HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07281987 - T.10 10
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 28, 1987 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Dangerous Animal Ordinance
Supervisor Nancy Fanden presented the attached report
from the Internal Operation Committee, related to an ordinance to
regulate pit bulls and recommended changes to the current County
Animal Control Ordinance.
Supervisor Fanden presented to the Board a packet
containing information on incidents of attacks by pit bulls and
other related materials. She commented on the need to take strong
action to prevent further incidents in the future.
Supervisor Tom Torlakson commented on the breed specific
recommendations in the Internal Operations Committee report and
noted that although there are many responsible pit bull owners, the
breed appears to have a higher propensity for vicious attacks than
other breeds of dog.
Supervisor Tom Powers expressed his concern about
enacting any ordinance that could be subject to litigation. He
suggested that the matter be referred to County Counsel and the
Animal Services Director to prepare an enforceable dangerous animal
ordinance for the Board' s consideration.
Supervisor Sunne McPeak concurred, and commented on the
need to focus on prevention of attacks and the need to increase
penalties on irresponsible owners.
Supervisor Robert Schroder agreed on the need to
strengthen the current County ordinance and to increase the penal-
ties for irresponsible ownership of any animal.
Diane Iwasa, Animal Services Director, presented the
attached report, dated July 28, 1987 , transmitting recommendations
related to a proposed ordinance regulating pit bulls and proposed
amendments to the current County Animal Control Ordinance. She
commented on the problems animal control jurisdictions face in
attempting to identify pit bulls for a breed specific ordinance.
Ms. Iwasa also noted that most animal control jurisdictions do not
have statistical data relating to degree of severity of dog bites,
since Animal Control Officers do not generally have access to that
information. She expressed the need for legislation to establish
uniform reporting criteria for better analysis of data on dog
bites.
Supervisor McPeak noted that she had several requests to
speak from the audience, and asked those that wished to speak to
come forward.
The following persons spoke in favor a a breed specific
ordinance to regulate pit bulls:
Heidi O. Bushman, 4107 Irene Drive, Martinez;
Paul Roose, President, National Association of
Letter Carriers, 12425 San Pablo Ave, Richmond;
Dan DeMiglio, 1675 7th Street, Oakland; and
Pat Lamkin, 51 Alder Avenue, Walnut Creek.
1
j ;r
The following persons spoke in favor of a strong danger-
ous animal ordinance:
Tony Cannata, Central Labor Council, Martinez;
Sally Miles, 900 Court Street, Martinez;
Melinda Hutchings, 3317-39th Avenue, Oakland;
Jane C. Bilello, , 2535 Derby Drive, San Ramon;
George Banks; 2000 Allston Way, Berkeley;
Hazel Olbrich, 1115 Viewpointe Blvd. , Rodeo;
Esther Z. Shiffer, Familias Unidas, Richmond;
Gabrielle Henderson, 1900 Peach Place, Concord;
Diana Jorgensen, 2801 Robert H. Miller Dr, Richmond; and
Pearl Filice, 460 Sycamore Circle, Danville.
Arlene Grimes, 2365 Harbor View Drive, Martinez, left
comments for the record, urging that service dogs not be excluded
from public buildings.
The Board also received a letter dated July 22, 1987
from Nello Biano, Director, BART,_ encouraging the adoption of a
strong dangerous animal ordinance.
Supervisor Torlakson commented on the need for public
assistance to identify dangerous animals and proposed that an
education and awareness program be developed to inform the public
and solicit volunteers.
Supervisor McPeak concurred, and recommended that a
telephone hot line be established to enable the public to inform
the Animal Services Department about known dangerous animals. She
also proposed consideration of higher license fees for pit bulls.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the
following actions are approved:
1. REFERRED Internal Operations Committee report and
the report from the Animal Services Director on
regulation of pit bulls and dangerous animals to
the Animal Services Director and County Counsel to
review all options and alternatives and prepare
draft ordinances for the Board' s consideration;
2. REQUESTED the Animal Services Director to develop
an education and awareness program to inform the
public and solicit volunteer assistance in the
effort to locate and control dangerous and/or
unlicensed pit bulls;
3 . DIRECTED that installation of a pit bull hot line
telephone line at the Animal Services Department be
considered at the August 3 , 1987 hearing on the
proposed County Budget; and
4. REQUESTED that the Animal Services Director look at
the feasibility of increasing the license fees on
pit bulls.
cc: Animal Services Director
County Counsel
County Administrator
1 hereby certify that this is a true andcorrectcopyof
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervi on the date shown.
ATTESTED: 9�----
PHIL BA HELO , Cierk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By � , Deputy
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE cwtra
July 13 , 1987 C )sta
DATE: CN (�/
SUBJECT: Regulation of Pit Bull Dogs �/u� ��J
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S). & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Request County Counsel to r prepare an ordinance which
incorporates the basic features of the ordinance adopted by
the City of Livingston regulating Pit Bull dogs and return
the ordinance to the Board for the purpose of introducing it
and fixing the ordinance for hearing.
2 . Request County Counsel to prepare an ordinance amending the
current animal control ordinance to:
a. include a provision that failure to have a dog
vaccinated for rabies is a misdemeanor violation;
b. increase penalties for ordinance violations, insofar as
is permitted by State law;
C. consider a ban of all animals except seeing eye and law
enforcement dogs from public buildings, except as
authorized by the Animal Services Director.
3 . Request the Animal Services Director to report to our
Committee on specific actions which should be recommended
for additional State legislation to:
a. expand the- County' s authority to regulate dangerous
animals;
b. establish more stringent penalties for violations of
laws relating to animal licensing, control, and biting.
4 . Request the Animal Services Director to determine from the
City of Livingston whether their recently, enacted ordinance
is being enforced; if so, what the results have been and, if
not, why not, and report the results of her conversations to
the Board.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
�/ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
'"� APPROVEOTHER
/ 9m /
SIGNATURE(SJ: Nancy C Fanden p np Tom Torlakson
A ON OF BOARD ON July 28. 1707 7,;:PROVED AS RECO'MM'ENDED OTHER
h'
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 AM CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN.
` AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: O UPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED
County Counsel PHIL BAT C OR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Animal Services Director SUPERVISORS A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY PUTY
M382/7-83 —
Page 2
5 . Request the Animal Services Director and County Counsel, in
preparing the ordinance requested in item #1 above, to
consider an alternative to requiring a muzzle on a pit bull
dog when outside its pen, such as requiring the owner to
have completed a course of training which would render the
use of a muzzle unnecessary.
6 . Request the County Administrator and Animal Services
Director to determine the cost of enforcing the new
ordinances outlined in items #1 and #2 above and return a
report on those costs to the Board at the time the
ordinances are returned to the Board.
7 . Request County Counsel to consider whether it is necessary
and prudent to provide confidential advice to the Board of
Supervisors on the extent to which the ordinance outline in
item #1 above is legally enforceable and take whatever steps
.he considers appropriate in that regard.
BACKGROUND:
On June 23, 1987, the Board of Supervisors held a hearing on a
proposed animal services ordinance. At the conclusion of that
hearing the Board of Supervisors referred the issue to our
Committee for further hearings.
