Panel won't push breed-specific dog ban in Elkhart animal control ordinance
Elkhart animal ordinance committee votes to recommend owner-centric punishments, not breed-directed bans and fines.
The city's new animal control ordinance won't contain a ban on pit bulls if the city council follows the recommendations of an ad hoc committee.
The panel tasked with drafting a new animal ordinance voted on Monday to eliminate the breed-specific legislation from a draft version of the law. Six of the nine members supported the ban's removal, saying they believe the draft's language on vicious and dangerous dogs is enough to lower the risk of animal attacks.
"Any animal can be considered a vicious and dangerous dog," said committee member Anne Reel, executive director of the Humane Society of Elkhart County. "You start naming specific breeds, you limit what can be considered a dangerous dog."
The proposed pit bull ban would have made it illegal to own any breeds or crossbreeds of the American pit bull terrier, unless it was licensed within 180 days of the ordinance becoming law. The ban was the primary point of public criticism at public hearings held on the draft ordinance earlier this year.
Several residents and animal experts suggested the new ordinance go after reckless pet owners, instead of including a breed-wide ban that would harm responsible ones. Dr. Rick Nelson, an Elkhart veterinarian and committee member, said the language the panel has added to the ordinance will do just that.
"We heard many anecdotes about how pit bulls can be good pets," he said. "I'd rather see us focus on what's best for the community and leave pit bulls out of it."
The debate over the ban was lengthy and far from one-sided. The Rev. Franklin Breckenridge, a member of the city's board of public safety, was the ban's staunchest supporter. Pit bulls and other potentially dangerous dogs are always an attack risk, he said, and thus several other breeds should be banned, as well.
"If we're going to include one, then we ought to include all of them that fall in that same category," he said. "That goes to the basic premise upon which this ordinance is being enacted, for the overall protection and safety of the citizens."
Reel, though, said that if the city bans six or seven breeds for being potentially dangerous, it might as well ban them all.
"I've seen every breed of dog," she said, "those you wouldn't think would be vicious dogs, behaving in a vicious manner."
There will always be one popular breed of dangerous dog in the city, Nelson said. While 20 or 30 years ago the Doberman pinscher or Rottweiler may have been a popular intimidating animal, another breed will be trendy 10 years from now.
For that reason, he said, the ordinance should restrict individual animals that are dangerous, not entire breeds.
If passed by the council, the new ordinance will make it significantly tougher -- and more expensive -- to own animals deemed to be vicious or dangerous. If a dog attacks or attempts to attack another animal or human, it will be registered as a dangerous animal with the city.
Based on language adopted by the committee, that distinction could carry an annual fee of up to $500 and require the animal to be spayed or neutered. It would also place heavy restrictions on how the animal must be housed and handled in public.
The committee will meet for a final time next week, to review the new draft ordinance, listen to public comment and vote on sending the document on to the city council.
The new law will be much tougher, members said, but all in the name of public safety.
"We've put a lot of meat on the bone of this ordinance," committee chairman and city council president Rod Roberson said. "At the end of the day, we have a lot of this breed out there that aren't appropriately restrained."
http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?id=497894
