The City of Wooster introduced, unanimously voted on and passed today, a new ordinance that targets all animals and also BANS specific breeds. While a typical ordinance allows for three readings, open to public input, this ordinance was pushed through in a single evening. The new components of the ordinance are designed to update Wooster’s 12 year old animal control law.
The ordinance was suggested to the City Council by Wayne County Assistant Dog Warden Beth Carr, and was introduced by Councilwoman Judi Mitten.
Background of the Ordinance:
In a telephone conversation with a supervisor at the Wayne County Humane Society, problems with: “these types of dogs” have been increasing in Wooster and Wayne County. No accurate statistics were available from the HS.
Loose dogs, dog bites, and owners who violate local laws repeatedly were cited as reasons that the HS supports the ordinance. I was also told that: ”we were backed into a corner on this” when I questioned why other avenues were not explored, and that this ordinance will affect responsible dog owners as well. The HS employee also assured me that: **We won’t be going door to door to enforce this ordinance.” **”It’s not the intent of this ordinance to target responsible dog owners”
Editor’s note: The best laws are written so that their intent and wording are in harmony. While the current officials may not plan to implement the law to affect responsible dog/ animal owners, it would be perfectly legal for future enforcement officials to go door to door, impound dogs on the spot, etc.
According to an article in the Wooster Daily record, the purpose of the ban from Animal Control’s perspective, is that prohibiting pit bulls from the city of Wooster and other municipalities will prevent dog fighting and related illegal activity in these comminutes. There have been no reports of planned or organized dog fights in Wayne County.
OBJECTIONABLE PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE:
A Dangerous animal (not just a dog) is defined as follows:
A dangerous animal means an animal that, without provocation has chased or approached in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack, or has bitten or attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person, or has bitten another animal while the animal is off the premises of its owner, keeper, harborer or other responsible person. Further, a dangerous animal means an animal that without provocation has bitten any person while on the premises of its owner, keeper or harborer.
**********
Problems:
1.There is no declaration of what constitutes a bite, therefore, dogs/ cats/ etc playing with other dogs/cats/etc where mouthing/biting is demonstrated would be classified as dangerous under the current wording of this ordinance.
2.A dog/cat/ etc can bite or attempt to bite a person and the consequences are the same. Thus, a dog/cat/etc that lunges at a person and a dog/cat/etc that bites a person are classified in the same manner.
**********
Dangerous animals may be ordered destroyed, removed from the city, or continue to be kept in the City, subject to the following restrictions:
A.Animals must be kept on a choker collar and be muzzled when off the premises. No other collar type is noted, so no buckle collars or head-halter type collars may be used.
B.The dangerous animal must be restrained on their property so as to prevent it from escaping or from attacking or biting any person with privilege to enter upon the property.
**********
Problem- “privilege” is not defined. Who has privilege, who does not?
Animals may be destroyed based on fairly minor behavioral problems such as lunging & barking at passersby, while dogs/cats/etc that have caused harm may be removed to other communities, posing a future public health and safety concern.
Since “animals’ is used here, cats and other household pets such as rabbits, birds, guinea pigs, etc may also be defined as dangerous.
Muzzling and placing cats or other pets on choker collars may not be the intent of the legislators, but would be required under this ordinance.
**********
A Vicious animal is defined as an animal that:
Has killed or caused serious injury to any person
**Has caused other than killing or serious injury to any person or has killed another animal.
Belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.
Wooster’s definition of a “pit bull” includes, but is NOT LIMITED to the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier, or any mixed breed of dog which includes as an element of its breeding any of the aforementioned breeds so as to be identifiable as partially of any of the aforementioned breeds.
Vicious dogs are not permitted in the city. The court may order the vicious dog destroyed or removed from the city.
**********
Problems:
1.The difference between a dog being declared dangerous for biting a person, or being declared vicious for causing other than serious injury to a person is unclear. There is no language which defines specifically what is serious (ex- wounds requiring stitches, broken bones), and what constitutes “other than serious”.
2.Breed specific language is highly problematic in many ways. I was informed by the HS supervisor that she is a breed expert, and will utilize AKC and UKC breed standards to make a determination. When asked if she was familiar with these standards, she said she was “primarily familiar”, meaning she had a basic description of the animal to go by. She has also attended Cruelty Investigation training offered by the National Animal Control Assoc, where breed Identification is a part of the curriculum. NACA’s code of ethics clearly states that they do not support BSL .
3.Dogs may be destroyed based solely on their appearance, and not their behavior, while dogs that have caused serious harm may be removed to other communities, posing a future public health and safety concern.
4.A dog that has killed a squirrel, mouse, mole, etc may be classified as vicious.
5. A cat or other household pet that has scratched, etc a person or killed a mouse, etc may be deemed vicious, and be subject to killing or removal from the city.
This ordinance will go into effect in 30 days (July 19) There is still time to voice your concerns with this ordinance, propose alternatives, and let Wooster know that this piece of legislation harshly punishes responsible animal owners who pose no threat to the community.:
Beth Carr- Wayne County Dog Warden:
330-287-5410
Wayne County Humane Society:
330-262-0152 or http://www.wchs.org/wchs/news.html
1611 Mechanicsburg Rd
Wooster, OH 44691
60% of their funding comes from Wayne County and the City of Wooster. The HS has a contract with the City of Wooster to enforce their leash law (which includes cats). The County Dog Warden enforces other laws, and the county has a contract with the HS to house all impounded dogs.
Editor’s note-
Please note that this agency carries the word “humane” in it’ s name. Agencies that profess to care for animals and be advocates for their welfare are in direct conflict with this philosophy when they support legislation that encourages the killing of a specific type of animal based solely on its appearance.
This HS euthanizes all bull breeds that come into their facility, none are adopted out.
Responsible animal owners are URGED to immediately contact:
City of Wooster Officials:
City of Wooster
538 N Market St
PO Box 1128
Wooster, OH 44691-7082
330-263-5200
330-263-5247 (FAX)
MAYOR James Howey
COUNCIL PRESIDENT James Thompson
COUNCIL MEMBERS James Hodges, Barbara Hustwit, Anne O’Planick, Judi Mitten (sponsor),
AT LARGE Bob Breneman, Inell Keller, Tom Vura CLERK Sheila Stanley
Law Director:
Richard Benson
330-263-5248 ###
He has been working closely with Animal Warden Beth Carr on this ordinance.