Another battle lost!

Another battle lost with BSL because someone was worried about a dog across the street that had never caused any problems. If people spent more time worrying about their own mideeds and quit watching their neighbors. The world will be a far better place. It is a sad day in this world for many dogs. Poor Maggie never did anything wrong. Her owners should use the doggie DNA test in the blog two down from this one that doesn't have American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier in the list of breeds so she can come back as a Border collie and boston terrier too just like Dawn Capps CH AST.

=======
Date: Monday, June 16, 2008, 4:23 PM

1. American Pit Bull Terrier;

2. Staffordshire Bull Terrier;

3. American Staffordshire Terrier;

4. Chow Chow;

5. Doberman Pinscher;

6. Rottweiler;

7. American Bandagge (sp?) Mastiff;

8. Neapolitan Mastiff;

9. Any mix thereof.

Pit-bull ban wins unanimous approval

By Eric Freeman efreeman@columbuste legram.com

Monday, Jun 16, 2008 - 12:27:16 pm CDT

OSCEOLA -- The Osceola City Council unanimously passed its proposed ban on the American Pit Bull and seven other dog breeds designated as vicious dogs at its regular meeting last week.

The change in the city's dangerous dog/vicious dog ordinance came following the third official readings of the proposed ordinance.

The issue came to the attention of the council in March when Kent and Renee Johansen, neighbors across the street from Willie Dotson-Monroe, made an unofficial complaint at the city clerk's office regarding Dotson-Monroe's dog Maggie.

The Johansens are concerned about the safety of their three young children living in such close proximity to the pit bull. "I know that specific dog has not done anything yet," Renee Johansen said in a phone interview in May following the second reading of the ordinance.

In an e-mail statement in May the Johansens wrote: "In the past we have had a neighbor's vicious dog come onto our property and terrorize our three children and two of their friends while playing in out front yard. "We, as a community should not have to fear for our lives or fear being mauled by a vicious dog when outside doing yard work, playing outside or walking or biking down the street."

When asked to clarify their statement at that time, Kent Johansen acknowledged that the dog referred to in his e-mail is not the pit bull terrier owned by Dotson-Monroe. He said the dog
referred to was a different breed.

Repeated phone calls to the Johansens following the passage of the breed ban were not returned to the Telegram in time for publication of this story.

Dotson-Monroe is the owner of Maggie, the only dog currently living within the city limits that is presumed to be on the list of banned breeds.

Osceola's Animal Control Officer, Diana Kelly reported in May there had been no official complaints filed against Dotson-Monroe's dog.

"We've never received a complaint about dog at large, barking or anything else on this dog," Kelly said.

Dotson-Monroe had previously complied with every aspect of the city's dangerous dog ordinance in an effort to satisfy the requirements then in effect with regard to securing his animal.

While still under the old ordinance Dotson-Monroe had purchased $100,000 worth of liability insurance, a sake and chain, leash, muzzle that complied with the ordinance then in effect. He had also installed an approved kennel and secured a permit for fencing to further enclose the kennel so that Maggie would never be outside the fence when moving from the house to the
kennel.

"Tuesday night at the meeting the council told me about an change in the ordinance that was made that day that requires me to have my dog DNA tested now," Dotson-Monroe said. "They told me that they didn't know where I would have to go to do that, but that it will probably cost $160. I found a DNA test from the American Dog Breed Association on the Internet that only costs $52."

Dotson-Monroe said he was told that once the ordinance has been filed, he'll be served with a notice that requires him to respond within 10 days showing he was in the process of having
the test done.

He said that at the meeting he requested reimbursement for the expenses he incurred to comply with the previous ordinance.

"The city attorney told the council they should reimburse me, but the council said no," said Dotson-Monroe. "He (the city attorney) said he'd try to get them to agree. My costs so far
are about $1,000." 

Osceola Mayor, Wendell Lindsley, a dog owner himself, responded to questions about the meeting.

