Ordinance Change

[Joan Shannon]

Wanted to let you all know that the Ordinance Committee is taking up the change to the dog ordinance that removes the language stating that a "Park Keeper" etc. can kill off-leash dogs in the parks, and replaces it with language that says an at-large dog that poses a public safety risk may be killed by the police.  The proposal is attached as well as our agenda for next Tuesday.  The issue about the dog parks has not yet been referred back to us by the Parks Commission, so that is not on our agenda.

Joan

[Lea Terhune]

Joan, whatever happened to this initiative? Lea

[Joan Shannon]

The Council adopted the attached which is now in place.

[Lea Terhune]

Thanks, Joan. The (c) Exemptions section puzzles me. It seems to say that a dog on the owners property is an at-large dog and police can kill it if.... Did I read that right?  Lea

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Joan Shannon <jsha...@burlingtontelecom.net> wrote:

The Council adopted the attached which is now in place.

[Joan Shannon]

I believe that is correct.  If my dog were "at-large" meaning unleashed and not fenced, and it was attacking someone on my property (perhaps me or another family member) and it could not be stopped by other means, the police could kill it.  Though perhaps it could be argued that attacking its own family is not a "public" safety risk, but I think that would be a stretch.  

However, they certainly couldn't kill it merely for being at-large either on my property or in the park.  It needs to pose a public safety risk and be unstoppable by other means.

Please keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer, just doing my best to speak to the intent of what we passed.

Joan

[Lea Terhune]

This makes good sense. Thanks!  

No incident brought this on. It was a question that came up at NPA.

. 

[Phil LaVigne]

I agree sounds good..........