Bluefield’s decision to update its existing 80-year-old vicious dog ordinance is a smart and proactive move in light of numerous reports of canine attacks across the nation and, sadly, here at home.
But while the concept of drafting an ordinance to protect residents from dog bites is a popular concept in theory, working out the specifics of such regulations may not be so easy.
At the Tuesday night city Board of Director’s meeting, City Solicitor John Feuchtenberger indicated the Vicious Dog Commission, the group charged with studying how to update the regulations, is not planning to target specific breeds with the new ordinance.
“I think it is fair to say at this point that it is the consensus of the committee that a breed specific ordinance is a bad idea,” Feuchtenberger said. “The key to all of this is enforcement.”
We agree that labeling certain breeds as “vicious” is not the best method of protecting the people of the city from dog bites.
Most dog owners — and there are an estimated 73 million pet dogs in the U.S. — are well aware that the behavior of an individual canine, be it good or bad, can most likely be traced to training, socialization and other factors.
The bottom line: Some pit bulls, German shepherds, Labrador retrievers, poodles, Pekingese or other dogs may bite. Others of the very same breed may be big babies that adore humans and would never be prone to attack.
During Tuesday’s meeting, board member Jim Bailey said the dog situation in Bluefield is a “real issue,” citing two incidents he had recently witnessed. In one case, two small children walking a dog were instead being pulled by the canine; the other situation involved a dog he saw on College Avenue wearing a muzzle.
The issue of two children unable to control a dog during a walk is worrisome — and should certainly be addressed with the youth’s parents by animal control. However, we are unclear how a dog wearing a muzzle presents a threat. Doesn’t the fact that the dog is muzzled indicate the owner is taking responsible measures to make sure his or her dog does not nip or bite an individual or other animal? Should that owner be punished for being proactive and cautious?
The city should obviously take action in situations where a dog has a history of biting or other documented vicious behavior. And it must strictly enforce leash laws, which offer a significant measure of protection to residents.
Bailey brought up the idea of hiring an additional animal control officer, or adjusting the hours of the current officer so he would be available after 4 p.m. when more dogs are on the streets.
We believe this proposal, combined with a mandate of strict enforcement of existing regulations, could reduce the potential for a tragic dog attack in the city.
An update to the ordinance is also vitally important, as there have been many social and cultural changes regarding canine ownership during the past eight decades. But we urge the commission to thoroughly study the problems, and potential solutions, before acting.
Dog ownership is a huge commitment, and those who are not responsible pet owners should be held accountable.
However, dependable owners who do abide by the current ordinances and practice safety measures should not be punished with an overly-strict ordinance due to the irresponsible actions of a few.
Editorials
August 17, 2007
Bad dogs — New ordinance requires thorough study
- Editorials
-
- Job losses: Proactive response is imperative
- Truancy crackdown
- Junk dealers — Legislation targeting sales a necessity
- A basic necessity — AML funds regional water system
- School construction — Public input vital to consolidation plan
- Commercial park — Bland eyes industrial growth
- A good fit
- Super Sunday
- Buffalo Mountain EPA objection impacts highway
- Timely response
- More Editorials Headlines