On July 13, 1987, our Committee met with County Counsel, the
Animal Services Director, and staff from the County
Administrator' s Office. We reviewed staff recommendations which
had been prepared by the County Counsel' s office. We received
verbal comments from 15 speakers, most of whom opposed the staff
recommendations.
The recommendations we have made above are generally consistent
with the staff recommendations provided to our Committee on July
13 . We believe the majority of the Board wants to go as far as
possible in regulating Pit Bull dogs, and other dangerous
animals, in order to prevent attacks on people and other animals,
not just to deal firmly with the owner and offending animal once
an attack has occurred. If we were only concerned with
addressing the issue after an attack occurs, there would be
little need to try to regulate an entire breed, or combination of
breeds. However, the statistics presented to our Committee by
the Animal Services Director convince us that Pit Bulls inflict a
disproportionately high level of serious bites compared to other
breeds, such as Dobermans and Shepherds.
At our hearing on July 13, it was alleged that the City of
Livingston is not enforcing their ordinance because they know it
is unconstitutional. We have, therefore, asked that this
allegation be checked out.
This report includes two other important recommendations. We are
asking County Counsel to propose some changes to our existing
Animal Control Ordinance which will apply to all dogs. These are
included in recommendation No. 2.
In addition, we are asking the Animal Services Director to
propose some specific changes to State law which will allow the
County more discretion in regulating dangerous animals and which
will increase the penalties for law violations relating to animal
licensing, control and biting.
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Date: July 9 , 1987 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
To: Board of Supervisors ' Internal Operations Committee
From: Victor J_ Westman, County Counsel
By: Mary Ann McNett, Deputy County Counsel
Re: Recommendations Re : Regulation of Pitbull dogs
It is recognized that dogs are enjoyable and loving pets .
Insofar as possible , the County wishes to foster the safe and
responsiID. oi�nership of dogs. Nevertheless , pitbull docs. have
seriously inj.ured..people in .�ontra- Costa .County and constitute a
d nger .:to the health and--.safety, of-all County residents ....
Tn.
alleviate- this:..danger,' the.-.staff -(Aiiima.i Se.ry .ces: -and
County..Counse.l) propose the•.foll.owing legi:sla.tiv�:.;nea.sures f-o*
Consideratio6:
1. Enact with appropriate local modifications a :County .
ordinance similar to the City of Livingston' s ordinance regulating
pitbull dogs.
That ordinance provides :
a. that. no new pitbulls may enter the city;
b, that -pitbulls currently :residing in Livingston. must
be registered- with, the city;
c.. . that pitbulls- are to be confixied indoors or in
locked .pens;
d, that pitbulls: must be leashed; muzzled and in
control of the- owner -when outside their - pens
e . that all pitbull owners must post "Beware of Dog"
signs ;
f. that all pitbull owners must maintain liability
insurance in the amount of $50, 000. 00 ;
g. that owners must provide to the city color
photographs of the registered pitbulls; and
h. that all pitbull puppies be removed from the City
within six weeks of birth.
I .
Board of Supervisors ' -2- July 9 , 1987
Internal Operations Committee
i
2 . Support changes in state law designed to:
a. Expand the County ' s authority to regulate dangerous
animals .
b. Establish more stringent penalties for violations
of laws relating to animal licensing, control , and biting .
3 . Amend the animal control ordinance to:
a. Include a provision that failure to have a dog
vaccinated for rabies is a misdemeanor violation.
b'. Inc i:eAse"peha:lties .f.o.r o.rdi•nance vi-o-iatio:n-s ,.. `i:nsofar.;
:as .is: erm .tt�d b __s-ta.te .:aw: .=:
c. Consider -a .ban.*of .all animals: except•. seeing `e.ye
law- enforcement .dogs• f-rom public:. buildings , except ds authorized
• . by"the .An.iinal . Serv.ices,Direct6r. , �,.- •. . : . ,
M.M:t b
Cont ra Costa County
Animal Services Department
4849 Imhoff Place Diane Iwasa
Martinez , CA 94553 Animal Services Director
(415) 372-2995
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE : July 28, 1987
FROM: Diane Iwasa, Director SUBJECT: Internal Operations Committee
Animal Services D rtment Report Dated July 13, 1987 -
Pit Bull Dog Regulation.
Al
Attached for your review are comments and specific information in response
to the Internal Operations Committee Report of July 13, 1987. Also attached is
a revised dog bite statistical report. Other information is being gathered and
will be submitted as soon as possible.
1. Request County Counsel to prepare an ordinance which incorporates the
basic features of the ordinance adopted by the City of Livingston regu-
lating Pit Bull dogs and return the ordinance to the Board for the purpose
of introducing it and fixing the ordinance for hearing.
Comments : (See attached City of Livingston Ordinance.)
a. The Bull Terrier breed of dog should be excluded from the definition of
"Pit Bull Dog". The Analysis of Dog Bite Injuries in Contra Costa
County did not indicate that Bull Terriers bit more frequently nor� more
severely as a breed.
b. "Pit Bulls" should be found to be Potentially Dangerous Animals to
distinguish between animals found to be "dangerous" under the current
ordinance code.
c. Any dog should be able to be declared a Potentially Dangerous Animal
upon notice by the Animal Services Department, after demonstrating any
behavior presumed dangerous under 416-12.402 of the Animal Control
Ordinance. This should not restrict any additional enforcement action
being taken, but would allow for additional control of dogs before an
actual finding of "Dangerous". It would also respond to the argument
that breed-specific legislation is "underinclusive".
d. Sign requirements should not specifically refer to "Pit Bulls" as this
might subject responsible owners to theft by people who might want to
use the breed for ulterior purposes. A uniform sign made available by
Animal Services could easily be incorporated into an education program
as an effective tool to prevent dog bite injuries. (See sample attached.)
e. The ordinance should specify that dogs seized and impounded under the
ordinance may be humanely euthanized if the owner cannot or will not
comply.
if is
Board of Supervisors 2 July 28, 1987
f. The Animal Services Department would like the discretion to cite as
either an infraction or misdemeanor. Effective enforcement would be
enhanced and the justice system could be more efficiently utilized if
the Animal Services Department were allowed discretion in this area.
2. Request County Counsel to prepare an ordinance amending the current Animal
Control Ordinance to:
a. Include a provision that failure to have a dog vaccinated for rabies is
a misdemeanor violation;
b. Increase penalties for ordinance violations, insofar as is permitted by
State law;
c. Consider a ban of all animals except seeing-eye and law enforcement
dogs from public buildings, except as authorized by the Animal Services
Director.
Comment•
c. Dogs "being used to aid the handicapped" should be exempted rather than
just "seeing-eye" dogs. Also, we would recommend "County buildings"
rather than "public buildings".
3. Request the Animal Services Director to report to our Committee on specific
actions which should be recommended for additional State legislation to:
a. Expand the County's authority to regulate dangerous animals;
b. Establish more stringent penalties for violations of laws relating
to animal licensing, control , and biting.
Comments: Report to follow.
