HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 8752INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 8752
March 21, 2006
All oexx ,.� To the Mayor and Members of the City Council Page 1 of 3
mow_
SUBJECT: RESPONSE REGARDING REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS
At the February 21, 2006, Pre - Council meeting, Council requested a written response regarding
the regulation of dangerous dogs, most notably Pit Bulls. The purpose of this Informal Report is
to provide the following information:
• Overview of the city's current dangerous dog ordinance
• Legal constraints within the State of Texas for breed- specific legislation
• Breed - specific bans in other areas
• Fort Worth dog bite and dangerous dog data
• Other regulatory options
Fort Worth's Current Dangerous Dog Ordinance
Fort Worth's ordinance, and State Health and Safety Code Section 822.041(2), defines a
dangerous dog as one that:
1. Makes an unprovoked attack on a person or other animal that causes bodily injury and
occurs in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was
f reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own; or
2. Commits unprovoked acts in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being
kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its
own and those acts cause a person to reasonably believe that the dog will attack and
cause bodily injury to that person.
Reports of ordinance violations are investigated initially by Animal Care and Control officers and a
request for a dangerous dog hearing is made to Municipal Court. A court hearing is then held for
dangerous dog determination. If the Municipal Court judge determines a dog as dangerous, the
owners must comply with the following in order to retain the animal:
1. Register the dangerous dog with Animal Care and Control;
2. Restrain the dangerous dog at all times on a leash in the immediate control of a person or
in a secure enclosure;
3. Obtain liability insurance in an amount of at least $100,000;
4. Secure the dangerous dog with a muzzle whenever the dog is taken off the property of the
owner;
5. Provide the dangerous dog with a fluorescent yellow collar visible at fifty feet;
6. Spay or neuter the dangerous dog, and
7. Microchip the dangerous dog.
Violations of the ordinance are punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000.00.
�e I Constraints
The City's dangerous dog ordinance mirrors state law in most aspects.
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ex
+ssa
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
No. 8752
March 21, 2006
Page 2of3
SUBJECT: RESPONSE REGARDING REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS
The Health and Safety Code, Section 822.047 also prohibits municipalities from adopting breed -
specific legislation, similar to 14 other states in the country. This prohibits a city ordinance from
banning Pit Bulls or any other speck breed of dog. In 2005, HB1096 was proposed in the Texas
legislature. This bill would have eliminated the restriction on breed - specific legislation for cities
with a population exceeding 1.9 million. This legislation did not pass.
Breed - Specific Bans in Other Areas
Approximately 200 cities and towns throughout the United States restrict or prohibit ownership of
certain breeds of dogs, according to the American Canine Foundation. Large, powerful dogs are
frequently targeted, including Akitas, Chow Chows, Dalmatians, Dobermans, German Shepherds,
Great Danes, Pit Bulls, Rottweillers as well as mixes of these breeds.
Enforcement challenges cited by jurisdictions that have passed breed - specific legislation and
ordinances include the difficulties of identifying and verifying dog breeds, especially breed mixes.
x additionally, workload issues for Animal Care and Control agencies pose other challenges.
esponding to reports of banned dog breeds, dealing with non - compliant dog owners and
GV increased sheltering responsibilities for seized animals have impacted resource requirements
associated with enforcement.
Fort Worth Dog Bite Data
The following table details total Fort Worth dog bites since 2001 with a few breed - specific totals
and percentages highlighted:
FY
Total Bite
Investi ations
Pit Bull
T es
% of
Total
Chow
Types
% of
Total
Shepherd
Types
% of
Total
Retriever
Types
% of
Total
2006*
292
56
19%
11
4%
47
16%
29
10%
2005
1,092
178
16%
65
6%
101
9%
76
7%
2004
1,081
141
13%
72
7%
117
11%
104
10%
2003
1,060
117
11%
87
8%
119
11%
1 93
9%
2002
1,111
88
8%
83
7%
117
11%
83
7%
2001
1,122
79
7%
112
10%
121
11%
88
8%
Tout #s
5,758
659 1
11%
434
7% 1
622 1
11%
473
8%
v Through January 2006
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
r
tt73
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
No. 8752
March 21, 2006
Page 3 of 3
SUBJECT: RESPONSE REGARDING REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS
This table indicates both a rise in Pit Bull bites and an increase in the percentage of overall bites
attributed to Pit Bulls. It also indicates, however, that Pit Bull bites comprise less than 20% of
total reported bites from all dog breeds.
During 2005 and 2006, six dogs were declared dangerous by a Municipal Court judge following a
hearing as described in the dangerous dog ordinance summary above. All six of these dogs were
Pit Bull breeds or mixes.
Other Regulatory Options
Strengthening the current dangerous dog ordinance is one viable option. This action would allow
compliance with State laws in that only individual dogs that have exhibited potentially dangerous
behavior would be impacted, instead of an entire breed of dog. Changes could include
streamlining the current administrative processes involved in dangerous dog declarations,
gag-
panding the seizure and holding requirements, expanding the criteria for defining a dangerous
Uw g while compliant with State law, allowing police or Animal Care and Control officer affidavits
as sufficient evidence to initiate a hearing.
Conclusion
Absent revisions to State legislation, or a valid legal exception, implementing breed- specific
ordinance restrictions is not an option at this time. A thorough review of the existing dangerous
dog ordinance by a task team comprised of representatives from Animal Care and Control, Law
Department and Police Department is recommended, the outcome of which would be presented
to Council for further consideration by June 1, 2006.
Charles R. Boswell
City Manager
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
FORT WORTH, TEXAS