‘Close call’ raises questions about pit bulls

   A frightening event, but fortunately only a “close call” encounter with three pit bulls resulted in one man being treated for a bite at Bunkie General and a young boy sustaining only minor scratches and abrasions from being hemmed in against a door by the dogs.

   Bunkie City Council members listened intently to Kenny Hazelton’s tale of a situation that could easily have turned tragic.

   He said a neighbor boy cut across a yard “and I heard him yelling.”

   He quickly scaled the fence and got between the boy and the dogs, sustaining  a “glancing blow” bite from one of the dogs before they broke off the attack.

   Hazelton, waving a copy of the city’s “vicious dog” ordinance, said more attention has to be paid to enforcing the provisions of the ordinance.

   “I weigh 265 pounds and I jumped a four-foot fence for that boy,” Hazelton said. “I’m just saying, a dog can do that, too.”

   Mayor Pro-Tem Greg Prudhomme -- chairing the Aug. 13 meeting in Mayor Mike Robertson’s absence -- said the council “commends you for what you did for that child.”

   Prudhomme said the city has picked up dogs for violating the leash law and the vicious dog ordinances, “but I agree with you. The problem is in enforcement.”

 

   Hazelton said one problem with these potentially dangerous situations involving pit bulls and other “fighting” breeds is that the dog owners may not be aware of the ordinance and the restrictions it has for these types of dogs.

   The “vicious dog” ordinance spells out what must be done once a dog has been declared “vicious.” That usually occurs after the dog has demonstrated an aggressive behavior.

   However, one section is entitled, “Pit bull and Rottweiler dogs presumed vicious.” The one-sentence provision states, “There shall be an irrefutable presumption that any dog registered with the animal control officer as a pit bull or Rottweiler dog is a vicious dog and is therefore subject to the requirements of this subchapter.”

   An obvious problem with enforcing the ordinance is people not registering their animals with the city and city officials not being able to identify where the potentially vicious animals live.

   A key element of the ordinance is a requirement that the owner of a vicious dog not allow the animal out of its “kennel, pen or other proper enclosure unless such dog is securely attached to a leash not more than four feet in length.” In addition, it requires that a pereson “capable of controlling the dog is in physical control of the leash.”

   Hazelton pointed out that the dogs in question were inside a fenced yard, but the ordinance requires an enclosed pen or kennel for such animals to protect against just the sort of situation he witnessed.

 

   Other restrictions and requirements for vicious dogs include a mandatory muzzle whenever it is outside of its pen/enclosure and to be confined indoors or in a locked pen/enclosure unless properly leashed and muzzled.

   Outdoor enclosures must have four walls and a covered top or, if uncovered, the four walls must be eight feet tall.

   Owners must post warning signs, such as “Beware of Dog,” that can be easily read by someone approaching the property.

   Prior to being issued a permit to own a “vicious dog,” the ordinance states, the owner must  provide proof of liability insurance or a surety bond of at least $250,000 to cover any damage or injury that may be caused by the dog. 

   The city is also to be notified immediately by the insurance agent if the dog owner’s insurance is cancelled or expires. If the dog owner can prove that insurance is not available, he can pay the city $1,000.

   A “sins of the father” provision states that “all offspring born of vicious dogs registered with the animal control officer also must be registered with the department within six weeks of birth.”

   Vicious dogs must wear a “scarlet letter” -- a red circular tag that must be worn at all times and is clearly visible that identifies the animal as vicious.

    The city fee for a vicious dog permit is $50.

    Anyone found violating the ordinance can be fined $500 to $1,000 and/or sentenced to serve 60 days in jail. 

    The kicker to the penalty is that each day the dog owner is in violation of the ordinance counts as a separate offense.

    Council members discussed the issue and agreed that better enforcement is needed and that city employees will be more vigilant in spotting and reporting animals that may be in violation of the law.

    The Bunkie ordinance is not a “breed-specific ban,” such as the one that stirred up controversy in Moreauville. However, its “presumed vicious” and “vicious offspring” sections dance on the outskirts of “breed specific legislation,” -- also called “breedism” by pit bull advocates.