1 of 3
Sydney Cromwell
Dangerous Dog Ordinances
Over 30 people showed up for a discussion of new dangerous dog ordinances after the possibility of banning or regulating pit bull ownership was raised.
2 of 3
Sydney Cromwell
Dangerous Dog Ordinances
Advocates against breed-specific legislation filled the available space in the city council's work room for a meeting on new dangerous dog ordinances.
3 of 3
Sydney Cromwell
Dangerous Dog Ordinances
Homewood residents against breed-specific legislation file into the city council's work room. Over 30 people showed up.
The council's work room was filled to the brim at Monday's public safety committee meeting. Over 30 residents and dog lovers filled every seat and most of the standing room to hear the committee discuss new dog ordinances.
Most of the audience wore stickers that said "Stop BSL [breed-specific legislation]," as the committee had previously considered extra regulations for pit bulls and similar dogs in Homewood.
Since the first discussion of new ordinances on July 20, residents had organized a Facebook group with over 300 people expressing their opposition to banning pit bulls or imposing extra fines on their owners. The issue was originally raised because animal control officer Robbie Bagby Hurst requested a new ordinance in response to a recent increase in dog attacks.
In 17 years as Homewood's ACO, Hurst said she had seen only a handful of dog attacks in the first 13 to 15 years. In the last six months, there have been seven attacks, including one in which a police officer was forced to shoot and kill a dog. According to incident reports Hurst provided to the committee, three of those attacks were by pit bulls, one by a "pit bull/shepherd" dog, one labrador retriever, one French bulldog and one unspecified breed.
Discussion by the committee and Hurst ranged across a wide variety of ways to reduce the number of dog attacks. These included registration and microchipping of dogs, stricter leash laws, a ban on tethering, broader spay/neuter requirements and more severe consequences for owners of dangerous animals.
The committee and the general audience responded favorably to these ideas, especially the idea of tether bans and differential licensing, in which the city would charge higher registration fees to owners who do not spay or neuter their pets. A tiered system to increase penalties for repeat offenders was also supported so that, as Hurst said, the “irresponsible owners are the ones who pay the price” through fines and possible jail time.
"This will set a precedent against owners who are known for failure to comply with the city code, which allows their dog to potentially harm someone or someone’s pet. No one wants to see this happen," said Joshua Gough, the creator of the anti-BSL Facebook page, prior to the meeting.
Hurst said she likes Gadsden's dog ordinances, which defines American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers and mixed breeds including those species as dangerous animals. Owners are required to gain permits to own these breeds, carry liability insurance, muzzle their pets on walks and follow stricter confinement rules. She added that the requirements of muzzles and topped pens for outdoor confinement were more "extreme" than she wanted.
As an animal control officer, Hurst said one of her biggest problems is that victims of attacks are afraid to come forward to complain or file charges, which limits her ability to find and deal consequences to owners of dangerous dogs. Having known several responsible pit bull owners, Hurst said she wasn't sure that BSL would be the right way to solve the city's problem.
“If you put requirements on one breed, a person who wants a bad dog will get rid of that dog and go to a different breed,” Hurst said.
Ward 4 Representative Barry Smith agreed, stating that many breeds beside pit bulls could display aggression toward humans and pets.
“And it punishes people who have great dogs who are doing exactly the right thing,” Smith said.
Ward 2 Representative Fred Hawkins said that he has been researching dog ordinances and attacks since the July 20 meeting. The statistics he cited showed that spayed and neutered dogs were significantly less likely to attack, though he noted this could be caused by responsible owners being more likely to fix their pets. He also noted data showing that pit bulls are more dangerous than many other breeds.
Hawkins mentioned a story he had read of a good natured pit bull suddenly turning on its owners and killing a child. This drew a laugh, seemingly of disbelief and disagreement, from the crowd.
It was agreed among all committee members that BSL was not the route they wished to take.
As with all committee meetings, the public safety meeting was not a public hearing. After a request from the audience, the committee allowed two people to speak on behalf of the assembled group.
The first was a Homewood property owner who said that if she decided to move to the city, she did not want to be "legislated out of [her] right" to own any dog breed. She also said that victims of attacks have a responsibility to come forward and report these.
The second was Montclair Road resident Phil Doster, who supported differential licensing and a tether ban. He noted that tethering a dog outside all the time is unhealthy and makes the animal unsocial, and that fixed animals are generally less likely to attack. His comments drew applause from others in the audience.
After the meeting, audience members expressed their relief that the committee would not be pursuing BSL, though some felt they should have been allowed to share their opinions during the meeting.
"We just don't want to be punished. We want the responsible people to be punished because of what happens," Theresa Cole said.
"I'm glad to see that they're not targeting specific breeds, however I think they were throwing out details of an ordinance without getting input from everybody who showed up tonight," resident Jim Johnson said.
The committee intends to create a proposed new ordinance out of the suggested ideas for further consideration by the full council.
Currently, Homewood ordinances allow Hurst to give a $50 fine for loose animals, which she said is not a deterrent for many owners. A dog attack is a misdemeanor with a $500 fine, and the judge can choose to remove the dog from the city or have it euthanized.
Shares your opinion about dog regulations in the survey below. If the survey does not appear below, click here to access it.