4. Request the Animal Services Director to determine from the City of Living-
ston whether their recently enacted ordinance is being enforced; if so,
what the results have been and, if not, why not, and report the results of
her conversations to the Board.
Comments : Refer to attached report.
5. Request the Animal Services Director and County Counsel , in preparing the
ordinance requested in Item #1 above, to consider an alternative to
requiring a muzzle on a Pit Bull dog when outside its pen, such as
requiring the owner to have completed a course of training which would
render the use of a muzzle unnecessary.
Comments: It would be difficult to determine or verify, for enforce-
ment purposes, whether a course of training would be adequate to render
the use of a muzzle unnecessary.
r
Board of Supervisors 3 July 28, 1987
6. Request the County Administrator and Animal Services Director to determine
the cost of enforcing the new ordinances outlined in Items #1 and #2 above
and return a report on those costs to the Board at the time the ordinances
are returned to the Board.
Comments : Refer to the attached report from Animal Services.
DI :ah
42-Reg.PB1
cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Files
Contra Costa County
Animal Services Department
4849 Imhoff Place Diane Iwasa
Martinez , CA 94553 Animal Services Director
(415) 372-2995
REVISED
TO: Internal Operations Committee DATE : July 13, 1987
=ROM: Diane Iwasa, Director SUBJECT: Dog Bite Statistics
Animal Services Department
The Dog Bite Summary and accompanying graphs were developed from the
Contra Costa County dog licensing data base and official Animal Services
Department bite reports . The dog licensing statistics were current as of
June 30, 1987. The dog bite statistics were gathered from January 1, 1987,
through June 12, 1987.
The breeds selected for this comoarison comprise 37.100 of the estimated
dog population but represent 53.82/0 of all bites and 47.00% of serious bites.
The dog population was estimated at 233,310 by taking the percentage of
licensed dogs from the dog bite records and extrapolating the total dog popula-
tion from this sample. There were 550 dog bites in the study period of which
200 were licensed. There are 84,840 licensed dogs. Therefore:
200 84,840 46,662,000 200x
n5-9 = x = 200 200 = 233,310
The number of dogs for each breed category in the study was also estimated
by this method.
It is generally believed that using dog bites as a sample to estimate the
dog population overstates the number of dogs actually in a given community for
the following reasons.
1. Some dog bites are caused by stray dogs that by definition are not
owned or licensed.
2. People who allow a situation to occur that results in a dog bite are
considered less responsible than the average dog owner and are less
likely to have their dog licensed.
3. Not all bites are reported, particularly those involving a family
member.
Even given the above reservations, we believe that the data presented
gives an accurate picture of the relative tendency of a particular breed to
bite.
Internal Operations Committee 2 July 13, 1987
From the accompanying
g data, it is clear that for the time period studied,,
Pit Bull-type dogs accounted for a disproportionate number of bites and serious
bites. Other breeds may cause more total bites but this is a function of this
larger percentage of the dog population. For example, Shepherd-type dogs bit
109 times and caused 16 serious bites. Pit Bull-types bit 61 times and caused
7 serious bites. There are 26,893 Shepherd-types but only 5,576 Pit Bull-types.
Therefore, during the time period in question, Pit Bull-types were involved in
2.69 times as many biting incidents and 2.17 times as many serious biting
incidents per 1000 dog population as Shepherd-types.
Comparison #2 uses only the licensed dog population as a base. In this
case, the breeds selected comprise 38,60% of the licensed dog population but
still represent 53.82% of all bites and 47.00% of serious bites. Both sets of
data show that Pit Bull-type dogs bite more frequently and cause more serious
bites than other breeds when the number of dogs of each breed is taken into
account.
Your Committee may want to consider one fact, that this study revealed, in
your proposals. Bull Terriers are often combined because of their breed
history with Pit Bull-type dogs. However, our study reveals that Bull Terriers
only caused two (2) of the bites attributed to Pit Bull-type dogs and neither
of these bites was classified as serious.
MGR:mm
C-Bite.Stat
Revised
cc: Files
O
(D CD CD CD C c CD c
-5 "S -S -S E3 -3 'S a
♦J1 p7 ..3 �. C) 0 n n FS IT C) Cr
CO ,. w fi fD CD CD CD (D (D CD (D
V c-t S K. ^ �••� �•-� �••� (D
(D A W N I.- N rt r I
I ^ w w w w O O w O
N O p vA to
fD (D CD o. -h --h CD
V)
--h
S S S S V) O O
w C (D (D CD CD O O O O CD O O O
F+ 'O C. -h -h -h '-h -S Lo --h (C
0 (D O C C N
CD N C C C C W 00 N -I O co CD
y a =-3 -S (D O C O
'Z IT IT FS cr (D CD Z r+ N r+ (C
rD (D CD CD (D CD CD w (D
C.rD Z -S -1 -S C. C_ O -+ O N 'O
-S C O O
rr — O O O O N 0
O n -h --h -h _0 a l7 O W -�
w
O (D O CD O -J cC Co c't
C CN -5 r+ -5 r+ w w - - CD
C-+ r-+ 1• w — pi r+ r+ co r+ N O
Di w O O JrD
-+• -h C C O O r'r N
C -iF N Cr N S C (D
p J. J. N c7
M) -5 S c-f• FT fi
N C_ — (D (D O O C-) S.
N r+ N r'r N < G w N
0) S (D (D O O C (D
O J. N N d C7
(D O
(D CD n C C) c (D (D C. cr C
-� w N w N C. C. <<
(D -4 C (D c (D S W
a CD N C. N
(D -1 (D CD O C C+
C -5 C. S C. FS ca (D CD
C-+ — c< I< N CO -S (D
(D S (D (D C_ (/)
O -S << w << w 'S r+ CD ^ c
w w O O N ^ v
N w
N
FT r+ C)• r+ C7 1
C
(D (D n J 0 J co C-
(D -S C w c w A w c,
C. Z D D C Z
C CD 'S Ln
S Z Cr r+ CTl O O co U) O A J w -I
CC Z S O FT O -o e 3'E o3 2 W O O N <<
p y -S CD -1 CD
C -0 (D (D C. C7
O CD (D O
p CL CL
�. W c N r+ + -I
-h W C. < C. G • V tD
c A UI A O Cfl O W W co
< C. < C. t-+ N A tD
S J �• (D (D a'C a-P, B-P-
CD C. C_ C. C_ J c+ C
CD CD
w C/) C. CT C7 s --1
U- r+ << c< O -<
o w C7 FT CD c
< -*, '< r+ << r+ C) tC
rD -A S S N O' S
O r+ CD rr (D A -A N CD
J 5 S S -Pb "T C-i
�•C_ (D S (D rt i-+ lC C o f-• N q N E C
N N Z O V (.TF N t0 A W V co w C
r+S S (D r+ rr of oe *&P, 3e 32 C CD
CD Z (D O w
N
CO
TC. _ C7 N n
-S --1 O — W O
(D (D 'D 70 N r+ V W
(D Z O c (D O V p 7c UD
'S "7. J -5 N t-• (.)'i N (b N A W (D co
N �• c w — m V W N O) h-+ F-r O) (D -S V
• CD r+ O n 3-C 3C a2 3 C 32
z w — c w
C-+ O N C
C O Q CD C7
C. C C. CD O
r-r cn r•+ O -i
(D�. C7 ? A Ol v J J N l< . . W C.
