Dog laws to be tightened
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Emporia will be tightening its “vicious animal” laws, but without any specific restrictions on pit bulls.
City commissioners agreed after a lengthy public discussion Wednesday morning that changes were needed. The biggest change that’s likely to come would class an animal as “vicious” if it attacks or kills a pet, which would allow a judge to order the animal killed.
The change was proposed by Tricia Segobia. A friend’s dog she had once owned named Tater Bug was killed in September by a neighbor’s mixed-breed dog named Spike. Ten days later, Spike was released from impoundment and killed a second dog. The owner had Spike put down shortly after.
But under the law, Spike was a “nuisance” both times.
“Our ordinances are outdated — very outdated,” Segobia said.
Actually changing the “vicious animal” law will take a bit of work. Several people in the audience raised questions to think about, such as: What if the animal is on its own property? What if the attack was provoked?
Segobia had also submitted a proposal to the city that would require “dangerous breeds” such as pit bulls to be registered with the city and covered by a liability policy. But several people at the study session were quick to speak against any breed-specific laws or bans.
Lisa Noller, who has been involved with pit bull terriers for 10 years, said flatly that breed laws don’t work. She also noted that pit bulls were originally bred to attack animals, not people.
“They’ve always been culled when they bite people,” Noller said.
“But they do,” Segobia responded.
“Every dog bites people,” Noller said. “There’s a Pomeranian that mauled a baby to death. A Pomeranian!”
Pat Greenwood, who has 20 years of experience training dogs, said the real problem was owners who didn’t keep their dogs under control.
“We do not enforce the leash laws like we should,” said Greenwood, who owns a bull breed, though not a pit bull. “My dog is in the house where he belongs, like he should be — sleeping on my bed.”
Commissioner Bobbie Agler agreed and said there needed to be heavier fines to make bad owners pay attention when their dogs run loose and cause trouble.
“If you don’t put a big stick on it, it’s never going to be enforced,” he said. “They’re property. They may be living property, but they’re still property. And any property I own, I’m responsible for.
“Breed-specific?” Agler continued. “Poppycock! It’s irresponsibility on the part of the owners.”
Commissioners and the audience also talked about whether to ban “tethering,” the practice of tying or chaining a dog outside for most or all of the day. The practice is believed to make dogs more aggressive.
“Just in my neighborhood, there’s probably five or six animals that are on a tether,” Emporia resident Dawn Herron said. “Anytime you walk by, they’re out at the end of their chain, snarling at you.”
After the exact language has been worked out, the commission will vote on the changes. No date has been set for the vote.
After Wednesday’s meeting, Segobia said she was glad to see things getting started, even without the breed restrictions.
“That can be something that can come later,” she said. “For the most part, I think changing the vicious dog law is the first big step.”
Water rising
City water rates could jump by 15 percent next year.
If approved, the water hike would be the first the city has had since 2000, City Treasurer Janet Harrouff said. Increases in 2009 and 2011 are also possible.
The rate increase would be used to offset about $8 million of work that will be needed at the city water plant by 2012. That includes replacing one of the plant’s three water treatment trains.
Based on 2006 numbers, a 15 percent increase would raise an additional $600,000 a year.
Commissioner Julie Johnson asked if there was a way to soften the blow for lower-income families. Agler suggested that before any decision was made on that, the city look at the numbers and see where its water revenue comes from.
The city will resume the discussion at its Dec. 13 business meeting and possibly vote on the water rates then.
girlsbestfreind (anonymous) says...
Regarding your revising your dog laws...
I presently live in one of the first communities that passed Breed Specific Legislation in 1989.
Had I known how they treat dog owners here, I would never have purchased a home here. I know from personal experience that Vicious Dog Laws ARE NOT only used against BAD dogs. The laws are written to convict people. These DOG LAWS HURT RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS, TOO! I know. I am a responsible dog owner who's been defending my dog from what was termed "a scrape" on the Police Report for 8 months. An adult chose to reach out to my dog in the back seat of my car. From this minor incident, I've lost my homeowner's insurance, been forced to spend money on an attorney and I'm still at the mercy of the court because the laws are written to convict. My dog is NOT MEAN!
