Oklahoma City may change ‘menacing dogs’ ordinance

An April dog mauling that left an Oklahoma City woman and her dog dead has prompted Oklahoma City officials to consider making changes to ordinances related to dogs running loose and those deemed menacing or dangerous.

With the proposed changes, dogs found running loose and impounded by Animal Welfare would be spayed or neutered and microchipped, and the definition for menacing and dangerous dogs would be amended. A public hearing on the changes is scheduled for Tuesday.

Jon Gary, Animal Welfare superintendent, said the proposals were prompted by the April 6 mauling that claimed the lives of Cecille Short, 82, and her dog, Taylor.

Police said Short was walking her dog in the 11600 block of Windmill Road when she was attacked by two dogs later identified as pit bull types. The dogs had escaped the backyard of their home, which was about a block east of where the attack took place.

Both dogs had a previous history with Animal Welfare.

In May, Oklahoma County prosecutors charged their owner, Antwon Demetris Burks, 31, with second-degree manslaughter, blaming him for allowing the dogs to run atlarge or failing to take ordinary steps to confine them.

Burks faces up to four years

in prison if convicted.

Melinda Short Clonts, the daughter of Cecille Short, said she welcomes the law changes in hopes of preventing her family tragedy from happening to others.

“Unfortunately there have to be these changes,” Clonts said. “It’s definitely a step in the right direction.”

The proposed changes to the ordinance include more clearly defining a “menacing dog” and adding a requirement that owners of dogs deemed dangerous annually register the animals.

Currently, menacing behavior is defined as a dog not under direct control that “causes a reasonable person to believe that an unprovoked attack on a person or on a domestic animal is imminent.”

Ward 8 Councilman Mark Stonecipher said he felt compelled to make changes for the sake of public safety. He said he visited the scene where Short was attacked, spoke with police and reached out to Short’s daughter.

“One of the hardest things I’ve ever done was to pick up the phone and call Mrs. Short’s daughter and give my condolences,” he said.

An updated definition would deem a dog as menacing if it destroys property and attempts to attack a person or domesticated animal, or charges a person unprovoked and growls, snarls, takes an aggressive stance or shows its teeth.

Clonts said her mother carried a can of mace when she walked through her neighborhood because loose dogs roamed the area. The problem was well-known to her mother and her neighbors, she said.

The definition states that animals cannot be considered menacing while on their owner’s property unless attempts to escape appear to be “reasonably likely to be successful.” Barking or running loose would not necessarily constitute menacing behavior.

Once dogs are impounded and deemed to be dangerous or menacing, it would be up to owners to let Animal Welfare officers inspect their property to determine it is secure and to register the animal before it could be released, Gary said.

It would also be the responsibility of owners to inform Animal Welfare if they move.

Owners who violate the ordinance can be fined up to $500 plus court costs for a first offense. They face a fine up to $1,200 and up to six months in jail for subsequent offenses.

Clonts said she is relieved the dog owner is facing possible punishment, but said she’s advocating for stronger penalties.

“In Oklahoma, the jail time for that conviction is very minor. I’m trying to make positive changes come out of a horrible incident,” Clonts said. “I love the steps they’re taking, but I would love to see something change as well, as far as property owners.”

Clonts said Burks was renting the house where he kept the dogs, and she thinks the responsibility to keep a secured yard should fall on the homeowner as well.

The proposed changes that target all dogs impounded by Animal Welfare would implement new requirements before owners could retrieve their pets.

Before a dog could be reclaimed by its owner, the dog would be registered and the owner would pay a $12 registration fee.

The dog would also be microchipped and spayed or neutered.

The spaying and neutering requirement would be exempt if the owner could prove the dog’s purebred status at the time the animal was being reclaimed.

Owners would also need to prove to Animal Welfare officers that dogs not deemed dangerous have an adequate enclosure where they live. Gary said the animal’s owner would be required to sign an affidavit and provide photos showing the enclosure is secure.

Currently, owners can reclaim dogs after providing proof of ownership and paying penalties and costs to Oklahoma City Municipal Court and fees to Animal Welfare. Impound fees can be waived if the owner provides proof that a cat or dog has been spayed or neutered or agrees to have the animal spayed or neutered prior to release.

Gary said he could foresee some push back with the mandatory spaying and neutering amendment.

“A lot of cities have spay and neutering ordinances, Tulsa’s one of them,” Gary said. Tulsa’s city ordinance requires all dogs and cats older than 6 months to be spayed or neutered, and all animals picked up by Animal Control officers are spayed and neutered.

Stonecipher said he expects the ordinance amendments to pass, because it has the support of other council members.

A public hearing on the proposed amendments is set for Tuesday during the city council meeting, which starts at 8:30 a.m. at 200 N Walker Ave. A final vote on the adoption of the amendments will be July 5.