X O ? O W N N F- fD CD C
On w
( w of 3E 3e P Am O (GD N
O
J fN
J - z
N G7
S (D O•
(D d Z n
s (D r
r+ N N C)
S w rn w r
(D
J 1•••+ O (.71 (.TI O co tD N O O'
32 8•C 'A 32 Z' CO
Cr N
CD
CD cn r
C_ S .
N F- F- ko rD rn
• F- k.0 110 F-
F+ CO p- Z
co N CI) O A tD Z m
,a2 32 oC �?R 02 2 O
• u O u O u O u o u O u o u O u o u O u o u b u p 1�
fD
n n
n o
_ •• to
to on
o in
0
b
o ^n
�R a mo
tgw
C O
d O
K O
- O �
- � O
_. • t
O' C
't r
Y
0o f
l
to O
t0 Z
- n
v
a CD
to o
to
m n z
to o tD fi7
^ � rfDo
(/t co
n > V D
t n C7
m< O r
� a
c. to
� � O
CD
`o c C-. N
r �
a o (p
m N Z
to
N
m
o r N c
v a B p » - a m p - - - m p - - a m o -
m
w o,
to
to
o
z
n
t
to n
a • d CY
O
� N
O �
� D
C
_ Cf
d m O
n a c
O
� O
< G-
n I t
O
ry t
n c
N O
(D Z
m
to
N
x
;�Q O JP. 3
CD CD (D (D C C CD C
IJ 1 tS7 t70„ 'S "S 'S Z =-3 E3 -5 3
n n n n Cr Cr n Cr
() O -' a tt (D (D (D CD CD (D (D (D
(D :V C* S >F (D O O O O Z -s O -S
C_ (D A W N 1 ' VI C•1• Cf• C+ C+ C+
n. a a a a O O a O
N O O A co ca tO LO -tl fi to �
C
cm n CD CD (D (D (D
a c (D CD (D (D O O O O (D O O O
N -0 C1 -'h -'+1 -h -h Z cC fi to
0 CD O O O J• VI
(D N C C C C CA CA N � O CA p
a 3 -S 'S (D O C J• O
'•S 3y rr CS Cr CT (D CD •S Cf• N C+ to
CD a CD CD CD CD (D (D -+• a CD
CL(D -5 -5 Z C. L1 O N -D
-S C O O
C+ O O O O "O "D N O tC "O
O O O C
a a _0 o to w
C') O N C+ N C+ C C O J. a
O (D O CD O c0 W C+ C+
O N 'S ft -S C+ a a J. CD J.
C+ C+ J. a J. a Ct C+ W C+ V) O
a s O J O J J.
J•-fi C C O O ft V1
C ^h N CT V7 C7 O O (D
O J. V) n
a ^S Or C+ C7" C+
to n (D CD c) C
Vf C+ N t•+ N < < a V1
a S (D CD O O C (D
V) n V) n J J N C
-S a a < < (D O
CD (D n C n C (D CD C1 Cr :C
SU VI 0) N Ci C. <<
CD -1 C CD C CD (cr Q
s (D N C1 N C1 J• J. ` J•
(D -S CD (D O O Z C+
C -S C1 Or C1 Cr W (D CD
C+ J. << N 00 -5 CD
(D S Cr fD CD 0- N
O -1 << a c< a •z Ct CD ^ C
-ti -• (D C. 1--�
a C a "O O N .�
J.Ca a a C .-. N a
c+ C -S -0 -S N W v
N - a C+ a C+ t<
CT_... C•f n• C+ n• 1
(D CD n - n• W C-
CD
CD -S C a C a w a m
.1 S J ••S J Z Z
D
J•J. a a • • F•-� F-+ Ul �� W 0 O
O (D -S Cr -1 Cr O N O O p U1 O I. ' a
to ^s CT rD Cr N aaA 0 'ak LI) O ape O
O y 'S (D Z CD
O -0 CD CZ CD CL C-%
CD — CD CD -0 C
C+ a C_ C. Ln N
O J. fJ Co N w CT
< C1 < Ul UD O 05 W V co co
C+ -r < C. < C. W C �'pp�� USO V �--' -.0 cn C V (7
S J.- (D J. (D a\ O��p O
l � ae Or p
O O_ Q D_ C.
C1 C
CD CD T z
a N C1 Cr C1 U-
=-C+ '< << O -<
o< cu-h l< Ct Ct o n
fD -1 S S V Cr S
O C+ (D C+ (D A A W (D
I S S k0 -5 C�
J•C1 (D CT CD Ct O N 4o N A V a C
N to Z O Ui t0 N ko .A W N 00 a O
C+ S CT (D Ct Ct' -.1p ae a2 ae a2 O CD
(D J. -5 CD O a
CL Z CD C1 C+ — F
(D (D a N
Cr O_ -0 -+ Cr N n
-1 O J. cD O
CD CD -0 a to fi V W A a n +
CD 'S O C CD (D co 74z, 1,0
O Z "CS -+ -S N p N N 47 N N O CD p
cn J J N
caC+, O n aE aC ae 3e ~ ark
• O.