Breed Specific Laws and Vicious Dog Laws hurt all dog owners.
If you want to write a Pet Friendly Ordinance that also protects the public, please look at the NAIA's website. They have written great example of a Pet Friendly Ordinance that also protects the public from dangerous animals. It's available online at http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/PetFri...
"One of the greatest delusions in the world
is the HOPE that the evils of this world
are to be cured by legislation"
Thomas B. Reed (1886)
November 24, 2006 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blueriver (anonymous) says...
This was a very refreshing article. Sounds like a group of intelligent civic minded people trying to come up with a fair way to handle the problem It was so nice to read this up to the part where Tricia Segobia had to ruin the whole article with her bias statements about intending to add breed specific legislation later. One person out of all the others believes they have the right to take away Americans rights as animal owners and pick out the type dog they think we should or should not have. It has been proven so many tmes that one breed is no more dangerous than another And it so obvious that holding the owners responsible for all property is the best and fairest way to go Why can't some people come down off thier thrones and see the light. They insist that they know the best way for everyone else to live. Why are we plagued with this self appointed few.
Charles Coffman
November 24, 2006 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lollerskate (anonymous) says...
Holding people responsible for their crappy dogs = good
Limiting what dogs you can own = asinine
Tricia, stop crusading for your dead dog. Animals die. It happens. Next time buy a goldfish and keep it inside.
November 24, 2006 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
girlsbestfreind (anonymous) says...
If a dog kills another dog or seriously hurts or damages anything or anyone it should definitely be considered vicious - regardless of the breed.
The problem with these laws is that ALL DOGS BITE - and all bites are treated equally under these laws.
In any other area of the law - intent is considered.
All "bites" simply are NOT equal.
Just because a dogs teeth scratch the surface of the skin does not make it a vicious - or even dangerous dog.
Dogs are always going to be animals.
These laws are unconstitutional.
November 24, 2006 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
Having our community become more active and up to date is not for the purpose of condeming those who care for there pets. It is for those people who treat their pets in a irresponsible manner. A law passing cant make everyone happy but at least we know that owners HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE and pay for their lack of. People start lashing out because they feel picked on. Well watch a family pet or better yet your child die from a attack that could have and should have been prevented. If you choose to house a animal that has the potential of serious injuries than you should take whatever steps necessary to restrain it or you will pay for it. You want to critize Tricia for standing up and making a wrong right? Isnt that why we vote. That is the problem with this outdated town. People gripe to each other about the system but dont stand up and change it like Tricia is. Instead of being so dang defensive just because you must be the few perfect in this world, you should agree with her and keep people who wont care for a pet and endangering your own neighborhood. This system isnt perfect but I for one applaud that someone is finally making a change that will most likely keep a child alive or your pet alive in the near future. She didnt say BAN the BREED, she said be responsible. And it is true, insurance companies have had to pay out dearly for these animals trained to attack so they wont anymore. Why do large cities all over the world feel it necessary to control this very problem?
But if you think Tricia Segobia is the only one who feels this way think again. If the meeting hadnt been changed three times and during a work day I bet money there would be more agreeing with her than lashing out with anger because you have to make a few changes in order to save a life.
Not to mention, how childish you are to tell her to GET OVER IT? Animals die? Tell that to Mrs. Ray, age 72, who watched her "child", Tara, die a suffering death in her own back yard with her intestines on the ground. Until you have lived it, shut it. Shame on you for you lack of intelligence to see the big picture. If you are a responsible owner than you have nothing to worry about, right?
November 24, 2006 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
campfire101 (anonymous) says...
