The Safety Committee has approved a proposal in Watertown WI that would target the owners of dogs deemed to be pit bulls.
The issue has been under discussion for some time and, in spite of opposition from residents and locals, officials are moving forward with the proposal. The proposal now moves to Common Council to be voted on. There are two votes, the first of which is on Tuesday.
The ordinance targets the “American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or any dog displaying a majority of physical traits of one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club (AKC) or the United Kennel Club (UKC) for any of the above breeds. The AKC and UKC standards for the above breeds shall be maintained on file by the Municipal Court Clerk and updated annually.” These dogs will carry a High Risk Dog designation under the proposed ordinance.
The fact that they are using the AKC and UKC standards means that, as usual, the dogs being targeted will be identified visually. It is important for us to note that every kennel club has openly stated that any use of their standards to implement or enforce a breed discriminatory law is a direct violation of their copyright and a misuse of the standards.
Visual identification is notoriously unreliable. Multiple studies have been done with people who work in animal fields and not only are visual results far from DNA results, professionals cannot even agree with each other as to what the primary breed of a dog may be.
There is no clarification in the ordinance as to what “substantially conforms” or “majority of physical traits” means in a practical sense. This unquantifiable language is not unusual and leaves the determination as to what is “pit bull enough” completely open to the discretion of the person making the assessment.
Though the ordinance goes into great length to describe the appeals process for people whose dogs are determined to be dangerous or vicious by behavior, there is no outlining appeal of a High Risk Dog designation. This lack of information could qualify as a due process violation.
Owners of a dog with a High Risk designation must follow a long list of requirements. Targeted dogs must be on a leash of 4 feet when not at home, no tethering unless a person 16 years or older is present, if the dog is not inside the home it must be confined to a kennel that has a secure top and bottom, or be buried to a depth of 2 feet, as well as complying with zoning regulations, in home restrictions, warning signs, spay/neuter, with no medical exemption, or exemption for registered show dogs, special registration and a $100,000 liability insurance policy and an owner of a high risk dog is not allowed to own any more than one other dog, or own a High Risk Dog in a unit that houses 3 or more families.
An interesting part of the ordinance is the confinement requirements for inside the home. The ordinance states that, “No “high risk dog” or “vicious dog” may be kept in a house, building or other structure when the windows are open or when screen windows or screen doors fail to prevent such dog from exiting the house, building or other structure.” The language of this portion suggests that it would be illegal for an owner of a “high risk dog” to open their windows on a nice day.
Another part that is troublesome is the multi-family dwelling portion. This prohibits a High Risk Dog from living in a place that is a “triplex or larger.” There is no grandfather clause that would allow people who have a high risk dog to keep their dogs if they live in a restricted property.
A grandfather clause is supposedly in the process of being drafted but, according to officials, it would be for a limited time period. This means that a person with a High Risk Dog that has more than one other dog must re-home the “extra dog” or a person in a multi-family dwelling must re-home their dog or move in a certain period of time. The hardship that this places on people is being met with a callousness that is a bit surprising.
Watertown’s full proposed ordinance can be viewed here.
The ordinance goes to the first Common Council vote on Tuesday, August 20th.
It is absolutely imperative that people show up to oppose this ordinance. There was some behind the scenes chatter that the breed based language would be stricken but that has not proven to be the case. A strong in person showing is needed to speak out against this.
Residents and locals: If at all possible, please attend the meeting. It begins at 7PM. Please try to be there early.
If you cannot attend the meeting, please take moment to reach out the Common Council and factually and respectfully ask them to oppose this breed discriminatory proposals.
E-mail addresses for the Aldermen are below, or you can find their phone numbers on the cities website:
Emily McFarland: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 920.988.5874 (this member is not on the website because she is a new member.)
Fred Smith: email@example.com
Ken Berg: firstname.lastname@example.org
Steve Zgnoc: email@example.com
John Coughlin: firstname.lastname@example.org
Augie Tietz: email@example.com
Robert Stocks: firstname.lastname@example.org
James Romlein: jwr@R545.us
They will figure out on a while it does not change things
Sent from my iPhone
What a shame. I suppose minorities, religious groups, handicap individuals, seniors, scofflaws, rebels etc …. will eventually have similar restrictions imposed upon their presence in the community as any member of society (animal & human alike) have the potential to do damage & can be dangerous to “someone” the community. Be careful what you ask for …… Those same officials could fall out of favor & their “rights” could be in jeopardy too.
People like to make laws complicated.
Just ban the owners of a dangerous dog from having any dogs. When a dog bites or harms, the owners failed not just once but twice. They failed to teach their dog not to bite and they also failed to restrain a dangerous dog from having an opportunity to bite. The words are train and restrain. We need to train our dogs to be social and restrain it until it does by whatever means is necessary.
If a dog (or any pet) causes harm, don’t kill the pet. Take it away from the owner and give it to someone who will properly care for it. Also, ban the pet owner from having any pet of that species for ten years.
This kind of… ban …will stop all dog bites. It will force people who don’t care about their pets to give them up and it will encourage everyone who does care about their pet to do whatever is necessary to properly care for their pet and safeguard the general public’s health.
It will also encourage people to report dog bites. The present system which blames the dog for misbehaving and kills it discourages people from reporting a minor bite because the victim doesn’t want the dog to be put down. Then, the dog is allowed to escalate to a more aggressive attack which can do much more serious harm.
This is far more effective in curbing dog bites and at the same time it is far more humane to the animals. It also gives pet owners a simpler, clearer understanding of their responsibility.
If the use of the AKC and UKC standard to enforce this proposed legislation is really a copyright infringement, then perhaps everyone reading this article should notify the legal department of these clubs and make them aware of it. I have forwarded the pdf that was linked to on this page to each of them, but one lone email is easily overlooked.
A strategy meeting will be held at Western Waukesha County DTC in Ixonia, WI at 12:30 tomorrow afternoon. If you’re a resident of Watertown and can attend the council meeting on Tuesday, July 20th, please try and attend the strategy meeting tomorrow.
It seems like what the people want doesn’t make any difference….they need to be removed from office!!!!!
if Servants do not wish Serve FIRE THEM,Vote them out
It’s sad that some of these elected officials, especially Fred Smith, are not listening to their constituants. There as such a good group attending this meeting. Overwhelmingly not in favor of a BSL Ban. However Fred Smith didn’t listen to a word they said, he is the most close minded, calous individual I have ever run into. I hope the people in his district are paying close attention to hi total disregard of their feelings and wishes.
Pingback: Watertown WI passes first reading of breed discriminatory ordinance | Stop BSL
Pingback: Watertown WI breed discriminatory law fails | Stop BSL