"The passage of the new ordinance was unanimous," Lindsley said. "The truth is, the ordinance is what it is. I'm a dog owner and I personally feel really bad about the fact that this occurred
when there was only one dog in town that is on the list of vicious dogs. Had this been a situation where there were none or 20 of these animals in town it would have been a whole different situation.

"It's not our intent at all to appear to be singling out one person and their dog; in fact, as a council we've had discussions about this before the Johansens raised their concerns."

Lindsley said when members of the council receive a complaint or concern from any citizen in town, they have to look into the matter and address those concerns.

"If the cat and dog owners in town would just be good citizens it would go a long way to alleviate the problems we have with animals in Osceola," Lindsley said. "The truth in this
situation, is that Willie is a good citizen and a responsible dog owner. He did everything we asked of him, but it's just that his dog is a breed that is on the vicious dog list covered by the ordinance."

Just prior to the vote the council went into executive session for the purpose of discussing the threat of possible litigation.

"Going into executive session had nothing to do with the vote or the amendment of the proposed ordinance," said Osceola City Attorney, Brian Beckner. "We announced before the session and after that it had been for the purpose of discussing the threat of litigation. I can't make any further comment on that issue at this time."

Beckner said the proposed amendment regarding the DNA requirement was added Tuesday just prior to the meeting and was discussed during the meeting.

"The DNA component of the ordinance is an optional tool that can be used by the veterinarian in determining the predominate breed of a dog that is subject to the ordinance," Beckner said. "The reason this section was not included previously is that we just found out about it that day."

At a glance

Osceola City Attorney Brian Beckner said the city's breed ban ordinance is effective immediately upon publication in the newspaper of record in Polk county.

At that time the city's animal control officer will submit an affidavit to the police department who will in turn serve notice to the owner of any dog listed as a vicious dog in the ordinance. The next steps in the process are detailed below.

Once notice is received the dog owner will have 10 days to inform thepolice department in writing whether they believe their dog falls under the provisions of the ordinance. 

If the owner fails to respond within the 10 day period the dog will be presumed to be a vicious dog as defined and the owner will be cited.

If the owner claims the dog does not fall under the provisions of the ordinance they will be ordered to bring the dog to a veterinarian who has the option to draw blood for the DNA test.

If the veterinarian determines the dog to be a vicious dog, the owner will be cited, ordered to pay for the cost of veterinarian services and any DNA test performed.

The police department will issue a 48 hour notice to remove the dog from the city limits. If the owner fails to remove the dog, the police department will impound the dog until trial on the citation is held. If the owner, convicted of the ordinance, continues to keep the animal in the city limits they will be subject to charges of contempt of court.

Each day the dog is kept within the city limits will be deemed a separate offense.

http://www.columbus telegram. com/articles/ 2008/06/16/news/local/ doc4856a0a7ef
4e7813329938. txt

Ban at a glance

Osceola City Attorney Brian Beckner said the city's breed ban ordinance is effective immediately upon publication in the newspaper of record in Polk county.

At that time the city's animal control officer will submit an affidavit to the police department who will in turn serve notice to the owner of any dog listed as a vicious dog in the ordinance. The next steps in the process are detailed below.

-- Once notice is received the dog owner will have 10 days to inform the police department in writing whether they believe their dog falls under the provisions of the ordinance.

-- If the owner fails to respond within the 10 day period the dog will be presumed to be a vicious dog as defined and the owner will be cited.

-- If the owner claims the dog does not fall under the provisions of the ordinance they will be ordered to bring the dog to a veterinarian who has the option to draw blood for the DNA test.

-- If the veterinarian determines the dog to be a vicious dog, the owner will be cited, ordered to pay for the cost of veterinarian services and any DNA test performed.

-- The police department will issue a 48 hour notice to remove the dog from the city limits.

-- If the owner fails to remove the dog, the police department will impound the dog until trial on the citation is held.

-- If the owner, convicted of the ordinance, continues to keep the animal in the city limits they will be subject to charges of contempt of court.

-- Each day the dog is kept within the city limits will be deemed a separate offense.