CtLn
O N C
O Cr CD .Z7 C
• C+ N C+ O -+
(D Cr A 4�- U7 w •S — Z
J. N t< V J• C. C7
>e O IJ CO W N A 4�:. CD (D
t0/f a ae ae a� a2 ae (D O N
VI
S (D Cr 3
(D O. -
5 CD r
(D O' (D N a m
<< CL 1-+ ti' cr O
C+ N N p 10
=• a Ui a o
(D — O N O US 1--• U7 N Ln C. O
Cn V Ul US O 00 .A W O C,7
a2 ae ae oe ae �
Cr
s O
fD
(D N
CL N S
CO l0 1-'
FJ 00 t
p N ; F•-+ O 110 (D O
co N ON c0 W W Z Z
ae ae ae ae ae C1
n _ o
m z
--o
O N to
O
_ � o
� m K
` C N
n O
a �O
� C.1
m O
C. C
_< r
a
- � 0
_ m z
a
_, II
aNOMo � o � o � Mo - = MON = -
I_ -�
I
If c
n
La
Id o
i �I0 a O
s rn
CD
N n j
O
K m
I_ o
to m
I= O
v
- Io CD �
10
r
a
< " O
n o �
,n O
N II Z
u I
n
m
_
m
n
0 0
s ai o D
n
CD
O N
L K
C _a
d N n
�O
r K
O
O
C O
n' G1
< CD
CD
O. C
r
� a
m o
z
c
N
ro
N
NUMBER OF BITES BY BREED OF DOG
January 1, 1987 through June 12, 1987
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
NUMBER SERIOUS NUMBER SERIOUS
BREED OF BITES BITES BREED OF BITES BITES
AFGHAN 1 -0- COCKER SPANIEL 17 4
AKITA 6 1 COCKER SPANIEL-X 4 2
AKITA-X 1 -0- COLLIE 3 1
AMERICAN ESKIMO 1 -0- COLLIE-X 6 1
AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD 24 1 CORGI 1 -0-
AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD-X 3 1 DACHSHUND 4 -0-
BASSETT 1 -0- DALMATIAN 2 -0-
BEAGLE 3 -0- DOBERMAN 20 3
BELGIAN SHEPHERD 3 -0- DOBERMAN-X 3 1
BLOODHOUND 2 -0- ELKHOUND 1 -0-
BLUE TICK HOUND 1 1 FOX TERRIER 1 -0-
BORDER COLLIE 2 2 GERMAN SHEPHERD 57 8
BORDER COLLIE-X 1 -0- GERMAN SHEPHERD-X 24 1
BOXER 2 -0- GERMAN SHORTHAIRED POINTER 2 -0-
BOXER-X 2 1 GERMAN WIREHAIRED POINTED 2 -0-
BRITTANY SPANIEL 1 -0- GOLDEN RETRIEVER 19 4
BULLDOG 2 -0- GOLDEN RETRIEVER-X 5 -0-
BULL MASTIFF 1 1 GREAT DANE 2 -0-
BULL TERRIER 2 -0- HOUND 1 -0-
CAIRN TERRIER 1 -0- HUSKY 3 -0-
CHESAPEKE RETRIEVER 4 -0- HUSKY-X 3 2
CHESAPEKE RETRIEVER-X 1 -0- IRISH SETTER 1 -0-
CHIHUAHUA 4 1 KEESHOUND 4 -0-
CHIHUAHUA-X 3 -0- LABRADOR 46 9
CHOW 6 2 LABRADOR-X 12 1
COCKAP00 6 1 LHASA APSO 5 -0-
COCKAPOO-X 1 1 MALAMUTE 4 -0-
NUMBER OF BITES BY BREED OF DOG 2.
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
NUMBER SERIOUS NUMBER SERIOUS
BREED OF BITES BITES BREED OF BITES BITES
NEWFOUNDLAND 1 -0- SIBERIAN HUSKY 4 1
OLD ENGLISH SHEEPDOG 3 1 SPITZ 1 1
PEKINGESE -- -0- SPRINGER SPANIEL 6 1
PEKINGESE-X 1 -0= SPRINGER SPANIEL-X 1 -0-
PIT BULL 47 6 STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER 1 1
PIT BULL-X 11 1 ST. BERNARD 2 1
POMERANIAN 2 1 ST. BERNARD-X 2 1
POMERANIAN-X 1 -0- TERRIER 2 1
POODLE 7 -0- TERRIER-X 20 5
POODLE-X 7 -0- UNKNOWN 19 1
PUG 1 -0- VIZSLA 1 -0-
QUEENSLAND HEELER 7 1 WALKER HOUND 1 -0-
RHODESIAN RIDGEBACK 1 -0- WEIMARANER 1 -O-
ROTTWEILER 11 -0- WHIPPET 1 1
ROTTWEILER-X 1 -0- WHIPPET-X 1 -0-
SAMOYED-X 1 -0 WIREHAIRED TERRIER 1 -0-
SCHIPPERKE-X 1 -0-
SCHNAUZER 1 -0-
SHAR-PE I 3 1
SHELTIE 2 -0-
SPANIEL 5 1
SPAN IE L-X 4 -0-
SHEPHERD 1 1
SHEPHERD-X 27 4
SHIH TZU 2 2
MGR:ah/41-Breeds-A
Cvun;}- Counsel
i
JUi� u 5 1987
ORDINANCE NO. 317 Mai,iolez, CA 94553
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0" THE CITY OF LIViN25TON
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 AND ADD:NG A NEW SECTION 1 .5
TO TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 3 OF THE LIVINGSTON CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Livingston does ordain as follows:
That Section 1 is amended and a new Section 1.5 entitled "K eepinc of
Registered Pit Bulls" is hereby added to Title 10, Chapter 3, 3 of
the Livingston City Code to read as follows:
Section 1 - Animals Prohibited Within City 1mitS. :t shall be unlawful and
a public nuisance for any person to keep, possess, maintain or harbor any
of the following animals within the corporate iTlitS Of the City:
(A.) Any dog for which a license has not been ct--airned for that Year,
elvzePtinc the-e which are curren„ Iv licensed by other pub , i„ vi 1h _h
also require C-fectiv: rabies and distemDer va:"na"ons, and wni_h w. I De
kept 'v''; Dt 7 n the City for a period not exceeding seven (/ ) da Ys.
(E) Anv horse, mule, aSS, goat, sheep, hog, DU ; , C:, --DW, Or 0:he-
1 iveS:ock, except ti'iat such anis !s may be brou^^t into the . , :y -, c- any
reOUiarly scheduled autho7'zed parade or publicuexhicition but cn": v or -ne
Lillt: reasonably required for the parade or exn :Dl ..ion. r
(0) Any rooster, chicken, ❑oose, duck, turl;ev or other aomesci_ ow"
except this prohibition shall not apply t0 the p ace of bu-sineSS of any
I
ommercial business duly licensed by the i:y :o process domestic fowl .
(D) Any strand or hive of bees.
(�) Any rabb i t.
(F) The keeping of the following for any purpose whatsoever at ary one
residence or place of busine-cs :
1. More than three (3) docs over the age of ;Dur (4) months.
2. More than three (C) Cats over the aoe of six (0) weeks.
3. More than twelve (12) of any one or combiriation of chinCniilas,
hamPste"S, white mice or other laboratory animiia :s.
i
i
(G) Any animal which does not comply with all other provisions of this,
Chapter or any other ordinance of the City.
(H) Any pit bull dog; provided, that pit bLill dogs registered with the City
on the effective date of this ordinance may be kept within the City subject
to the standards and requirements set forth in Section 1.5 of this Article.
I I
"Pit bu' l dog" is defined to mean:
1 . The bull terrier breed of dog;
2. Staffordshire bull terrier breed of doc;
3. The American pit bull terrier breed of dog;
4 . The American Staffordshire terrier breed of doc;
Docs of mixed breed or of other breeds than above listed which
breed or mixed breed is known as pit bulls, pit bull dogs or pit
bull terriers;
6. Any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of
characteristics 6 � I being pre-
dominately of the breeds of bull terrier,. Staffordshire bull
4
terrier, American pit bull terrier, American Staffort-shire terrier;
any other breed Commonly known as pit bulls, pit bull docs
o-s or pit
bull terriers; or a ccmtlination of any of those breed-c.
Se:-_ion I.E. - Keepinc of Reciste-ed Pit Bull... The provislons of, Se-.-.ion 1
01 th4;_,z Artiyle are no: applicable to owners, keepers or harb,07ers of pit
bull docs recis-eered with the r.-:Ity on the e-17-ifective date of tn4;s Article.
