we’d be done with it.”
The debate began two weeks ago when 2-year Tea resident Megan Hes asked the council to reconsider the law. Hes owns two American pit bull terriers. Hes was unaware of the ban when she signed her lease, even though she cleared the dogs with her landlord.
Otten brought up the possibility of studying the revisions again after the executive session. The council voted 5-0 in favor of allowing Hes to keep the animals until the next council meeting on Jan.5. The council will take up possible revisions at that meeting.
The council ought to be able to gather enough facts by Jan. 5 to make a decision on moving forward with possible revisions, Otten said.
“If there’s no support to change to the ordinance at that point, it will be done,” he said.
During the debate at the beginning of the meeting, Otten said he understands that good pet owners such as Hes don’t cause problems, but said he the rules are preventative.
“I’m not worried about the dog or the owner. I’m worried about the little kid that gets bit and gets killed,” Otten said. “It doesn’t do any good to take a dog away after it attacks.”
Fowlds and Weis both said they don’t feel that the ban is effective or fair.
“If they were scientifically proven to be a vicious man-killer, I wouldn’t have any problem with banning them, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that,” Fowlds said.
The law may not always be fair to pet owners, Ortmeier said, but the 12-year-old rules were written with the right intentions.
“To do something preventative was the right thing to do,” he said.
At first, the council gave Hes two weeks to remove her dogs from city limits.
Hes told the council that she can’t see giving up her animals.
“I’m going to need to find a place to stay now,” she said.
A Tea Police Officer visited Hes at around 10 p.m. to inform her that she could keep her animals at least until the next council meeting.
December 3, 2008 Leave a Comment
City of Tea contact information:
Tea City Hall, 600 E. 1st St., PO Box 128, Tea, SD 57064
605-498-5191
tea@iw.net
http://www.thechampiononline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081203/NEWS/81202008/1001
Pit bull rules re-visited
John Hult
Champion EditorA concerned pet owner urged the Tea City Council to rescind an ordinance that bans three dog breeds within city limits on Monday night.
Megan Hes owns two American pit bull terriers. The dogs have lived with her since she moved to Tea from Illinois two years ago.
Hes told the council she was unaware of the ban when she came to town, and that her landlord approved the dogs when she moved in.
“I was not aware of it at the time I moved here,” Hes said. “I didn’t know anything about it until the officer showed me the ordinance.”
Hes said her dogs are not vicious. She brought a neighbor to the meeting to testify that they were friendly animals.
All dogs can attack if they aren’t properly trained, Hes said.
“I think we should look at this on an individual dog basis,” she said. “I’ve been attacked by a German shepherd.”
Council member Herman Otten said the ordinance was put in place because certain breeds are more dangerous than others.
“All dogs bite,” Otten said. “This (breed’s) attacks are more ferocious than any other dog’s attack.”
Council members Brian Fowlds and Joe Weis suggested altering the ordinance to allow for the dogs deemed “dangerous” to be licensed.
“Banning a dog from town goes a little too far,” Fowlds said.
The council voted to table action on any change until the city consults with its attorney to discuss the liability issues surrounding a licensing clause.
Until then, Hes is allowed to keep her dogs.
City of Tea dog ordinance as it pertains to “pit bull” ban is on page 34 of this PDF:
Follow via Twitter
Find us on Facebook
stopbslcom
weigoba
