Council defers pit bull amendments until 2009
By Lynn Zerschling, Journal staff writer | Posted: Tuesday, September 23, 2008
SIOUX CITY -- City lawmakers, apparently fed up with ongoing discussions on controlling pit bulls, said Monday night they won't consider amendments to their recently passed pit bull ban until after the first of the year.
"This council has remarkably difficult issues in front of it," Councilman Jim Rixner said. "I'm not going to spend the next six or seven weeks talking about something we've talked about the last eight or nine."
Rixner proposed amendments to the pit bull ordinance the council unanimously adopted last week. He announced last Monday he intended to offer amendments to protect the public from pit bulls that remain in the city. Those proposals included requiring owners to keep their pit bull in an enclosed area, placing a muzzle on the pit bull when outside, leash requirements and microchipping the animal.
"It's going to take several years for the ban to take effect in Sioux City," Rixner said referring to the point where all licensed pit bulls have died. "I want to decrease the number of bites."
The ordinance allows people who own pit bulls now to keep them if they register them with the clerk's office in the next six months. They won't be able to replace the dog when it dies with another pit bull. If Animal Control picks up a stray pit bull, the owner can get the dog back if it has been registered.
As in all previous meetings on the subject, a number of pit bull owners protested the ban.
"It should be an all-dog issue, not just pit bulls," Amanda Gardner told the council. "My dog hasn't done nothing to nobody."
Rixner replied, "The verdict is in. Pit bulls are more dangerous than most other dogs."
Gardner disputed his statement.
Terry Mann said she believed people who abuse their pit bulls and other animals should be prosecuted and their names published in the newspaper.
Angela Tague offered an amendment, noting she had worked with City Attorney Andrew Mai to draft the correct language. She proposed that pit bull owners who take their dogs to a certified dog training school and file the papers with the clerk's office would be allowed to replace that dog with another pit bull when the original animal died.
Hobart said, "I would like to be able to allow responsible pit bull owners to keep their dogs and have other ones. I haven't completely ruled that out."
His remarks prompted Rixner to point out that all five councilmen voted for the ban last week, telling the audience, "I think it's wrong to give you the expectation we are going to change this law."
"This council has remarkably difficult issues in front of it," Councilman Jim Rixner said. "I'm not going to spend the next six or seven weeks talking about something we've talked about the last eight or nine."
Rixner proposed amendments to the pit bull ordinance the council unanimously adopted last week. He announced last Monday he intended to offer amendments to protect the public from pit bulls that remain in the city. Those proposals included requiring owners to keep their pit bull in an enclosed area, placing a muzzle on the pit bull when outside, leash requirements and microchipping the animal.
"It's going to take several years for the ban to take effect in Sioux City," Rixner said referring to the point where all licensed pit bulls have died. "I want to decrease the number of bites."
The ordinance allows people who own pit bulls now to keep them if they register them with the clerk's office in the next six months. They won't be able to replace the dog when it dies with another pit bull. If Animal Control picks up a stray pit bull, the owner can get the dog back if it has been registered.
As in all previous meetings on the subject, a number of pit bull owners protested the ban.
"It should be an all-dog issue, not just pit bulls," Amanda Gardner told the council. "My dog hasn't done nothing to nobody."
Rixner replied, "The verdict is in. Pit bulls are more dangerous than most other dogs."
Gardner disputed his statement.
Terry Mann said she believed people who abuse their pit bulls and other animals should be prosecuted and their names published in the newspaper.
Angela Tague offered an amendment, noting she had worked with City Attorney Andrew Mai to draft the correct language. She proposed that pit bull owners who take their dogs to a certified dog training school and file the papers with the clerk's office would be allowed to replace that dog with another pit bull when the original animal died.
Hobart said, "I would like to be able to allow responsible pit bull owners to keep their dogs and have other ones. I haven't completely ruled that out."
His remarks prompted Rixner to point out that all five councilmen voted for the ban last week, telling the audience, "I think it's wrong to give you the expectation we are going to change this law."
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 11 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
Tim H wrote on Sep 24, 2008 10:39 AM:
The city has every right, and the responsibility to protect its citizens.
Also, you can't sue the city for a dog bite. You can't even sue the city if you lose control of your vehicle on an icy city street and hit something or someone so why would you think you could ever sue the city for something like this. Well, I stand corrected, you can sue the city but it will get tossed out of court.
Even if you could sue the city why would you? Its not a city owned dog that bit you, sue the owner of the dog if you must.
Seems like you're trying to argue that if you can't have a pit-bull as a pet then no one should get to have any dog as a pet. Is that what you're trying to say?
Good luck with that! "
Oh my god wrote on Sep 23, 2008 5:08 PM:
TimH 2 wrote on Sep 23, 2008 1:44 PM:
So, dont blame the city for this ban, blame the IGNORANT Pit-Bull owners! "
TimH 1 wrote on Sep 23, 2008 1:43 PM:
Ive never taken the time to look at Sioux City's animal ordinances but I would guess that a citys animal ordinance starts out banning ALL animals (because it would be impossible to list all of them) and then make exceptions to the BAN ALL ordinance for acceptable animals such as allowing house cats and dogs and such to be kept within city limits. Safety and sanitation are the two main reasons for a city to ban animals. You wouldnt want a neighbor next door keeping pet tigers, lions or maybe livestock out back such as cattle or pigs, or poisonous snakes, or bears, etc. etc., would you? "
poor Iowa wrote on Sep 23, 2008 11:35 AM:
it and enforce it. Jumping back and forth on this does not give the citizens any confidence in you. "