The keeping OT Stich d-ops, however, shall be subject to the fc' owing Stan-
da-C2 I
(A) Leash and Muzzle: No person shall permit a rea4stered pit bull dog to
co outside its kennel or pen unless such dog is securely leashed with a
leash no ionoer than four (4 ) fleet in lencth. No person shall perm-It a pit
L -vQe o- leash outside 4 -S
bull doc to De kept on a chain, rope or other type
or per unless a person is in physical control of the leash. Such
dogs may not be leashed to inanimate objects suzh as trees, pests,
buildings, etc. in addition, all pit bull docs on a leash outside the ani-
mal ' s kennel must be muzzled by a muzzling device sufficient to prevent
such a doc 'From biting persons or other animal-s.
-2-
(E) Confinement: All registered pit bull docs shall be kept securely con-
fined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel , except
when leashed and muzzled as above provided. Such pen, kennel or structure
must have secure sides and a secure top attached to the sides. All s'.ruc-
tures used to confine registered pit bull does must be locked with a key or
ro,-,,bination lock when such animals are within the Structure. Such structure
must have a secure bottom or floor attached to the sides of the pen or the
sides of the pen must be embedded in the ground n0 less than two (% ) feet.
All structures erected to house pit bull docs must comply with all zoning
and building regulations of the City, All such Structures must be ade-
quately lichted and ventilated and kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
(C) Confinement Indoors : No pit bull dog may be kept on a porch, patio or
in any part of a 'House or Structure that w0u?d a? ?ow the dog to exit such
buiiding on its own volition. In additior;, no such animal may be kept in a
house or structure when the windows are open or when screen windows or i
Screen doors are the only obstacle preventing the cog from exiting the {
Structure.
k
f
(D) Sions : All owners, keepers or harborers of rec'Stered pit bull dogs
within the ,_ity shall within ten (10) days- of the effective date Of this
c
ordinan _ d' SDl _v in a prominent place on their prem,Ses a Sion easily
readip ,e by the Dub j is u'Sina the words 115--ware of Doc". _n addi _lOn a _im .
ar Sion s required to be posted on the kennel or heni
oT Such ani,m�ai .
nsuranze: niI owne S, keODe`S or nartore-S OF rec'.Ste"ec D: _ DUii OOCZ
mus witniri ten (_' D) d OF the e e z t i v e Gate of tniS orGinance o-o ione
Droo tC the L ,vinc"ton i V !e OF DUD 1 11 I ,ar)i ! i _v i rFen a
nSU�a �„ i
Single 1 nc i Gert amount of SD,x00.00 for boli !y i r,'l ury to or death of any
person or De"SOns Or for damace t0 p^operty owned by any persons which may
result -om the pwnersn4,D kee-Dino or miaintenan:e O Such animal Such
insurance Dp; icV Shall '
provide that no canc_ ia--ion Of the Dolicv will be
made UnIeSS ten (iC) Ga"S written notice is First even to the 1- 1vineston
itv , lerk. y
(') 1 den-�iF i Cat i On ?hOtOcraphs : r,1 I owner-s-, keeD'e"S Or harborer$ OF pit
bull does must V:ithin ten (i0) days Of the effect-lve Gate of this Ordinance
provide to the ' i tV Zlerk two color photocraph5 of the rec;steret animal
clearly showinc the color and approximate size OT the animal .
I
(G) Reporting Requirements: All owners, keepers or harborers of registered
pit bull dogs must within ten (10) days of the incident, report the
following information in writing to the Livingston City Clerk as required
hereinafter:
i
1. The removal from the City or death of a registered pit bull dog;
2. The birth of offspring of a registered pit bull dog;
3. The new address of a registered pit bull dog owner should the owner
move Within the corporate City limits.
(H) Sale or Transfer of Ownership Prohibited: No person shall sell , barter
or in any other way dispose of a pit bull dog registered with the City to
any person within the city unless the recipient person resides permanently
in the same household and on the same premises as the registered owner of
such dog; provided that the registered owner of a pit bull dog may sell or
otherwise dispose of a registered dog or the offspring of su-.h dog to per-
sons who do not reside within the City.
O Animals Born of Registered Dogs: All offspring born of pit buil docs
registered with the City must be removed from the City within six (o ) weeks
Of the birth of such an animal .
(v) Irrebuttable Presumptions : There shall be an irrebuttatle presu,m:ption
that any doo recistered with the City as a piL bull doc or any Of those
breeds pronibited by Se--tion 1 o7 this Article is in fa--t a dcc sut-je: _ to
the requirements of this Section.
(f:) 'allure to Compiv: it shall be unlawful for the owner, keeper or har-
borer of a pit buil dog registered with the City of Livingston to fail to
comply With the requirements and conditions set forth in this orcinan:-e.
Any dog found to be the subject of a violation of this ordinance shall be
subject to immediate seizure and impoundment. In addition, failure to
comply will result in the immediate removal of the animal from the City.
(L) Violations and Penalties: Any person violating or permitting the viola-
tion of any provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction in Municipal
Court be fined a sum not less not S250.00 and not more than 51,000.00. In
addition to the fine imposed the Court may sentence the defendant to impri-
sonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.
-4-
In addition, the Court shall order the registration of the subject pit bull
revoked and the dog removed from the City. Should the defendant refuse to
remove the dog from the City, the Municipal Court judge shall find the
defendant owner in contempt and order the immediate confiscation and
impoundment of the animal . Each day that a violation of this ordinance con-
tinues shall be deemed a separate offense. In addition to the foregoing
penalties, any person who violates this ordinance shall pay all expenses,
including shelter, food, handling, veterinary care and testimony necessi-
tated by the enforcement of this ordinance.
(M) Severability: If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordi-
nance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a deci-
sion of any court of competent jurisdiction such decision shall not affect '
the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
i
Introduced: March 3, 1987
Passed and Adopted: March 17, 1987
GUADALUPE GARCIA, Mayor i
of the City of Livincston i
I
ATTEST.
State of California ')
County of Merced )
City of Livingston )
I, hereby certify, that the f oreooing ordinance was duly introduced on the
3rd day of March, 1987, and was regularly passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Livingston on this 17th day of March, 1987, by the
following vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
WOODY CA%PINI, City Clerk
of the City of Livingston
-S-
y
b
- d4,i t'�'' ..P+,'3�tWs -"ft a'N-k`Ft #'Sx-}�33e»r:3o1grr73J' ^�+"'•»n..:ce't!:3kwr?.a';S.efr'!+.'F`�a. `;q
POTENTIAlLLY ®AN WRl1U5:=t1�G;
,fir r u'-,'�L` cchtta.�
;. ONTHE 1�REMl �Sca
POSTING OF THIS SIGN IS REQUIRED HYgRDINANCt=
�I, 'UtVAUTHORREDREMOVALOFTtSISSIGNISPRDHlBlTED
w t
Animal, Services Department Contra Diane Iwasa
4849 Imhoff Place
Costa Animal Services Director
Martinez, California 94553-4393 County
(415) 372-2995
651 Pinole Shores Drive
Pinole, California 94564-2632
(415) 235-7666
TO: Board of Suprvisors DATE: July 27, 1987
FROM: Diane Iwasa, Director SUBJECT: Enforcement of Pit Bull
Animal Services Department Regulations - City of Livingston,
California.
