Vicki
Administrator
Sturgeon Bay, WI: Breed ban dropped, proposed ordinance to be rewritten
Posted on February 19, 2010 by http://www.stopbsl.com/
Previous alert for Sturgeon Bay: http://stopbsl.com/?s=sturgeon+bay
The city has decided to rewrite the proposed animal ordinance to remove the breed-specific ban. It is unclear at this time whether any breed-specific language will be retained. Although this article implies that all breed-specific language will be dropped, comments from the minutes of the Common Council suggests that the City Attorney (who is drafting the ordinance) only objected to the breed-specific ban, not the special restrictions on “pit bulls.â€
A great deal of common sense prevailed, however. These quotes are particularly reassuring.
Police Chief Dan Trelka said he gathered statistics of dog bites in the city over the last two years. If bite criteria were used, he said, the city would need to ban beagles. Trelka said the problem has not been with pit bulls but with dogs at large.
From a legal standpoint, [City Attorney Randy] Nesbitt said he talked with other communities that passed pit bull bans and got a number of responses. “‘Don’t do it’ was the general tenure of their response,†Nesbitt said. “These bans are difficult to enforce, and you’re not necessarily getting to the root of the problem. It’s a matter of training the dog.â€
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100213/ADV01/2130423/0/adv&theme=ADVNEWS
New ordinance allows pit bulls, bans ‘vicious pets’
By Ramelle Bintz • rbintz@doorcountyadvocate.com • February 13, 2010
Pit bulls will not be banned in Sturgeon Bay.
The Community, Protection and Services Committee voted unanimously Thursday to remove language that would ban a specific breed of dog from a proposed animal regulation ordinance.
The new 14-page ordinance is being rewritten to replace a half-page ordinance currently on the books. At the Feb. 2 Common Council meeting, Alderman James Abeyta, a member of the committee, objected to the outright ban of pit bulls and asked that the ordinance be returned to the committee to review.
Since then, aldermen have been bombarded with opinions. Alderman Ron Vandertie, who spoke after the committee vote, said he received more calls on this issue in one week than he had regarding the proposed Walmart Supercenter.
Alderman John Lodl also heard from many constituents and said viewpoints were about 50/50. Lodl, also a postal worker in Sturgeon Bay, pet owner and committee member, said although no one spoke in favor of the pit bull ban at Thursday’s meeting, there is another side to the issue.
“After an incident happens, you can’t say ‘I’m sorry,’†Lodl said. “A lot of the language in this ordinance deals with trying to get people to become more responsible pet owners.â€
One of those goals is to have all pets registered in the city. It was apparent that not all pit bull owners currently have their animals registered, based on the number of people who addressed the committee claiming to have pit bulls in the city. Only four pit bulls were registered in the city last year. Had the ban been passed, only registered pit bulls would have been grandfathered and allowed.
Sturgeon Bay resident Randy Osborne argued it would be an infringement on his rights not to be able to replace his dog with another pit bull when it dies.
Josiah Robben, who owns two pit bulls, said the real problem is with irresponsible owners, not the breed. He told committee members to consider how tourism would be affected and the expense the city would incur in determining the breed.
City Attorney Randy Nesbitt agreed there would be expense. The city would have to prove the animal was a pit bull and because of the number of mixed breeds, DNA testing could be required. Abeyta said he was sent an e-mail of 30 photos of dogs, and he could make no determination of what looked like a pit bull and what did not.
Police Chief Dan Trelka said he gathered statistics of dog bites in the city over the last two years. If bite criteria were used, he said, the city would need to ban beagles. Trelka said the problem has not been with pit bulls but with dogs at large. City police are responsible for picking up and transporting strays to the Door County Humane Society shelter in Nasewaupee.
From a legal standpoint, Nesbitt said he talked with other communities that passed pit bull bans and got a number of responses.
“‘Don’t do it’ was the general tenure of their response,†Nesbitt said. “These bans are difficult to enforce, and you’re not necessarily getting to the root of the problem. It’s a matter of training the dog.â€
Nesbitt said removing the specific breed language still allows the city to take action against vicious pets, whether those are pit bulls or any other breed of animal.
The new Chapter 34 ordinance defines an animal as “vicious†if it bites two or more people or inflicts serious injury to one person in unprovoked circumstances off the owner’s premises.
Chapter 34 also has guidelines for leashes and muzzles, feces, injury to property and neglect. It specifies no animals are allowed in parks other than the city dog park and prohibits all animals from cemeteries.
Lodl encouraged residents to look at the entire ordinance as only a small portion related to pit bulls. Absent from the meeting were any other pet owners who may be affected by Chapter 34. The expanded ordinance limits the number of dogs to four and the number of cats to three. It prevents keeping some farm animals in the city where it is not zoned agricultural.
The committee also updated other inconsistencies in the ordinance and will review a final draft before bringing it back to the Common Council for a vote. The proposed new Chapter 34 still needs to pass two readings of the council before taking effect.
