Council Minutes 9/12/2006 (190)
I
I
I
Book 7-221
June 15, 1989
CITY OF AMMON
June 15, 1989
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council:
The meeting was called to order
lowing City Officials present:
Mayor C. Bruce Ard
Councilman Michael B. Browning
Councilman Greg J. Maeser
City Clerk Aleen C. Jensen
at 7:35 P.M. by Mayor C. Bruce Ard with the fol-
Engineer David E. Benton
Public Works Director Tye N. Tomchak
Planning & Zoning Rep. James Southwick
Animal Control Officer Julie Ferguson
Others present were:
Richard Butler, 2670 Salmon Street, Ammon
Elsie Terrell, 2940 South Ammon Road, Ammon
Ronald W. and Arlene Labrum, 2295 Dove Drive, Ammon
James D. Walker, 1935 Bittern Drive, Ammon
Jerry Mitchell, 3751 Marlene, Ammon
Larry Eslinger and LaJauna Eslinger, 2300 Dove Drive, Ammon
Harry and Mary Edwards, 400 East 19th Street, Idaho Falls
Erik McKenzie
Melvin Rosen, 2985 Meadow Lane, Ammon
Henry Crumb, 2270 Curlew Drive, Ammon
Tracey Edwards, 891 Buckboard Lane, Idaho Falls
Marilynne Manguba, 4031 West 17th Street, Idaho Falls
LaRall Kent, 590 Ruth Avenue, Idaho Falls (Building on Sabin Drive)
Joe Groberg, G.H.G. Investments, 1605 South Woodruff, Idaho Falls
Steven Ring, 2990 South Ammon Road, Ammon
Diane Simon, 3035 Teton Street, Ammon
Jamie Voigt
Absent:
Councilman Monty A. Nethercott, Councilman Robert D. Williamson and
Attorney W. Joe Anderson
No official business was conducted because of lack of quorum, but those present
were given the opportunity to express their views and concerns.
Melvin Rosen, 2985 Meadow Lane, reported that H-K Construction had
on the Meadow Lane paving project. No problems are anticipated.
upon completion. This includes the City's portion of the costs.
connnenced work
Payment is due
James Southwick discussed the activities of the Planning and Zoning Connnission
at their June meeting. Steven Fuhriman, 1810 Avocet Drive met with the Connnission
to obtain information about enlarging his garage for additional parking and
storage. The guidelines were reviewed for Mr. Fuhriman. Katie Gay desires to
develop residential property at 3835 Sunnyside for a quilting business, but she
was advised such a venture would not be allowed under the present zoning. The
Council was encouraged to complete action on the revisions to the corner lot
ordinance. Arlene Labrum asked about fence requirements for corner lots, and she
objected to the restrictions outline. Mayor Ard explained that the restrictions
were to protect the citizens and provide a clear view of intersecting streets and
ways.
LaRall Kent asked for clarification of the zoning requirements regarding the
construction of his house and shop at 1790 Sabin Drive. A question has been
raised about whether or not there can be a connnercial access on Sabin Drive.
James Southwick connnented that the Planning and Zoning Connnission has been
attempting to place accesses and egresses on secondary streets rather than major
arteries such as East 17th Street. Mr. Kent's construction meets the legal
requirements of the City ordinances.
The Council considered the proposed Ordinance No. 209 which amends the existing
dog ordinance concerning vicious dogs, and a number of interested persons voiced
their opinions. Larry and LaJauna Eslinger, 2300 Dove Drive, expressed their
belief that the amendments proposed are unfair and unjust, and they objected to
the specific targeting of the breed pit bull dog. Material was provided to the
Mayor and City Council by the American Kennel Association, and careful considera-
tion should be given before passing Ordinance No. 209. Councilman Maeser reviewed
the Council's purpose in proposing the amendments. Ronald and Arlene Labrum, 2295
Dove Drive, objected to classifying pit bulls as vicious, and they questioned the
action of the City in disposing of their pit bull dog. Erik McKenzie defended
pit bulls and stated you can't hunt out the breed as vicious, but you need to hunt
out the vicious animal. Eslinger requested clarification of the proposed section
6-3-1 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER. Richard Butler stated that people believe this
ordinance will make it possible for them to shoot a dog, they call every dog a
pit bull, and the matter needs more research before it is adopted. Tracey Edwards
represented the Bonneville Humane Society, and she stated they are against breed
222
June 15, 1989
specific legislation, however, they are for v~c~ous dog legislation. Erik
McKenzie brought out that a dog needs to be trained to be vicious--a cared for
dog is not vicious. Jerry Mitchell, former Mayor of Ammon, defended the City's
action in destroying Labrum's v~c~ous pit bull dog. Eslinger asked for
clarification of the proposed section 6-3-23 CITATION AND APPEARANCE and section
6-3-28 PIT BULL DOGS: KEEPING PROHIBITED. James D. Walker stated there is a
definite need for a stronger ordinance concerning vicious dogs. Henry S. Crumb
discussed care of dogs and referred to incidents he had observed regarding
Labrum's treatment of dogs. Councilman Browning moved to close the hearing and
to continue it when the Attorney and a quorum of the Council are present.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
~
ATTEST
dL<,~~ (!.,Q~J
CITY CLERK v
I
I
I
June 30, 19B9
To whom it may concern:
It has come to our attention that Ammon, Idaho seeKs to ban "Pit Bulls" and similar types.
