Ogden puts bite in dog ordinance

OGDEN -- By a 5-7 vote, the city council put more bite Tuesday night into Ogden's dangerous dog ordinance while refusing to specifically target pit bulls.

City council members Amy Wicks and Doug Stephens voted against the measure, saying the amendments still need to be fine-tuned.

The ordinance amendments provide broader regulations for potentially dangerous dogs instead of singling out a specific breed.

The council's adoption of the amendments follows about two years of study and input from city officials, canine associations and pit bull owners.

Bob Geier, the city's former animal services manager, initially recommended to the city council last year that a proposed ordinance be adopted specifically targeting pit bulls, because the breed made up a significant portion of the animal shelter's population.

John Patterson, the city's chief administrative officer, said the administration still favors an ordinance that singles out pit bulls.

However, canine associations and pit bull owners complained that proposal was unfair, saying aggressive behavior in dogs is caused by owners and isn't a trait of a specific breed.

Geier asked the city council Tuesday night to table the amendments because they are overly broad. He also expressed concern that neighbors could use the amendments to wage personal vendettas.

Stephens said the city council should consider Geier's request to table the amendments and make them more enforceable.

Amendments to the ordinance define a potentially dangerous dog as one that:

* Is found running at large and is impounded or whose owner has received citations two or more times within any 12-month period.

* Without provocation, acts in a highly aggressive manner within a fenced yard or enclosure.

* Has tried to attack a person or domestic animal if it is restrained by a leash, fence or other means.

Owners of potentially dangerous dogs would be required to register their canine as such and properly restrain the animal. The dog would also have to wear a specific colored collar, be implanted with microchip identification and receive a special tattoo.

The owner also would have to present proof to the city of at least $50,000 in liability insurance to cover the dog.

Advertisement
  +

Recent Comments

Latest Blogs

Blogging the Rambler
Herbert, who hates all things fed, demands more fed...
By: Charles Trentelman

Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 3:58pm

The Political Surf
Review of three indy books include Mormon presence,...
By: Doug Gibson

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 12:55pm

Me, myself... as mommy
Time to get my post-baby butt back to the gym
By: MeganSanders

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 - 12:13am

Why Are You Crying?
Legislative marriage counselors
By: Mark Shenefelt

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 4:37pm

Standard-Examiner Sports Blogs
Weber State, Ogden City to honor “special guest” from...
By: Roy Burton

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 - 12:37pm

Latest Tweets