More from StopBSL.com...
Posted on February 19, 2010 by http://www.stopbsl.com/
Previous alert for Sturgeon Bay: http://stopbsl.com/?s=sturgeon+bay
The city has decided to rewrite the proposed animal ordinance to remove the breed-specific ban. It is unclear at this time whether any breed-specific language will be retained. Although this article implies that all breed-specific language will be dropped, comments from the minutes of the Common Council suggests that the City Attorney (who is drafting the ordinance) only objected to the breed-specific ban, not the special restrictions on “pit bulls.â€
A great deal of common sense prevailed, however. These quotes are particularly reassuring.
Police Chief Dan Trelka said he gathered statistics of dog bites in the city over the last two years. If bite criteria were used, he said, the city would need to ban beagles. Trelka said the problem has not been with pit bulls but with dogs at large.
From a legal standpoint, [City Attorney Randy] Nesbitt said he talked with other communities that passed pit bull bans and got a number of responses. “‘Don’t do it’ was the general tenure of their response,†Nesbitt said. “These bans are difficult to enforce, and you’re not necessarily getting to the root of the problem. It’s a matter of training the dog.â€
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100213/ADV01/2130423/0/adv&theme=ADVNEWS
New ordinance allows pit bulls, bans ‘vicious pets’
By Ramelle Bintz • rbintz@doorcountyadvocate.com • February 13, 2010
Pit bulls will not be banned in Sturgeon Bay.
The Community, Protection and Services Committee voted unanimously Thursday to remove language that would ban a specific breed of dog from a proposed animal regulation ordinance.
The new 14-page ordinance is being rewritten to replace a half-page ordinance currently on the books. At the Feb. 2 Common Council meeting, Alderman James Abeyta, a member of the committee, objected to the outright ban of pit bulls and asked that the ordinance be returned to the committee to review.
Since then, aldermen have been bombarded with opinions. Alderman Ron Vandertie, who spoke after the committee vote, said he received more calls on this issue in one week than he had regarding the proposed Walmart Supercenter.
Alderman John Lodl also heard from many constituents and said viewpoints were about 50/50. Lodl, also a postal worker in Sturgeon Bay, pet owner and committee member, said although no one spoke in favor of the pit bull ban at Thursday’s meeting, there is another side to the issue.
“After an incident happens, you can’t say ‘I’m sorry,’†Lodl said. “A lot of the language in this ordinance deals with trying to get people to become more responsible pet owners.â€
One of those goals is to have all pets registered in the city. It was apparent that not all pit bull owners currently have their animals registered, based on the number of people who addressed the committee claiming to have pit bulls in the city. Only four pit bulls were registered in the city last year. Had the ban been passed, only registered pit bulls would have been grandfathered and allowed.
Sturgeon Bay resident Randy Osborne argued it would be an infringement on his rights not to be able to replace his dog with another pit bull when it dies.
Josiah Robben, who owns two pit bulls, said the real problem is with irresponsible owners, not the breed. He told committee members to consider how tourism would be affected and the expense the city would incur in determining the breed.
City Attorney Randy Nesbitt agreed there would be expense. The city would have to prove the animal was a pit bull and because of the number of mixed breeds, DNA testing could be required. Abeyta said he was sent an e-mail of 30 photos of dogs, and he could make no determination of what looked like a pit bull and what did not.
Police Chief Dan Trelka said he gathered statistics of dog bites in the city over the last two years. If bite criteria were used, he said, the city would need to ban beagles. Trelka said the problem has not been with pit bulls but with dogs at large. City police are responsible for picking up and transporting strays to the Door County Humane Society shelter in Nasewaupee.
From a legal standpoint, Nesbitt said he talked with other communities that passed pit bull bans and got a number of responses.
“‘Don’t do it’ was the general tenure of their response,†Nesbitt said. “These bans are difficult to enforce, and you’re not necessarily getting to the root of the problem. It’s a matter of training the dog.â€
Nesbitt said removing the specific breed language still allows the city to take action against vicious pets, whether those are pit bulls or any other breed of animal.
The new Chapter 34 ordinance defines an animal as “vicious†if it bites two or more people or inflicts serious injury to one person in unprovoked circumstances off the owner’s premises.
Chapter 34 also has guidelines for leashes and muzzles, feces, injury to property and neglect. It specifies no animals are allowed in parks other than the city dog park and prohibits all animals from cemeteries.
Lodl encouraged residents to look at the entire ordinance as only a small portion related to pit bulls. Absent from the meeting were any other pet owners who may be affected by Chapter 34. The expanded ordinance limits the number of dogs to four and the number of cats to three. It prevents keeping some farm animals in the city where it is not zoned agricultural.
The committee also updated other inconsistencies in the ordinance and will review a final draft before bringing it back to the Common Council for a vote. The proposed new Chapter 34 still needs to pass two readings of the council before taking effect.
More from StopBSL.com...