Breed Ban Legislation Passed in Iowa -- IN THE ZONE!!!

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:29:18 10/13/04 Wed
Author: Lesli Taylor
Subject: Breed Ban Legislation Passed in Iowa

Subject: Iowa Legislation Update

Hey Everyone -
Following are the results of the vote for the legislation was. The website is www.ffledger.com if anyone is interested, the article is below. Basically, they passed the legislation but they did change some of the restrictions. The dogs listed now can be walked on a 4 ft leash instead of a 3 ft leash, and do not have to be muzzled. I hope that other cities don't follow suit and start including breed specific language on ban/restricted lists.

The sad part is the following, �The ordinance defines certain dogs - Dobermans, pit bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Belgian Malinois, Siberian Huskies, Malamutes and any dog weighing more than 100 pounds - as "dangerous," and puts additional restrictions on the owners of those dogs. The "dangerous animals"

Council passes breed-specific dog law, but loosens rules for "dangerous" breeds
By Erik Gable, Ledger assistant news editor October 12, 2004

By a 6-1 vote Monday night, the Fairfield City Council passed an ordinance placing additional restrictions on people who own certain breeds of dog, but lessened the extent of those regulations from previous drafts of the ordinance.

Citizens jammed the council chambers for a meeting that lasted more than three hours, and about two dozen people weighed in on the two ordinances up for discussion, one dealing with animal control and one dealing with dog licenses.

About 20 people spoke against the breed-specific language contained in the animal control ordinance.

The ordinance defines certain dogs - Dobermans, pit bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Belgian Malinois, Siberian Huskies, Malamutes and any dog weighing more than 100 pounds - as "dangerous," and puts additional restrictions on the owners of those dogs. The "dangerous animals" list also includes wild animals such as lions, tigers, bears, raccoons, monkeys and scorpions.

Attempts by council members John Revolinski and Connie Boyer to eliminate some or all of the breed-specific language from the ordinance failed, but the council agreed to some changes aimed at making the restrictions on owners of those dogs less onerous.

At the suggestion of councilman Myron Gookin, the council agreed to change the maximum leash length for a dog on the "dangerous animals" list from 3 feet to 4 feet, and to strike the requirement that those dogs be walked wearing a muzzle. Gookin's amendment passed 6-1, with Pauline Reeder opposed.

In addition, the dog licensing ordinance originally would have required owners of dogs on the "dangerous animals" list to prove they had the financial ability to pay for any damages incurred by their dog. Boyer proposed striking that section, and the council agreed by a 4-3 vote.

The council also will form an Animal Control Review Board to deal with issues such as requests for variances from the ordinances.

Revolinski said he was comfortable placing pit bulls and Rottweilers on a "dangerous animals" list, but had reservations about some of the dogs on the list.

"I feel if we're going to put Siberian Huskies or even dogs over 100 pounds on the list of 'presumed dangerous unless proven innocent to the variance board,' I feel like we're going to have a lot of requests, a lot of frustrated owners," he said, receiving applause from the audience. "We have to recognize, also, that this is an emotional issue for a lot of dog owners."

Revolinski said he would vote for a breed-specific law if it only included pit bulls and Rottweilers. He said other breeds could be added later if necessary.

"If we find that Siberian Huskies are just too dangerous in our city due to some incident or something, we can always just add them to the list," he said.

"We can add them after they attack somebody?" asked Reeder, who chairs the committee that drafted the ordinance. The other committee members are Hamilton and Adam.

"Any dog can attack someone, Pauline," Revolinski said.

"We can also leave them there and wait until there's demonstrated proof that they don't," offered Hamilton.

Revolinski proposed an amendment dropping all dogs except pit bulls, Rottweilers and trained attack dogs from the "dangerous animals" list, saying the ordinance was "more restrictive than necessary" as it stood.

"I don't want to do that," said Adam. "We've worked hard on this. I'd rather have this go as it is." He said the council can always decide to remove breeds from the list in a year or two, if they prove not to be violators.

Adam said most other towns with "dangerous dog" lists include the dogs Revolinski wanted to remove, and "you're making an exception saying Fairfield's different than all other towns."

"I feel Fairfield's different than all other towns," countered Revolinski.

Adam noted some towns actually have banned those animals from the city limits.

"We're not out in the county shooting them. We're not banning them so you can't have them at all," he said. "We're just controlling them, and labeling them as dangerous because they've proved that by their actions."

Boyer said she felt Revolinski's amendment was "moving in the right direction," but she would prefer to have no breed-specific restrictions at all.

Revolinski's amendment failed by a 3-4 margin. Revolinski, Gookin and Christy Welty voted "yes." Boyer joined Reeder, Adam and Hamilton in voting "no."

Boyer moved to strike the breed-specific language altogether.

"I just really struggle with this list," Boyer said. She cited people in the animal control field who are opposed to breed-specific legislation, saying "I don't feel qualified to go above their recommendation." She added there are some dogs that are potentially more dangerous than pit bulls, but aren't on the list.

"It was put in there for a reason," Reeder said about the breed-specific section, "and all I can say is we are going to have a problem with this ordinance by taking it out."

Boyer, Revolinski and Welty voted "yes." Reeder, Adam, Hamilton and Gookin voted "no." The amendment failed.

Boyer later suggested revisiting Revolinski's suggestion, but there was some confusion about whether she could ask to reconsider an amendment that had been defeated.

"For me, I guess it was a little confusing and I wasn't sure if I could push it," Boyer said later.

The council then moved on to Gookin's proposal, to change the maximum leash length for dogs designated as dangerous from 3 feet to 4 feet, and to eliminate the muzzle requirement. One audience member had earlier asked how a tall man could walk a short dog on a 3-foot leash "without stepping all over it."

Gookin's amendment passed by a 6-1 vote with Reeder opposed.

About 20 people, many of them dog owners, spoke against the breed-specific language at Monday's meeting, calling it "draconian," "unconstitutional" and "going way too far."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]