L.A. Putting Teeth Into Controls on Bad Dogs, Owners

Two ordinances to put more bite in the city’s ability to control vicious and barking dogs were tentatively approved Tuesday by the Los Angeles City Council.

Each year, the city receives 8,000 complaints about dog bites and 5,000 complaints about barking dogs. But it was an especially vicious attack in the San Fernando Valley two years ago that prompted the late Councilman Howard Finn to propose a tougher ordinance governing vicious dogs.

Finn made the proposal after a pit bull mauled two small children in Sylmar, which was part of his district. A 2-year-old boy received wounds requiring 28 stitches on his head and neck in the October, 1985, attack. His 3-year-old sister required surgery for face wounds. The dog was destroyed at the owner’s request.

Death Too Severe?

Currently, the city’s only recourse for dealing with a dog that has attacked someone is to get a court order to destroy the dog. That procedure rarely has been used because it is long and costly, and “putting a dog to death is not the way to handle most dog problems,” said Robert Rush, general manager of the city Department of Animal Regulation.

Also, the city now has no power to impound an “obviously vicious dog when that dog is confined on the property of its owner after it has bitten,” William Putney, a member of the Animal Regulation Commission, told the council.

The measure, approved 11 to 0 Tuesday, empowers the Department of Animal Regulation to immediately impound a dog that has attacked someone. It also allows the department to hold a hearing to determine whether the animal should be destroyed immediately, or whether conditions should be imposed on pet owners--such as posting warning signs on their property or putting the dog through obedience school. The decision on whether to destroy a dog would be based on a number of factors, such as whether the attack was provoked and the dog’s history of attacks, Rush said.

If an owner refuses to cooperate, the owner will have to move the dog out of the city or put it up for adoption. If the city cannot find a new owner for the dog within 45 days, the animal can be destroyed.

Jail Term Possible

Recalcitrant owners also could be prohibited for up to three years from having another dog in the city, and they would be subject to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.

Owners could appeal the department’s action to a citizen-run appeals board. The council, however, would hear cases until voters could approve a charter amendment authorizing the commission to handle appeals, said Deputy City Atty. Michael L. Klekner.

Similar procedures would be used for barking dogs.

Besides imposing conditions on owners accused of having dogs that bark excessively, the department could impose civil penalties of up to $250. A dog owner could not be forced to move his dog out of the city or give it up for adoption until he is called to a department hearing at least three times.

The city attorney can now prosecute the owner of a barking dog for violating the city’s noise ordinance.

No Bad Dogs

At a hearing in April, representatives of animal rights group had protested that the ordinances would wrongly punish dogs instead of “irresponsible owners.”

“The cliche that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, just is not true,” Putney, a veterinarian, told the council Tuesday.

“There are incorrigible animals, just as there are incorrigible people,” Putney said. “And society needs a method to protect itself from them.”

Much of the opposition to the ordinances was withdrawn after the Department of Animal Regulation abandoned a proposal to increase the penalties for dog owners who let their animals run loose. There is a $46 fine for violating the city leash law.

The ordinances must return to the council for another vote and be approved by Mayor Tom Bradley before becoming final.