Marengo City Council passes dangerous dog ordinance

MARENGO — After voting to approve the first and second readings of a city ordinance governing vicious and dangerous animals, Marengo City Councilwoman Jennifer Olson voted against the third reading and passage of the ordinance this month.

The ordinance passed anyway, with aye votes from Council members Bill Kreis, John Hinshaw and Travis Schlabach. Karen Wayson-Kisling was absent.

Olson said residents had contacted her to voice their concerns about wording in the amended ordinance. The ordinance says that if a dangerous animal is found at large and unattended on public property, or property of someone other than the owner, it may be destroyed if it cannot be confined or captured.

Though the ordinance defines dangerous animals as those that attack, it also says any behavior “which constitutes a threat of bodily harm to a person when such person is behaving peacefully and lawfully” classifies an animal as “dangerous.”

Olson was concerned that an officer could misunderstand a dog’s action and deem it dangerous when it is not.

Marengo Police Chief Ben Gray said he thinks his officers are intelligent enough and well-trained enough to know if a dog is attacking or simply overexcited. He noted that the dog would be destroyed only if it can’t be captured.

  Buy Photo

Gray said an officer might use that option if a dog has latched on to someone and won’t let go, not if he’s jumping on someone in a friendly manner.

“I think we have to trust our officers,” agreed City Attorney Gage Kensler.

“Someone who doesn’t know your dog will have a different perception of whether it’s a threat,” said Councilman John Hinshaw, but he doesn’t think he should have to be bitten before officers intervene.

Hinshaw said he runs on county roads and sees dogs often. “I feel like I have a right to defend myself.”

“You’re leaving all sorts of stuff to interpretation,” said resident Matt Loffer during the public hearing for the third reading. He said the definition of “vicious or dangerous animal” doesn’t make sense.

The ordinance says, “’Vicious or dangerous animal’ shall be defined as: A. An attack which requires a defensive action …” and other attacks.

An animal is not “an attack.”

Gray said following the meeting that, though the wording may not be grammatically correct, the intent is that a vicious or dangerous animal is one that attacks in the manners described.

Lori Sinclair, a volunteer with Safe Haven, said during the public hearing that she understands that some dogs are vicious, and even Safe Haven doesn’t accept them. But she wants the city to be sure it isn’t labeling dogs “dangerous” if they aren’t.

Scott Hamilton said he approves of the ordinance. He puts humans above animals, he said, and passing the ordinance is the right thing to do to protect the residents and to encourage pet owners to be responsible.

If residents license their dogs, then when they are found at large, police will know they meet city requirements, said Hamilton.

Only about 130 tags have been sold for dogs this year, city officials said.

The ordinance also increased fines for second, third and fourth offenses to address the problem of owners who habitually let their dogs roam at large.