RSS Feed
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jackson council approves vicious dog ordinance In a 4-1 vote, Tuesday, the Jackson City Council approved an ordinance which holds the owners of dogs that commit attacks on other animals and humans responsible for keeping them safely contained. The council meeting was attended by a number of citizens who own dogs and were concerned about the details of the ordinance. Some voiced concerns that certain breeds of dogs would be banned. During his comments, Mayor Richard Long said, "I want to assure the citizens that this ordinance does not limit the number of dogs a person can own; does not specify breeds of dogs that are vicious- dogs are determined to be vicious based on vicious acts against other animals or humans, not by breed; does not control the citizens' sale of animals; is designed to protect citizens and animals from injury due to vicious dogs." Several council members voiced their opinions about the ordinance and attempted to quell the concerns of some of their constituents. Councilman Daron Bolen said he had been asked by a friend if he would have to get rid of his dog because of the breed it is. He said he assured his friend that no specific breeds are targeted by the ordinance. Councilman Robert Marks explained that several incidents, which included a child being bitten and other pets being attacked and/or killed, led to the writing of the ordinance. Councilman Eldridge Jackson Jr. said, "People thought certain breeds of dogs would be banned, but that isn't the case. This ordinance is designed to protect people as well as their pets. I think it is a good ordinance." Councilman Paul South cast the lone vote against the ordinance. He said although the ordinance was derived from a similar one adopted by the city of Jacksonville, Ala., which has reported little trouble with it, he felt that it might be a mistake to "stack" a nine page ordinance on top of the city's existing leash law. He and a citizen attending the meeting made the suggestion that some of the ordinance's provisions be added to the existing law. He asked the council to consider tabling the issue to possibly look at doing so, a motion that died due to lack of action. Councilman Marks made the motion to accept the ordinance prior to any discussion. Councilman Jackson seconded the motion. Councilmen Eddie Huggins and Anthony Jackson were not present for the meeting. Following the council's comments, several citizens in attendance voiced their opinions concerning the matter. Kathy McCutcheon, who lives on Chesley Avenue asked why the city could not do more to enforce the existing leash law. "I have always been a responsible pet owner, but there are others who aren't," she said. "Why aren't they made to be more responsible? "I don't want my dog harming anyone," said McCutcheon, "but I don't want to be told what kind of dog I can own nor how many I can have." "Mayor Long responded to McCutcheon's comments by saying, "Lee Hutto (the city's animal control officer) is doing an outstanding job. We might look at the leash law and see if it needs to be stronger." Councilman Bolen encouraged citizens to call city hall and report any violations they may observe. Hutto explained that there is a process he follows when responding to a complaint and finds a pet owner to be in violation of the leash law. "I investigate the situation then write a warning," he said. "Then, if the parties in violation fail to comply, I write a ticket. The city judge has been pretty stiff on those who have been found in violation of the existing law."
Long said the city had talked with other municipalities with similar laws in order to find out how successful they have been. Councilman Bolen added that the ordinance gives the city judge more leeway to punish violators.
|
for larger version       |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
