Dangerous animal amendment passes unanimously first reading

To be discussed in commmittee

The other ordinance we had, we might as well have had nothing.

Ginger Larson, City Council member

An amendment to the city’s animal control ordinance regarding dangerous animals unanimously passed its first reading during the Feb. 22 City Council meeting.

The eight-page amendment also covers keeping livestock and poultry inside the city limits. Council members discussed the amendment at length before deciding to move forward with the first reading on the condition that a committee meeting be scheduled to review the document and possibly make additional changes.

The amendment was written by council member Ginger Larson and Police Chief Lynn Hahn in response an incident where a resident’s pet was killed by their neighbor’s dogs and they were in fear of their small children being harmed, Larson said. The neighbor’s dogs continued to dig under the fence and come into the resident’s back yard and even used the resident’s doggy door to enter their home at one point, she said.

The city’s current ordinance includes requirements for keeping dangerous animals, such as the type of enclosure they must be secured in, but doesn’t give law enforcement the authority to impound the animals if the requirements aren’t met, Hahn said. In this situation, the owner didn’t have the means to build the type of enclosure that is required and is currently keeping the dogs tethered in the back yard, he said.

The amendment defines nuisance animals, potentially dangerous animals, dangerous animals and vicious animals. It also gives detailed information about how each type of animal, except vicious animals, must be kept and gives animal control representatives the right to impound the animal at the owner’s expense if the owner fails to comply with the requirements. The amendment also allows procedures for appeals.

Vicious animals, defined as those who cause death or serious injury to a person, bite or attack a person more than twice a year, kill or seriously injure another domestic animal more than twice in a year, or are trained or kept for dog fighting, will not be allowed to be kept in the city under any circumstances, the amendment states. Instead, they will be impounded immediately and euthanized, it states.

The amendment also covers exemptions that will protect animals from being declared potentially dangerous, dangerous

or vicious. Examples include animals who are provoked, who are protecting their owner or their owner’s property, and animals being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes.

In addition, the amendment makes it illegal to keep cows, horses, sheep, goat, livestock or poultry inside the city limits unless they are on land zoned for agriculture and meet a list of conditions that include keeping the animals in clean and sanitary conditions that do not cause odors or noises that disturb the public peace. Residents will be allowed to keep up to six laying hens in residential neighborhoods but no roosters.

Aldermen Merrill White and Cody Keene raised concerns about the ordinance and requested that it be postponed for further discussion.

“I know Chief Hahn and I spent a lot of time on this and (city attorney) Shane (Perry) spent a lot of time on this, because the other ordinance we had, we might as well have had nothing,” Larson said. “It’s really about being able to protect the citizens and their pets and their children and I hesitate to hesitate to pass something that is going to protect someone else unless there is something specific about this ordinance that is an issue.”

White said he is an animal owner with cattle, horses or dogs and keeps them under control. The ordinance is so detailed that it makes it sound scary to move into Pea Ridge, he said.

“I can appreciate all the effort that you guys put into it, but I really think there is a lot of things in there that need a little more discussion before I would be feeling good about approving anything,” he said.

Keene said he is concerned the ordinance will create more burden on law enforcement because it will give people more things to call in and complain about.

The city had seven animal bite calls last year and the majority of those were family dogs, Hahn said. The main goal of the amendment is to be able to at least secure a dangerous animal if something should happen again, he said.

“I tried to have (city attorney) Shane (Perry) put some things in here so we don’t automatically call a dog vicious, like the little dogs who attack or bite but are incapable of causing physical harm, like the chihuahuas,” he said.

The amendment protects pets, Hahn said, explaining that he didn’t want an ordinance that would automatically require an animal to be euthanized if it bit someone more than twice.

“(City attorney) Shane (Perry) did a lot of that by adding a lot of things that give us leeway so that if it’s your family dog and the kids step on its tail and it bit them, that’s not going to be considered necessarily vicious,” Hahn said.

The ordinance is really about protecting residents moving forward, Larson said.

“It does not mean the police chief or any of his officers are going to do this 100 times a year, you know he doesn’t have very many calls, but when he had a call, he could not address it,” she said. “The ordinance did not allow for him to protect that family and that was not acceptable.”