On July 27, 1987, I spoke to Gary Petty, Director of Public Works for the
City of Livingston. Mr. Petty advised me that Animal Control in Livingston is
under the Public Works Department and that they only have one Animal Control
Officer position. When asked about enforcement activities related to the "Pit
Bull Ordinance", Mr. Petty explained that the ordinance went into effect in
April , 1987, but that the Animal Control Officer did not have "citation powers
until last month" . He advised me that the Police Department had issued cita-
tions, but could not give me any specific numbers.
I then called Livingston Police Chief Earl Wearin. Chief Wearin stated
that they had issued three citations within the last month and that none of the
citations had been challenged as yet because they were still waiting for the
appearance dates.
Chief Wearin informed me that three Pit Bulls had been registered and they
had received 18 calls from owners to dispose of their dogs. Mr. Petty had stated
that they had originally estimated about 25 known Pit Bulls in Livingston, but
Chief Wearin felt the number was closer to 50. (The human population was esti-
mated at around 7,000. )
I inquired about enforcement procedures when there is a dispute on breed
identification and Chief Wearin stated that if they were unsure, they would
take the dog to a veterinarian for determination.
Chief Wearin indicated that the City Council was influenced by the fact
that the Federal Court of Appeals in Chester, Pennsylvania, "upheld a Pit Bull
Ordinance". He also informed me that when the matter went before the Council,
there was no one present in the audience to comment.
DI :ah
42-PB-Reg
Attachment
cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Files
First Steps Toward More natural habitat and life cycle and does not provide clear notice to the
Protection of Turtles - cause needless debilitation and mor- public of what behavior is con-
tality. Third, because of the sidered criminal,in violation of the
T,achemys scripta ekgans, better well-documented association of Fourteenth Amendment, and
known as the red-eared turtle, a salmonellosis with turtles, the because it is overbroad, in that it
popular fixture of many American United States;by exporting turtles, forbids activity protected by the
households until 1975, may win a is, in effect, exporting this disease. First and Fourteenth Amendments,
much-needed respite from the com- resulting in a chilling effect upon
mercial exploitation it has endured Hunter-Harassment Act plaintiffs exercise of freedom of ex-
at the hands of U.S.turtle farmers. Target of Suit pression.Ms.Dorman is represented
In April of 1986,the U.S.Fish and by Beck&Eldergill,a Manchester,
Wildlife Service announced its plans A suit supported by The HSUS Conn.,firm that has donated its ser-
to develop proposals for the United has been filed in the United States vices in this case.
States,a party to the Convention on District Court in Connecticut chal-
International Trade in Endangered le Dging the constitutionality of that _ MAM 52 V
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora state's "Hunter-Harassment Act." _7T0___P_M__ �
A federal court in Pennsylvania
(CITES),to amend Appendices I and This act makes it a criminal offense recently dismissed suit brought by
is
11 of that treaty,and requested com- to harass or interfere with another pit bull owners who sought to void
ments from the public. person who is engaged in the lawful an ordinance enacted u the Town-
In response,The HSUS submitted taking of wildlife or in the prepara- ship of Chester regulating the keep-
a petition to the FWS requesting tion thereof.The suit,which names ing of pit bull terriers. The or-
that the red-eared turtle be included several state law-enforcement ofn dinance required pit bull keepers to
in Appendix II(a listing of animals cials as defendants, seeks declara- buy licenses for fees ranging from
the continuing trade in which tory. relief._pronouncing -the. act $500 to$3000,post a 520,000 bond
should be st;ictly regula:,ed so as to _: unconstitutional;calls for an injunc- to cover injuries caused by their
avoid utilization incompatible with tion to prohibit future enforcement and
d keep their dogs securely
the species' survival), even though of the act; and-claims monetary confined dogs,
(and keep them leashed
the red-eared tiu-tle is not vet en- damages. and muzzled when not confined);
danger ed. Although, in 1975, the The plaintiff, Francelle Dorman, subjected any pit bull running loose
Food and Drug Administration lives on property bordering a state to police action; and provided for de-
banned the sale within the U.S. of forest containing marshland fre- struction or removal ii om the town-
all turtles with a carapace (shell) quented by a variety of waterfowl. ship of a dog attacking a person.
length of less than four inches, the Distressed by the sounds of gun The pit bull owners challenged
sale of larger iiutiles within the U.S. shots ringing day and night and by the ordinance on constitutional
and the mass export of turtles of any the sight of dead or injured birds be- rounds, asserting that it was
size remain unregulated The export ing dragged along the road border- discriminatory in applying only to
trade in red-eared turtles involves ing the marsh, Ms. Dorman ap- it bulls and not to any other breed
three to four million animals each proached and spoke with several of dog and,thus,violated herbplainbreed
year. hunters in the marsh in an attempt rights to equal protection.
The HSUS's petition,submitted in to convince them to abandon their In its discussion,the court alluded
September in support of the petition hunting plans. She spoke of the to evidence of pit bulls chasing
of the International Wildlife Coali- violence and cruelty of hunting and residents, hicluding police, and to
tion, catalogued the major reasons of the beauty of the waterfowl and testimony that pit bulls bite to kill
why the inclusion of the red-eared their right to live peacefully and without signal.The court concluded
turtle in this appendix is so impor- without harm. The hunters in-
that the township could reasonably
tant: first, U.S. turtle farmers take formed her that what she was doing determine that pit bulls were
an estimated 100,000 red-eared was unlawful and that she could get dangerous and that the Constitution
turtles from the wild each year to arrested for it. When Ms. Dorman does not require the township to
replace captive stock unable to sur- refused to leave the marsh,insisting regulate every dangerous kind of
vive the artificial living conditions upon her right of access to the animal at the same time in the
on turtle farms.This relentless tap- marsh and waterfowl, one of the same way.
ping of the wild populations has hunters summoned an officer, who
many conservationists concerned. arrested her for violating the
Second,the farming and marketing hunter-harassment act Law Notes are compiled by HSUS
3 methods utilized by the U.S. turtle Ms. Dorman's suit charges that' General Counsel Murdaugh Stuart
industry are inhumane, since they the Connecticut Iaw is unconstitu- Madden and Associate Counsel Roger
i
are not geared to the turtle's tional because it is so vague that it Kvdler.
36 The Humane Society News • Winter 1967
posing a 11SL vi up Jis„r.a.
- - _ '-
Contra Costa County
Animal Services Department
4849 Imhoff Place Diane Iwasa
Martinez , CA 94553 Animal Services Director
(415) 372-2995
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: July 24, 1987
FROM: Diane Iwasa, Director SUBJECT: Supplemental Budget - Pit Bull
Animal Services Dep ir ment Ordinance Enforcement.
At the request of the Internal Operations Committee, supplemental budget
data is being submitted regarding the enforcement of proposed changes in the
Animal Control Ordinance relative to the reaulation of Pit Bull type dogs.
These changes to the ordinance include the adoption of provisions similar to
those adopted by the City of Livingston.