Oh my goodness. I can't believe how rude people are. How insensitive of someone to tell another to get over it. I hope you dont own a pet. I guess leave it to a Emporia resident who clearly does not understand what is trying to be done. I love my animals like my family. No they are my family. Shame on you to treat someone who has had a tramatic loss such as this. Her animal didnt just die, he suffered a painful death at the mercy of a Vicious Dog. I would be upset too if the owner was only charged with a Nuisance. My goodness, we need to look further into what is happening with these animals. Jean Emley nearly lost her dog just a few weeks ago after having the skin torn from the body of a toy poodle while on it's on porch. You dont think someone should have to pay for that? We need more people like Mrs. Segobia who will stand up for us and stop this before anymore animals or people have to die. Is there a petition out there that I can sign?
November 24, 2006 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
girlsbestfreind (anonymous) says...
I agree. I also can't believe how rude and insensitive that posting was... I actually recommended that the posting be removed. That person is not representative of most dog owners.
Unfortunately, being a responsible dog owner doesn't protect you from these laws. Again, I know from personal experience.
You would think that the Police would use Common Sense and only write Vicious Dog tickets when the situation warrants it but once these laws are on the books - all dog owners are at risk.
I fully agree that dog owners who have Vicious Dogs should be accountable for their dogs behavior and that insurance companies have the right to cancel them BUT that is not the way these laws are enforced.
Surely you don't believe that A LITTLE SCRATCH should be treated as a Vicious Animal attack? Do you want to create a society where every minor incident must be a Police Matter?
Once again, any time an animal causes SERIOUS injury they should be considered Vicious. But, laws simply can not govern animal behavior. There are too many variables!
Common Sense must be used.
November 25, 2006 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
I think a minority of people are getting to excited about the new changes. It is going to be worded that if the animal is on its own property, that is a different matter. Such as in your car. A scratch isnt going to get a dog put down and you should continue to argue the point. Bad things happen to good people. Simply put, if you are a resposible pet owner, it wont effect you. Sure dogs get out and the judge will be able to make adjustments accordingly. Unfortunately these new laws may cause slight inconvienence but you have to have give and take to get control of the issue at hand. I for one am more than happy to make that adjustment if it means that Emporia wont be a headline news story where a child or person was mauled or killed because that is where we are headed if we dont.
As for removing that post, I say leave it. Let others see that this is exactly the kind of people who dont need animals and will be the ones in the court room in the near future. This is why there is a problem and a change is needed.
November 26, 2006 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
girlsbestfreind (anonymous) says...
I wish you could fathom the scope of the Unintended Consequences of these laws. Once they're on the books and the tickets are written - regardless of the outcome in court - a responsible dog owner can lose their homeowner's insurance over just a scratch.
These laws are written to convict. They really don't protect the public. When they're passed everyone assumes that they won't be used against good dogs and good people.
The law and the insurance don't differentiate the seriousness of a bite. And a judges decision, i.e., guilty or not guilty - does not have an effect on the insurance consequences.
Unfortunaely, we don't read about all of the good people who are being devastated by these laws. The press only covers stories about the bad dogs and attacks. The press and trial lawyers (who are lobbying for these strict new laws) have created public hysteria.
Common sense tells me that we can deal with dangerous dogs without turning our country into a Police State. I don't want to live in a country where every minor incident lands us in court, do you?
November 26, 2006 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
agoldengirl (anonymous) says...
Some have made comments about matters that they have never experienced or have had to deal with. Until you lose a loved one either human or animal ,how can you judge what the loss is to those of us that have real feeling for the gifts that we were given to be trustworthty and to take care of? Pets have always been a part of my family. They deserve secure environments just as our children. They are God's gifts and are always forgiving. I don't know why so many of you think that this is personal and need to attack Tricia Segobia because she thought she had her dogs,children, and neighbors were in a safe harbour that was violated. Her children witnessed these burtial deaths, did you know that? Do you not care of what children who loved these pets had to see as bruital murder by a neighbors chained unattended and unkept dog did to those little dogs and people who loved them? I do. How dare you attack a dog owner for wanted to protect those children and neighbors from such a fright that I hope I never have to deal with. I have two small dogs that would never have stood a chance, nor would I if I were to try to protect them. Would you have made these same comments if a child or adult had been injured or died due to a
vicious dog attack? I hope not. Protect your children, and loved ones, neighbor or friend or the property owner that just got away with a small fine for harbouring a vicious dog that never slept in their bed or made a difference in their day.
