Local Dog Ordinance - Page 1

Town has a local ordinance that defines running at large - off owners property and unrestrained by leash period. A recent Court case involved a dog who moved about 5 feet off the owners property to a common sidewalk area to get out of the sun and laid down in the shade while the owner was cutting his front lawn. When owner noticed him he recalled him back but not before the next door neighbor took photos of him. Neighbor then went and  filed a running at large charge against the dogs owner who went to court and was found guilty. Question is how do we get that "unrestrained by leash" clause omitted from definition of? What reasons or suggestions could be offered to have this reasonably changed? What new definition should be offered to the Township Council? Dogs age 12 years and Vet statement dog has DM and osteochondrosis of the front elbow (cant run) was submitted to the court but didnt matter. 18 neighbors of the dogs owner signed a petition that owner positively does not allow his dogs to run at large, it was rejected by Prosecutor and Judge as heresay and not allowed to be submitted. Suggestions and ideas as to how to deal with this situation are certainly appreciated. Thanks VB

VB,

I am an ACO and my town also has an ordinance similar to this. If the dog is off the property, then it must be on a leash. Luckily, the town residents can't file charges against someone. They have to report it to me. I always start off with a conversation. I talk to the dog owner, let them know that there has been a complaint- not giving out the name of the complainant-I remind the dog owner of the town/state requirements, and hope that it will end at that. If I continue to get complaints, then it will turn into a written warning. With the written warning, the dog owner is warned that if the situation continues, then it would result in a court summons. I only go to that step if I am convinced that this dog owner is never going to get with the program. You really can't start inserting exemptions such as age or ailment--if you do, then everyone is going to be coming up with exemptions for their dog. It would be a mess. The big argument I always get from dog owners is, "that law should only be for bad dogs." How do you determine that?? If you line up 100 dog owners, and ask, "all of you with bad dogs, step forward", I can guarentee you not one will step forward. There is no one more defensive than a dog owner whose dog is being talked about negatively. In my town, if residents want to change an ordinance, they have to get 750 signatures of registered voters, and then it goes to the Town Council. They decide whether to put it on the ballot for the next election for the town to vote on.

Heidi

Good Morning VB,

          Goodness your neighbor sounds like he wants everyone to follow regulations to a T.  Usually the neighbor might have been found guilty at one time or another when they felt they were exempt. So now starts the p---ing contest with the rest of the street.  Yes an ordinance must be followed.  We always have problems when city people move out to the country.  I had animal control come out and talk to me about my roosters crowing at 2:00 a.m.  Well I had to out curtains up on the barn windows.  Well the rest of my neighbors came to my rescue and bought roosters. Now it is well tell us which rooster at what house.

VB, sorry to hear that.  Any way you could put up a low decorative fence to keep him from the sidewalk?  This neighbor is going to keep after you based on previous posts.......

Change "unrestrained by leash" to "not under owner or handler control".

Kill two birds with one stone.  If the dog isn't under control by voice command then it needs to be on leash restraint.

No excuse possible.  There are dogs out on a leash that aren't under the owner/handler control in many instances.  How many times have you seen the dog walking (dragging) the person on the other end of the leash - out of control? 

Leash does not equal restraint or control in many, many instances.