NEWS FROM CHEYENNE WYOMING!!

[Plott Proud]

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/200 ... -05-08.txt
If your pet is bad, you could pay



By Jodi Rogstad
jrogstad@wyomingnews.com



CHEYENNE -- The Cheyenne City Council’s Public Service Committee voted 2-1 Tuesday in favor of tighter and stiffer penalties for owners of badly behaving pets.

Right now, if a dog attacks you, but no bloodshed, there’s nothing the police or animal control can do about it.

The ordinance would do away with the minimum requirement of “breaking the skin” to constitute an attack -- meaning fines, possible impoundment, and going before a municipal judge.

Councilwoman Georgia Broyles has been working on this ordinance since last year. She recounted the testimony she heard from a “dear lady in Ward 1” who had been terrorized by a pit bull on the loose.

The dog had chomped the diminutive senior on the arm. It left behind a nasty bruise. It clearly frightened the woman. But the animal wasn’t impounded and she demanded to know why.

It turned out that because the bite never broke the skin, Animal Control couldn’t do anything.

To Broyles, it was clear the current ordinance wasn’t strong enough.

“It didn’t take long to discover many people shared my views, so I went to work on this new ordinance,” she said.

So if a pet attacks, or causes bodily injury to a person or another pet, the ordinance would say the animal may be impounded for up to 10 days at the owner’s expense.

She also changed the ordinance so that owners wouldn’t simply pay their fines and go home -- they would have to appear in municipal court first.

She proposes changing the wording in the ordinance from “vicious” to “dangerous.”

While the council is changing adjectives, the definition would stay the same: “any animal which constitutes a physical threat to human beings or other animals” or unprovoked, bikes or attacks a human being.

(However, properly registered and trained guard and police dogs “may not be considered a dangerous animal.”)

Cheyenne Police Capt. Jeff Schulz said the changes would make the animal ordinance more workable for judges.

“Vicious’ is a very hard word to work with because it suggests imminent danger,” he said.

Rick Collord, the director of the Cheyenne Animal Shelter, said “vicious” is an antiquated term that other communities across the country have replaced in their books.

“They (the animals) may be dangerous in the sense they jump on people and knock people down,” he said.

Neither the city nor Laramie County operates an animal control department. They lease this service from the Cheyenne Animal Shelter, a non-profit organization.

The following are other proposed changes to the ordinance:

n Doing away with the tiered fine system for escaped pets (which is $25 for first-time offenders, and $50 if the pet is not spayed or neutered). If the animal is in Animal Control’s custody, there would be a maximum fine of $750 and up to six months in jail.

n If an unaltered pet is caught for a second time by Animal Control, on top of the maximum $750 fine, it would be mandatory for the owner to have the pet spayed or neutered. Currently, the owner gets two chances.

Collord also suggested mandatory microchipping for the second-time offenders, which could be done inexpensively at the shelter.

n Doing away with the tiered fine system for owners who do not confine animals in estrus to a building or fenced area. Instead of a minimum $100 fine for the first offense, the ordinance sets a maximum $750 fine.

Voting yes were Broyles, and Dr. Mark Rinne. Pete Laybourn voted no. Committee chairman Patrick Collins doesn’t vote.

The ordinance moves to the full council for its Monday meeting.

If it prevails Monday, the Public Services committee will hear it again, and send it to the full council for adoption.

Rinne indicated that he didn’t think an escaped pet was a one size fits all situation: Last summer, a young out-of-town relative of his made the mistake of taking his dog off the leash. Being a dog in a strange town, it took off running, and they had to hunt it down.

He proposed amending the ordinance’s wording for the maximum $750 fine from “will” to “may.”

“I’m not sure if I would be excited or proud of my community if they had to pay a large fine,” Rinne said. The “may” gives judges the discretion to give a slap on the wrist.

Laybourn said he was “very concerned” about changing the wording without presence of the city attorney -- the meeting was running late and she had left for another appointment. Laybourn said this is why he would vote no.

Rinne said with three more votes coming, there was ample time for the city attorney to review the changes.

“We are a legislative body and we’re writing legislation,” Rinne said.