Dogs no longer allowed to run free in county
Dogs can no longer roam off their owner’s property in the unincorporated area of Garland County, per the ordinance the Garland County Quorum Court adopted last week.
The ordinance was unanimously adopted and included an emergency clause, putting it into effect immediately.
The animals chapter of the county code allowed dogs not classified as a high-risk breed and wearing current tags issued by a licensed veterinarian practicing in Garland County to venture unrestrained off their owner’s property. The ordinance adopted earlier this week no longer allows dogs to run at large.
“Dogs running at large are considered stray,” the ordinance said. “Stray dogs that are taken into custody under the authority of this ordinance will be held at a licensed facility. If the stray dog is not claimed within five days the facility shall have the right to release the dog for adoption or to euthanize said animal.”
The ordinance exempts dogs actively assisting their owners or custodians in lawful hunting activities, dogs entered in shows or competitions taking place on land designated for said purpose, dogs housed or fenced on private property and dogs used for official purposes by law enforcement or people with disabilities.
Officials said the city of Hot Springs’ Animal Services Department, which the county contracts to enforce its animal regulations, won’t be patrolling for at-large dogs. Enforcement will be complaint-driven.
“If your dog was tagged it could roam anywhere it wanted,” Justice of the Peace Larry Raney, R-District 13, the chairman of the Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee that advanced the ordinance to the full quorum court, said. “That was inconsistent with what was intended, and it created difficulties for our animal enforcement division and the courts.”
The ordinance also decoupled nuisance dogs from vicious dogs.
The county code didn’t differentiate between the two, requiring owners of dogs whom a court has declared a nuisance to take the same precautions as owners of vicious dogs. They include paying a nonrefundable fee of $1,000 to the county or showing proof of insurance with $100,000 in liability coverage for the dog.
The city’s Animal Services Department told JPs nonthreatening dogs whom courts have declared a nuisance were treated the same as vicious dogs under the county’s regulations. Nuisance and or vicious dogs couldn’t leave their owner’s property without a muzzle and a restraint with a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds and maximum length of 3 feet.
Those requirements only apply to vicious dogs under the ordinance adopted earlier this week.
“Ordinances that existed prior to this required you to treat a nuisance dog as if it were a vicious dog,” Raney said. “The courts and the animal control division made us aware of that fact. Their hands were tied, and they couldn’t treat those animals any different than a vicious dog. That’s not fair. The whole idea was to rewrite it in a way that separates those.”
The ordinance also established separate penalties for nuisance and vicious dogs. Violating the vicious provision will continue to be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and jail time of up to one year. Violating the nuisance provision is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $500 and jail time up to 30 days.
“The courts have flexibility,” Raney said. “If you’re a first-time offender, more than likely they’ll waive the charge and tell you to get control of your dog. They’ll assess a higher fine for repeat offenders. I think that’s good, because it gives the courts a lot of flexibility to weigh and make judgments based on the facts.”
The ordinance classifies a nuisance dog as one who soils, defiles or defecates on private property other than the owner’s or public walks and recreation areas, causes unsanitary, dangerous or offensive conditions, causes a disturbance by excessive barking or noise making, interferes with persons in the public right of way, chases vehicles or roams on private or public property.