DRAFT
City of Rocky River
March 23, 2004, 7:00 PM
Working Group on Animal Control Laws
The Chair, Isabel Parraga, called the meeting of the Working Group on Animal Control Laws to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Committee Room.
Members present: Isabel Parraga, Chris Pfeil, John Reveley, Fran Gasper, Susan Godfrey, Candia Sweet.
Absent: Jeanne Hoopes, Barbara Oakley, Jim Skelly, Donna Snyder
Guests: Animal Control Officer, Mike Hearn
The meeting agenda and the report from the sub committee on the Dogs at Large issue were distributed.
Minutes from the meeting of 2/24/04 were amended to read that the Chair abstained from voting per Roberts Rules of Order. Ms. Godfrey moved and Ms. Gasper seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried. Motion card will be on file.
Dogs-At-Large sub committee members Mrs. Hoopes and Mrs.
Oakley have scheduling conflicts with tonight’s meeting date. Ms. Gasper is
representing the group in their absence. The
Ms. Gasper: First paragraph of the sub committee’s report has a lot of Mrs. Hoopes personal views. Ms. Gasper doesn’t feel the constraints Mrs. Hoopes stated in the first paragraph and feels responsible dog owners should abide by the rules. Paragraph 2 is the real beginning of the report with a distinction made between dogs at large vs. dogs off leash. The sub committee did not address cats in this report. It was suggested that the Working Group address this topic at a later time and that it be included in the Public Awareness sub committee’s work. Discussion of section 505.01 (d) re: whether the “or” should be changed to “and” in the proposed definition of restraint: “control by a leash AND/OR under control”. Mrs. Hoopes felt the more lenient “or” was appropriate to accommodate the situation at Elmwood Park. The sub committee was split on the issue.
Officer Hearn reported that the current procedure for a dog at large is to have it impounded and checked for proper license. A first time offense is payable by a $10 impound fee. A ticket for having a dog off leash is $100. The police and dog warden use discretion in whether to ticket or issue a warning for dogs not on a leash. In high profile locations or where the dog could run out into a busy street the violator is asked to put the dog on leash (i.e.: walking down Lake Road). Ticketing is primarily complaint driven.
Ms. Pfeil would like to see a distinction between dogs at large and dogs off leash both in terms of the definition of restraint and consequences.
Dr. Parraga noted that lenient regulations couldn’t become stricter, but that strict regulations can be handled with discretion. “Under control” is a difficult situation to identify and too vague to enforce. Even well trained dogs can become out of control.
Dr. Reveley reports that with the advent of leash laws the number of fractures declined by about 90%. His practice sees only about 2-3 cases of dogs hit by cars each year, compared with 3 weekly back in the 70’s. He would also like to see a distinction between dogs at large and dogs off-leash. The penalty should be different.
Officer Hearn noted that the penalty for dogs off leash is greater for repeat offenders, for people who are not cooperative, or where the dog has caused damage to someone’s property. In addition to the impound fee, a ticket can also be issued to the owner of a dog at large. The Safety Service Director directs police whether to ticket or warn offenders based on the need to deal with a problem situation. Tickets can be an effective deterrent to control offending behavior.
Ms. Gasper was concerned with the need to be consistent with how violations are handled. She suggested proposed section 505.01(d) should be amended to read “leashed and under control.” Proposed section 505.10(a) again reflects Ms. Hoopes viewpoint that dogs need not be leashed if kept under control.
Drs. Parraga and Reveley would like to amend this section to read: “No dog shall go or remain upon any public street or place within the City except when restrained.” Ordinance should also include cats and other animals, which need to be leashed when off the owner’s property.
Ms. Pfeil supports Mrs. Hoopes’ viewpoint to allow dogs to be either on a leash or under control. Control is defined as: to prevent dogs from entering private property, chasing or attacking a person, animal or vehicle. Consequences should come into play only when the animal becomes out of control.
Drs. Reveley, Parraga and Ms. Sweet feel that enforcement would be difficult. Leashing dogs is a prevention issue. It’s impossible to determine the conditions under which control will work or not, or which owners are responsible or exercise good judgment. Ordinances must prevent incidents from occurring. Dr. Parraga noted a safety, not just financial, issue when dogs run off-leash with the possibility of causing harm to property or people.
Ms. Sweet noted the need to have designated off-leash times or locations but was reassured that this issue is being pursued.
Ms. Godfrey suggested the need to better define “control” in 505.01(d). A child can have a large dog on a leash yet be out of control. Ms. Sweet recommends using the wording found in the last sentence of the Bay Village code, 505.01(b) describing “reasonable restraint.” Dr. Parraga suggests adding this as “(e)” in our definitions. Officer Hearn cautions the committee to separately define responsible person, control, and restraint to enable prosecutors to be successful in a courtroom situation. Additionally he noted that Bay Village ordinances were very weak and were revised this past year to include a leash law.
Dr. Parraga recommends and others concur, that the last line of proposed section 505.10(a) be eliminated and that the last line of the current section be retained. In addition, proposed section 505.10(b) should be omitted. The current section references leash length. Officer Hearn noted that the length of a leash does not determine whether a dog is under control and expressed concern about having to measure leash length. This section should be replaced with Bay Village section 505.01(c) that addresses how pets are to be confined on the owner’s property, including the use of invisible fences. Section 505.10(c) should be added with wording borrowed from Bay Village section 505.01(d).
Sections 505.01 and 505.10 should also be amended to include cats and other animals. Dr. Reveley is concerned that some cats will not tolerate being leashed and cat ownership may be hard to determine. Officer Hearn would like to see stray cats trapped and placed if possible. Licenses are required only for dogs and help reunite lost dogs as well as generate funds.
The last paragraph of the Subcommittee’s Report has been referred to the Subcommittee on Public Awareness. This addresses the issue of cleaning up after dogs, which seems to be of as great a concern as dogs at large.
Dr. Parraga embraces our diverse opinions as representative of those in the community. We each have our different agendas, yet we shouldn’t loose sight of the fact that the primary purpose is the safety of the citizens. Ms. Pfeil would encourage citizens to become dog owners for the health reasons that were noted in her report on Dogs Off-Leash. Animals are an asset, not a liability to the community. Our working group’s role is to assist residents to become responsible pet owners.
Motion 2 voted down the proposal from the Subcommittee to
allow dogs without a leash to be at large prior to 9 a.m. at
The Subcommittee on “Dogs at Large” will revise its recommendations relative to this meeting’s discussion and present its proposal at our next meeting on April 28th.
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 28th at 7 p.m. in the Committee Room of City Hall. Agenda items include: dogs at large revision and pet containment systems (invisible fences). The May agenda is revisiting the dangerous and vicious dog proposal.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Chris Pfeil
Please note: This is
a draft copy of the minutes of the Working Group on Animal Control Laws of