Irresponsible Duncanville pet owners: this ordinance is for you

by Brian Allen of TODAY Newspapers

After numerous workshops and public forums to get input on the dog issue, the Duncanville City Council unanimously approved changes to its animal control ordinance Sept. 18.

City Manager Kent Cagle said the changes bring city law into consistency with state law. The newly adopted Sec. 4-10 of the animal ordinance provides legal definitions for dangerous dogs, serious bodily injury and secure enclosure.

There is also a new section providing for the seizure of an animal that has caused harm to a person. The city's previous regulation allowed two or more unprovoked attacks or bites on persons or animals for a dog to earn a “vicious animal” declaration.

Section 4-18 of city ordinance establishes the requirements for a vicious animal owner. The owner must register that animal with the city and restrain it at all times on a leash in a secure enclosure or under a person's control. They must also obtain liability insurance or show financial responsibility of at least $100,000.

The owner will be required to post a conspicuous notice of a dangerous animal on the premises, and the city can seize and humanely destroy the animal if the owner does not meet the requirements.

The new measures also change the requirements for rabies vaccinations. The old ordinance required dogs and cats to be vaccinated at four months of age, and then again at one year of age. The change adopted Sept. 18 changes the second requirement to once every three years.

The overall message of councilmembers that spoke was that these changes were more evolution than revolution. Though earning a rare unanimous vote from the council, praise for the final ordinance was tepid even from the man who initiated it.

District 3 Councilman Paul Ford, who brought the issue before the council due to numerous complaints he received, stated his opinion that this ordinance didn't do enough.

He did call it an “incremental step in the right direction.”

At-Large Councilmember Dorothy Burton asked City Attorney Bob Hager if there was anything “new, wild or wonderful” about these changes.

She was unimpressed with the final product, noting that after much debate the council was merely coming into compliance with existing state law. Burton said that with the new changes the chickens, or in this case dogs, were coming home to roost.

District 2 Councilman Scott Cannon said he had gained a lot of knowledge on the dangerous dog issue during those debates. He acknowledged the changes didn't use all the ideas city staff had received, but said he supported the ordinance.

“The most important thing I learned is the difference between responsible and irresponsible dog owners,” he said. “And this ordinance is designed to come against the irresponsible dog owner.”