June 24, 2004

Vicious Dog Ordinance changed
Stricter punishments with ‘teeth’ for future offenders

By Kymberli W. Brady
Staff Writer

In light of recent controversy surrounding dog attacks and related repercussions, many residents have voiced concerns with regard to departmental policy, along with restrictions put on the attacking dogs and their owners. That is all about to change.

On July 15, a new ordinance will go into effect that will categorize animal behavior into three groups: potentially dangerous, dangerous and vicious—with appropriate restrictions for each. The current law presumes that any dog without a license or one that exhibits aggressive behavior is classified as a vicious dog.

The ordinance change comes on the heels of an incident in Almaden on Oct. 15, 2003, where Sara Whitlock lost her Norwich terrier, Banjo, during an attack by an American Bulldog owned by San Jose Sharks’ defensive player Mike Rathje.

In an effort to bring the Vicious Dog Ordinance up to standards shared by other large cities, such as Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, Vice Mayor Pat Dando appealed to the Rules Committee in November to ask Animal Care Services to revisit their policy procedures regarding vicious animals and make changes pursuant to community concerns for public safety and personal responsibility.

“This is not intended to place any undue restrictions or bureaucracy on the pet owners,” explains Dando. “It is meant for those who have been known to attack an individual, or have a vicious side, and will provide the owner with the respected responsibilities It will also provide some assurances of safety for innocent bystanders or neighbors.”

“Currently, if a dog is found vicious, there is no level of discretion involved,” explains Animal Care Services Deputy Director Jon Cicirelli. “For example, a dog that chases another and one that causes an actual bite with injuries are two very different scenarios. But legally, both are responded to the same. We wanted to clean that up and not make so many presumptions—to create a punishment that would fit the crime.”

The new law will provide varying levels of restrictions for owners of offending dogs. All incidences will go before a hearing officer, who will determine the level of the offence and the potential danger to the community. “Our strategy is to send the owner the message that their dog has a propensity for aggressive behavior, and give them ways to curb that behavior,” says Cicirelli.

A “potentially dangerous dog” classification will be issued where two lunging occurrences or one injury to another animal is reported. The owner will have to submit a photo ID of the dog, muzzle and leash it when out, spay or neuter it and implant a microchip. The dog may be required to wear a special tag identifying it as a dangerous dog and may be ordered to attend obedience classes.

“A lot of the time, this is the first time the owner sees any indication and they are very surprised,” says Cicirelli, who notes that sexual maturity in a new dog often leads to more aggressive behavior when they get older. “We see this a lot and we want to be more proactive in getting them [owners] to better understand their dog.”

A “dangerous dog” classification will include the above restrictions, in addition to a fine of $500, a mandatory $100,000 liability insurance policy for the dog and confinement inside the home or in a fenced-in kennel. A dog formerly classified as potentially dangerous could also be bumped up to this level if the owner doesn’t comply after the first offense.

“If the dog has done something more significant and caused injury to a person or it was formerly classified as potentially dangerous and exhibited the same behavior a second time, this gives us a second level to take them to,” explains Cicirelli.

Clearly, the insurance requirement sharpens the hidden “teeth” in the new law, as homeowners will find it nearly impossible to acquire policies for vicious dogs. Many insurance companies already refuse coverage for certain breeds because dog bites rank number three in overall claims in the United States, second only to floods and fire. “If they can find insurance at all,” he says, “the premiums will be painful.”

A “vicious dog” classification will encompass all the above restrictions, along with a fine of $1,000 and a mandatory $200,000 liability policy. In some cases, the owner may be ordered to destroy the dog. In many cases, Cicirelli says they voluntarily surrender the dog at this level.

“In reality, we’ve found that more than half who qualify for classification as a dangerous or vicious dog will give them up at this point,” he observes. “A lot of people don’t want a dog like that and they might even be frightened of it—or they can’t get the insurance.”

According to Cicirelli, the new ordinance would not have made a difference in Whitlock’s situation, as she chose not to proceed with a criminal case. “If you don’t have a victim, you don’t have a crime,” he says. “We could have easily gone forward with it under the terms of the law, but we didn’t have a case without her.”

“The difference would have been if it were deemed to be vicious, there would have been a sign posted,” explains Dando, who says she also fought to have locked gates added to the ordinance. “Even if they’d had a sign, it may not have prevented the death of Banjo because it lunged through the fence. It’s just like locking a fence around a pool—the same should be appropriate if you own a dog.”