November 27, 2006 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
Once again, people are worried and fill picked upon. If we dont strengthen these laws, the strays and the vicious dogs will continue to run loose and put us all in danger. Well, we already are in danger. In a court of law, not every good person prevails. Innocent do get convicted, it happens in areas of the law. But we have to have those laws in order to convict those who continually break the law and put us all in harms way. There is a no win, win, in this part of the law. But it still has to be done.
How true as goldengirl stated, would you feel the same way if it had been a child or a neighbor or YOU that was attacked or killed in a brutal assault? I seriously dont think so. I also dont think that personally attacking a victim advocating this problem is right. There are MANY, MANY, people who are rooting her on. Look at the pole that was taking. What, 85% said it needs to be done?? If a petition gets started you will see the majority of this town wants and needs this to happen and fast. Anyday now we are at risk of a human death because of not a nuisance dog, but a irresponsible owner of a vicious animal.
November 27, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
campfire101 (anonymous) says...
I read this in another article here under BE TRUE TO YOURSELF by Marie Snider.
Quote:
He wrote, “Many times I tell students that you’ll have to commit yourself to something you really love and then have enough nerve to stand behind it. There’s no need to pretend anything about anything in your whole life.”
Brilliant!! Having the nerve to be passionate about something and stand behind it no matter what others think. Well put Marie!!
November 27, 2006 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
saturnlvr (anonymous) says...
I take offense to this too. I had my cat killed by a neighbor's dog because they aren't responsible enough to keep it home. The kicker is they were standing RIGHT THERE while the dog killed my cat. People need to be responsible for their own dogs.
November 28, 2006 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
girlsbestfreind (anonymous) says...
I feel bad when I hear about attacks - but, I have a 6 foot wood fence around my yard. My dog is never "at large"... and he wouldn't even hurt a nest of baby rabbits we had in the garden last year. Because of zero tolerance laws, I'm fighting to save his life..
Obviously, any time a dog does serious damage to any animal or person the law should consider it a serious violation. The dog should be deemed "vicious" - not a nusiance.
Most attacks are from "dogs running at large" -- which is the fault of an irresponsible owner. If you really want to make your city safer - enforcing stronger leash laws is a good start.
November 28, 2006 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
Where in the hec do you live? If you have no input by being a resident of Emporia, than you dont know what is the initial plans to put into action. It isnt about responsible owners, it is about the dogs at large and the dangerous ones being allowed to do damage without owners taking the heat from it.
November 29, 2006 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
girlsbestfreind (anonymous) says...
I live in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin... one of the first in the country with Breed Specific Legislation back in 1989.
What started out as Breed Specific Legislation against Pit Bulls has turned into something where a "scrape" can deem your dog as "Vicious" ...
Because of what I'm dealing with here - I'm really concerned about what's going on in other areas - hence my posting to your board. I know from personal experience how these laws can hurt responsible people and their pets.
The laws here have been tightened and made so vague that anyone can be convicted under their ordinance.
November 30, 2006 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
It wont be vague here.
And to let you know, ANOTHER little dog was killed here on Wednesday. A rat terrier standing by its porch using the bathroom was attacked and killed by a Pit Bull mix just as the others have. It is a epidemic here and we are inches away from this being a child.
December 2, 2006 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
girlsbestfreind (anonymous) says...
The media, trial lawyers and insurance companies are making this into an epidemic. It is a the job of lawmakers to use common sense when making laws - not to jump on the bandwagon Just because "everyone else is doing it".
Communities should simply deal with the really bad dogs and irresponsible dog owners instead of passing broad laws that negatively effect all dog owners.
Dog owners deserve equal treatment under the law.
December 6, 2006 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )