Hazleton council passes revised dog ordinance
Yes, another one. This is the fourth one council has considered in a little over a year. And even this latest one was changed before passage.
In general, the new four-page proposal sets containment and care standards, penalizes owners who allow their dogs to roam freely, levies a $500 fine for staging dog fights, assigns to the owner liability if a dog bites anyone and sets a $1,000 fine for abandonment.
It also states that dogs are personal property and declares the city 'recognizes the right of people to own any breed of dog in a responsible manner.'
And it states it is the owner's responsibility' to provide for the dog for the entirety of its life.'
But before passage, council President Joe Yannuzzi offered a handful of amendments.
Two clauses were pulled out completely.
The original draft had the owner of a dog that kills someone charged with negligent homicide and the dog itself euthanized.
Another clause read that if a dog injured a person or caused an accident while at large, the owner was to be charged with reckless endangerment and the dog either placed into a responsible home or euthanized.
Yannuzzi proposed both clauses be stripped from the bill, saying both were out of the city's purview.
Two other clauses under a different section were also yanked, but for different reasons.
One read that a person who is bitten while teasing a dog would have no legal recourse, while the other read that in the case of a child mauled by a dog while the parents were not in attendance, the parents would be charged with reckless endangerment.
Yannuzzi moved to pull both clauses, saying those questions were subject to civil suits rather than municipal law.
Another section read that those who do not provide a clean environment, daily food and water and necessarily veterinary care for dogs are considered guilty of cruelty to animals and face court dates. Courts, the proposal stated, can order the animal removed and/or the owner to post signs reading 'Irresponsible Animal Owner' on all perimeters of his property.
Yannuzzi proposed that be pulled out, calling it 'a little too much.' In the same section, he proposed a $300 fine be added for cruelty. It had called only for jail time.
All those changes were proposed as one amendment and passed 4-1, with Yannuzzi, Vice President Jack Mundie, Tom Gabos and Bob Nilles voting 'yes;' Evelyn Graham voted 'no.' Graham gave no reason for her 'no' vote, though she seemed unhappy at the suggestion of withdrawing the 'irresponsible owner' signs.
Graham also proposed a change. The original wording declared that dogs must be 'securely constrained' to the owner's property but 'may not be inhumanely restrained by tying to a restraint for more that 18 consistent hours per day.' Graham proposed that be changed to eight hours, though she added 'I'd rather see it two hours.'
That amendment passed unanimously.
Tom Gabos proposed a change regarding when a dog can be euthanized.
One clauses stated that if a dog killed or injured another animal, the owner would be placed on one-year probation, adding that should another violation occur during that time, the dog would be confiscated and either placed into a responsible home or 'humanely euthanized.'
Gabos moved euthanization be stripped. That move was adopted unanimously.
The rest of the ordinance was unchanged. As such, it states that dogs must be 'securely leashed' when off the owner's property and that parents who allow children to walk dogs 'assume liability for any accident, harm, injury or trespass caused.'
Elsewhere, that section requires owners Under Section Three, owners who allow their dogs to run free are fines $100 for a first offense. A second offense results in a $200 fine and required training. A third violation means a $400 fine and confiscation of the dog. If that happens, the dog would be evaluated and either given to a responsible owner or euthanized, if deemed necessary. All fines are doubled in this section is the dog is unlicensed.
The amended motion then passed unanimously first reading. Council is expected to pass it on second and third readings during its next meeting July 13.
To enact this ordinance, council allowed a more controversial dog ordinance to die on the table. That one barred kids under 14 from walking a dog in public and charged parents with reckless endangerment if a 'child under the age of 14 is found in public with a dog or, or off leash'
Those clauses generated criticism from the public and councilmembers. Plus, Solicitor Chris Slusser said it was unenforceable.
Last year, council passed a dog control ordinance, but it was set aside when clauses in it were found to be at odds with existing state dog control law.
But even that ordinance was a derivative from an earlier one that was breed-specific, which is contrary to commonwealth law.
Dog Training
|
