City seeks ways to address dangerous dog issue

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

By Ralph Pokorny

Nevada Daily Mail

The city has received a number of complaints in recent months about dogs running at large and attacking other animals, as well as people; and the city council is preparing to try to address the problem.

Nevada Mayor Brian Leonard told the council that he plans to talk to the city clerk and city manager and schedule a work session to discuss how to address the dangerous dog problem. He said they would try to get the municipal judge and the prosecutor to come to the work session as well.

Bob Wallace, 1228 W. Hunter, told the council during last night's council meeting, that there is a dangerous dog in his neighborhood.

"This dog has attacked postmen several times," Wallace told the council, adding that it has chased kids on bicycles and said there are numerous dead animals in the neighborhood.

He said the police and animal control have done a good job, but he is concerned about what will happen when school starts and children are outside, waiting for buses.

"I'm sure if something happens, there is a law for it. We need something to prevent this from happening," Wallace told the council.

Ben Douglas, animal control officer, told the council there have been 772 animal bites reported through the end of July this year.

Last year, there were 1,345 animal bites for the entire year. At this rate, the city is on track to exceed last year's number of bites.

Douglas said he tries to get dangerous dogs off the street as quickly as possible, but the laws limit the speed of his actions.

If there is a dangerous dog, he gives the owner a citation and seizes the dog. That means the owner will have to appear in court; and, if found guilty, the owner will have to pay a fine.

Douglas said there are several things he thinks could be done to strengthen the city's regulations on dogs.

He favors a leash law and significantly increasing the license fee for dogs that are not spayed or neutered.

In other business the council:

* Voted 4-0 to give final approval to a special ordinance setting Dec. 4 as the date for a special election for the city council seat vacated by Sherry Steward's July 31, resignation. The filing period for the seat opens at 8 a.m., Aug. 14 and closes at 5 p.m., Sept. 18. If more than two people file for the open seat a primary will be needed and the Dec. 4 date will be the primary date, with the general election being held Feb. 5, 2013.

* Held a public hearing and voted 4-0 to set the city's property tax rate for 2012 at .6778 per $100 assessed valuation and the library's property tax rate at 0.200 per $100 assessed valuation. These are the same rates as in 2011.

* Voted 4-0 to accept the bid of $8,710 from AutomationDirect.com, Inc. for variable frequency drive controls for three of the high service pumps at the water treatment plant. These will allow the operators to have better control over water output and decrease electrical demand on pump startup.

* Voted 3-0, with Leonard planning to arrive after presenting the mayor's proclamation at the National Night activities at Walton Pool, to approve the appointments of Kathy Leimkuehler and Sarah Swearingen to terms on the library board.

* Voted 3-0 to approve the appointment of Nellie Jo Boyd as the resident commissioner to the housing authority board.

* Voted 4-0, with Brian Leonard's arrival, to re-appoint Monte Curtis, Scott Buerge and Mike Farran to the airport board.

* Voted 4-0 to approve the payment of tourism fund money for: renewal of Missouri Travel Council membership for $150; registration fees about $500 for the Governors Conference on Tourism and the payment of $2,000 for the Cottey Picnic and $6,000 to Champion Diamonds.

* Voted 4-0 to pass on first reading a general ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 34 of the city code to allow the owner of an RV park to live on-site to provide 24-hour security and to allow itinerant professionals to stay in RV parks for up to 120 days.

* Voted 4-0 to pass on first reading an ordinance approving a $135,131 contract with Sprouls Construction, Lamar, for the Safe School Sidewalk Enhancement project, to construct an ADA-compliant sidewalk from the Nevada High School to the downtown area.

* Voted 4-0 to pass on first reading a special ordinance approving a lease with Cole Reed for a T-hanger space at the rate of $495 annually or $45 per month.

* Voted 4-0 to adopt Resolution No. 1352 approving a permanent liquor by the drink license for Cherry's Sports & Grill, 903 E. Subway.

* Voted 4-0 to pass on second reading a special ordinance accepting a utility easement from the Nevada R-5 School District to run a fiber optic line across the Nevada High School property.

Comments

View 10 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

there are two dogs on our street, small ones, that are allowed to run free. they chase bicycles, people, barking and running after them. they were so close to one biker that she could actually kick them. they are small, but could cause a serious injury by causing someone to fall etc. one neighbor has to chase them of her porch all the time.

-- Posted by bewise on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 7:42 AM
It is unclear how increasing license fees on unnuetered or unspayed dogs will solve the dangerous dog issue. Just another way for the city to make another rule and take money ftom its citizens? It seems like the city wants to penalize good dog owners because of the bad ones. Better think this one through. Please don't use one issue to push a different agenda.

-- Posted by shigh on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 8:24 AM
In a state determination it was proven the castle law also applies to animals. If people knew their animal could be taken down and city ordinance cannot stop the discharge of a firearm in the city as a result of protecting property or life might let these owners wake up and come to the world of law and order.

-- Posted by cop=poc on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 11:48 AM
How about if a dog is picked up on a nuisance call, the penalty is the dog must be chained or leashed from that point on, or the owner loses the dog. That way nuisance dogs end up leashed and obedient dogs and their owners are not penalized.

-- Posted by IcedGreenTea on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 5:25 PM
We had a dog picked up more than a dozen times. It was always back within an hour. Why not do something about the woman who has been stealing dogs and selling them for at least 3 years?

-- Posted by sam floor on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 6:27 PM
He favors a leash law and significantly increasing the license fee for dogs that are not spayed or neutered.

Kinda like the sheep rancher said about coyotes killing sheep when conservation wanted to neuter the animals. These animals are not breeding our sheep they are killing them!!!! Well the same principles apply here.

-- Posted by cop=poc on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 8:35 AM
I agree with icedgreentea on the fact that if a dog has been called in, take that dog to the pound and owner can pay fine to get dog back as they do now. But that owner has to keep dog leashed or tied from that point on. If dog is found to be nuisance again, owner loses dog ownership rights. Very simple, no increase to fees on dog licenses. They might increase the fee to release the dog back to the owner, but do not punish responsible dog owners that are licensing their dogs already.

-- Posted by BORN&RAISEDNEVADAMO on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 9:14 AM
If you are going to have a rule to confine dogs then it needs to apply equally to all of them. No pick and choose or selective enforcement. So yes your half chihuahua half poodle has the same rules as the lab and the rottweiler. The reason for the higher fee is simple though as it is to do population control they don't want all the breeding of unwanted animals a reasonable plan to decrease city costs in this area, as a long term proactive plan. Good job Ben just come pick up the two strays by my house lol.

-- Posted by USS_Missouri on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:46 AM
At the present time, if they know who the owner is, they just take the dog home. NO FINE, It doesn't seem to matter how many times the dog has been picked up.

-- Posted by sam floor on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 12:04 PM
$5 fine is a joke. A dog found lose should be a $50 fine and double that if the animal is not spay or neurtered. Shelter is full, people for pets are full. I know this as I have a stray that we didn't want and it appears we now own. This town has a huge over population of animals. City council has ignored this for way to long. Lay down some serious rules for this and see if these same people still want to breed their "special" dogs. I have never heard so many combo of breed names until I moved here and they are all trying to give them away. Stupid is as stupid does but make the stupid pay! Seems the only one that pays here are the dogs!

-- Posted by jormancat on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 4:53 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register