Backaround:
The Animal Services Department is responsible for enforcing State and
County laws relative to the licensure, regulation, control , and care of animals
within the county. The department is responsible for providing these services
to 675,000 citizens within an area of approximately 750 square miles . These
services are provided on a 24-hour-per-day, 365-days-per-year basis. Last
year the department handled approximately 73,000 service calls. The depart-
ment has 22 Animal Control Officers to provide this service.
The proposed ordinance, if modeled after Livingston, would provide the
following:
a. that no new Pit Bulls may enter the county;
b. that Pit Bulls currently residing in the county must be
registered with the county;
c. that Pit Bulls are to be confined indoors or in locked pens;
d. that Pit Bulls must be leashed, muzzled and in control of the
owner when outside their pens;
e. that all Pit Bull owners must post "Beware of Dog" signs;
f. that all Pit Bull owners must maintain liability insurance in
the amount of $50,000;
g. that owners must provide to the county, color photographs of
the registered Pit Bulls; and
h. that all Pit Bull puppies be removed from the county within
six weeks of birth.
Enforcement:
The enforcement of the proposed ordinance would require that the Animal
Services Department take the following action:
Board of Supervisors 2 July 24, 1987
a. Contact all known Pit Bull owners and officially notify them of
the requirements.
b. Positively identify approximately 5,700 currently owned Pit Bulls
by matching photographs and physical descriptions of the dogs.
c. Inspect the property of all Pit Bull owners to enforce compliance
with the following:
1. registration
2. posting
3. restraint conditions
4. insurance requirements
d. Take enforcement actions against those not complying with the
ordinance inclusive of the following:
1. issuing citations
2. administrative appeals
3. court appearances
e. Respond to citizen complaints related to nonregistered Pit Bulls
and noncompliance with the ordinance.
f. Monitor Pit Bull births to insure that all new Pit Bulls are
removed from the county.
g. Design and provide appropriate "Be.vare of Pit Bull" signs.
h. Euthanize dogs that are illegally kept, harbored or imported into
the county.
i . Provide administrative time for appeal of a decision when the
department identifies a dog as a Pit Bull and the owner dis-
agrees.
Assumptions:
1. 5,500 Pit Bull type dogs.
2. An active enforcement effort that will be effective.
3. Three hours of field service times per dog per year.
4. One hour of clerical time per dog, per year.
5. One hour of administrative time per dog, per year.
6. Estimate of non-compliance 50%.
Salaries and Employee Benefits :
Eight Animal Control Officers @ $30,000 = $240,000
Three clerical employees @ $25,000 = 75,000
' One Animal Control Supervisor @ $40,000 = 40,000
355,000
A 4
Board of Supervisors 3 July 24, 1987
Services and Supplies :
Communications $ 5,000
Medical and Lab Supplies 1,000
Clothing and Personnel Supplies 3,000
Professional and Specializing Services 1,000
Data Processing Services 5,000
Feed 1,000
Other Special Department 's Expenses 8,000
24,000
Capital Items:
Eight Animal Control Vehicles $160,000
Total First Year Expenses: $539,000
Ongoing Expense: $370,000
Note: The above costs do not include attorney and court costs nor do
they include costs for any other department other than Animal Services.
MGR:mm
42-Supp.Budg
cc: Files
Contra Costa County
Animal Services Department
4849 Imhoff Place
Diane Iwasa
Martinez , CA 94553 Animal Services Director
(415) 372-2995
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: July 24, 1987
FROM: Diane Iwasa, Director SUBJECT: Supplemental Budget - Pit Bull
Animal Services Depar ment Ordinance Enforcement.
/e,
At the request of the Internal Operations Committee, supplemental budget
data is being submitted regarding the enforcement of proposed changes in the
Animal Control Ordinance relative to the reaulation of Pit Bull type dogs.
These changes to the ordinance include the adoption of provisions similar to
those adopted by the City of Livingston.
Backaround:
The Animal Services Department is responsible for enforcing State and
County laws relative to the licensure, regulation, control , and care of animals
within the county. The department is responsible for providing these services
to 675,000 citizens within an area of approximately 750 square miles. These
services are provided on a 24-hour-per-day, 365-days-per-year basis. Last
year the department handled approximately 73,000 service calls. The depart-
ment has 22 Animal Control Officers to provide this service.
The proposed ordinance, if modeled after Livingston, would provide the
following:
a. that no new Pit Bulls may enter the county;
b. that Pit Bulls currently residing in the county must be
registered with the county;
c. that Pit Bulls are to be confined indoors or in locked pens;
d. that Pit Bulls must be leashed, muzzled and in control of the
owner when outside their pens;
e. that all Pit Bull owners must post "Beware of Dog" signs;
f. that all Pit Bull owners must maintain liability insurance in
the amount of $50,000;
g. that owners must provide to the county, color photographs of
the registered Pit Bulls; and
h. that all Pit Bull puppies be removed from the county within
six weeks of birth.
Enforcement:
The enforcement of the proposed ordinance would require that the Animal
Services Department take the following action:
^ ^
. `
Board of Supervisors 2 July 24, 1987
a. Contact all known Pit Bull owners and Officially notify them of
the requirements.
b. Positively identify approximately 5,700 Currently owned Pit Bulls
by matching photographs and physical descriptions Of the dogs.
c, Inspect the property Of all Pit Bull owners to enforce compliance
with the following:
1. registration
2. posting
3. restraint conditions
4. insurance requirements
d. Take enforcement actions against those not complying with the
ordinance inclusive Of the following:
1. issuing citations
2^ administrative appeals
3. Court appearances
8. Respond to citizen complaints related to nonregistered Pit Bulls
and noncompliance with the ordinance.
f. Monitor Pit Bull births to insure that all new Pit Bulls are
removed from the county.
g. Design and provide appropriate "Beware of Pit Bull" signs.
h. EuthdniZe dogs that are illegally kept, harbored Or imported into
the county.
i . Provide administrative time for appeal Of a decision when the
department identifies d dog as a Pit Bull and the Owner dis-
agrees.
'
Assumptions:
1. 5,500 Pit 8VlT type dogs.
2. An active enforcement effort that will be effective.
3. Three hours Of field service times per dog per year.
4. One hour Of clerical time per dog, per year.
5. One hourof administrative time per dog, per year.
6. Estimate of non-compliance 50%.
Salaries and Employee Benefits :
Eight Animal Control Officers 0 $30,000 = $240»000
Three clerical employees @ $75,000 = 75*000
One Animal Control Supervisor @ $40,000 = 40 000
Board of Supervisors . 3 July 24, 1987
Services and Supplies :
Communications $ 5,000
Medical and Lab Supplies 1,000
Clothing and Personnel Supplies 3,000
Professional and Specializing Services 1,000
Data Processing Services 5,000
Feed 1,000
Other Special Department 's Expenses 8,000
$ 24,000
Capital Items:
Eight Animal Control Vehicles $160,000
Total First Year Expenses : $539,000
Ongoin ' Expense: $370,000
Note: The above costs do not include attorney and court costs nor do
they include costs for any other department other than Animal Services.
MGR:mm
42-Supp.Budg
cc: Files