New Dangerous Dog Ordinance Here

[lizbud]

The defination of what a "dangerous dog" is clarified, not by breed, but
by behavior.

Council adopts ordinance on dangerous dogs
After outcry, measure to define and confine changed from breed-specific to behavior-based


By Brendan O'Shaughnessy
[email protected]

Owners of dogs identified as dangerous will face stiffer penalties and tighter restrictions after the City-County Council unanimously passed an animal control ordinance Monday night.


Councilwoman Sherron Franklin first authored the proposal in response to a horrific attack on a Near-Westside toddler in May. She originally wanted a breed-specific ordinance that would target pit bulls and other dogs with reputations for attacking people.
But after a public outcry from many dog owners, council members quickly changed the ordinance to focus on the owners rather than the animals and behavior rather than breed.

Stacey Coleman, president of the Indy Pit Crew, an advocacy group interested in addressing pit bull safety and welfare, said she was pleased with the amended version.
"This is such an important ordinance for the welfare of animals and the safety of citizens," Coleman said. "We feel it's a big improvement that gives animal control officers the tools to be proactive instead of reactive."
The ordinance, which takes effect immediately, defines a dangerous dog as one that attacked a person without provocation, attacked at a place other than its owner's property, or chased or approached a person "in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack."

Dogs that meet the definition will have to be confined in a securely fenced yard or home in a way that prevents them from being a nuisance. Owners will not be allowed to let dangerous dogs go unrestrained in a public place.
The penalties will be $50 for a first violation, $100 for a second and seizure of the animal for a third violation. An owner will not be allowed to own more than two dangerous dogs.

Phil Borst, the GOP minority leader and a veterinarian, said he supported the measure because it would not harm responsible pet owners but would limit bad owners and be enforceable. He noted that it might be necessary to increase the number of animal control employees to properly enforce the new ordinance.

[borzoimom]

lizbud- here it is criminal for pits- as in if the dog does something, you are charged 'criminal."..

[lizbud]

Don't think that's right or fair. Here, the bad acts by any breed are
all judged the same. The owner is required to be responsible.

[Lady's Human]

Looks like a politician finally woke up and smelled the coffee. BSL makes absolutely no sense, despite the myths that are somehow perpetuated about certain breeds.

[borzoimom]

Looks like a politician finally woke up and smelled the coffee. BSL makes absolutely no sense, despite the myths that are somehow perpetuated about certain breeds.

yea- here they can sue for 500,000 dollars, as well as a criminal warrent for endangerment... Its frightening...

[Jadapit]

Looks like a politician finally woke up and smelled the coffee. BSL makes absolutely no sense, despite the myths that are somehow perpetuated about certain breeds.

Amen to that! I couldn't have said it better.

[lovingpaws]

definately an excellant step regarding chaining. It's been a mission and a passion. ie:

http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/home.html


Better than BSL, - AKA canine profiling, at least the your city is aware it doesn't work. It will only make those determined to have a mean dog, find a breed that is supposed to "be more aggresive" and make it/breed them to be that way.

[LilacDragon]

FYI - Geico is pretty serious about it's exclusion of "dangerous breeds".

A friend of mine tried to get CAR insurance from them and they wouldn't cover her because she has rottweilers. She tried explaining that none of them drive to no avail.

Great job, Indianapolis!! And a huge round of applause to the Indy Pit Crew who's membership helped work out the language and compromises!