UnliKe the past, there is apprehension and fear. Once there was pride for this dog known
as the American (Pit) Bull Terrier, the YanKee Terrier, and now ARC registered as the
American Staffordshire Terrier. Its profile graced the RCA Victor and Buster Brown logos,
and it was pictured on U.S. bond posters. The breed was also featured in "Little Rascals"
of the 1930's with "Petet" the first ARC registered American Staffordshire Terrier.
What happened? Why has society turned against this once admired dog? True Pit Bulls
were forgotten in the 50's and 60's, yet they were being abused in the pits. The abuse was
published, which created a new shaded popularity, and abuse contiuned into the 70's. Media
bashing followed, along with a rash of breed directed laws. Owners of other breeds were
not concerned, at first, but now there is concern that such laws affect all of us. We are
banding together to oppose specific breed laws. Thoughtful people Know that it is not the
breed; people are the problem. Unfortunately, a few communities refuse to be equitable
in law enforcement, and thus they confuse the issue. The following should be considered:
1) Through selective breeding, all breeds have the capacity to produce sound temperament.
Some breeders purposely produce sharp and viscious characteristics, while others produce
reliable dogs from the same breed. Therefore, no breed should be labeled as viscious,
only individual dogs. Furthermore, there is the misconception that temperament faults
in some mixed dogs applies equally to their purebred parents. Rather, we should expect
a combination of breeds to create unique types differing from their parents. Therefore,
neither breed nor physical type can determine the quality of temperament.
2) American Bull Terriers rarely bite people. Severity of bite is another matter, and
they are among large dogs which can inflict serious harm. However, incident percentages
based upon breed populations show that the St. Bernard, Great Dane, AlasKan Malmute
and German Shepherd cause more human deaths per dog than the purebred American Bull
Terrier. Of course, society has recently ignored attacKs which are not Pit Bull related,
and several communities record any dog disturbance as Pit Bull caused. However, where
accurate records are preserved, they reveal that the purebred American Bull Terrier,
American Staffordshire Terrier, etc., pose no greater threat than large popular breeds.
3) Communities have laws available to deal with dog problems (viscious dog laws, cruelty
laws, laws dealing with animals at large) without identifying specific breeds or types.
Moreover, the proliferation of misbred and abused dogs is the fault of society, not of an
established breed. One of the most hypocritical attitudes is reflected when we consider
brutal pitting of dogs only as a misdemeanor, yet seeK to impose great penalties for
qualified ownership and impede efforts to assure sound temperament within the breed.
Self-serving attitudes confuse the equality of freedom; but we are protected from biased
laws and selective enforcement. Specific breed laws fail Constitutional criterion.
defend.
Gentlemen, urge you, I beg you, to reconsider these
changes. This will not make a good law. The citizens of Ammon
wil I have to pay to defend it and then possibly when it fails in
Court, you wil I have to start al lover again. Right now we have a
good ordinance, one that will not be challanged, and one that is
fair to everyone if it is enforced fairly. And I believe that if
it is enforced properly, we would not have a problem with
dangerous dogs of any breed. Our current ordinance prohibits
keeping any dog that is going to be a menace to others. It
prohibits abusing any dog and it prohibits anyone from allowing
their dog to run free where it can be a problem to others. It
allows an animal control officer to kil I a dog that cannot be
captured when that dog appears to be dangerous to others. All we
lack is sufficient enforcement of our existing ordinance to solve
our problems.
Richard Butler
2670 Salmon St.
Ammon, Idaho 83406
522-7368
I
I
a companion or whatever, and keep it in such a way that it would
not cause problems to others. The loyalty that these dogs show to
their masters is exemplary. And it is reported that they readily
accept a new master when sold or given away. This makes these
dogs very desirable as companions.
Breed specific laws such as this have, more often than not,
been struck down in Court on the basis that they are unfair and
discriminatory. A phrase in the Minneapolis ordinance was
specifically attacked by Judge Deborah Hedlund of the State County
District Court in Minneapolis. The phrase, defining Pit Bulls,
said: "any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its
breeding any of the characteristics of the aforementioned breeds
so as to be identifiable as partially of any or all of these
aforementioned breeds." Does this sound somewhat like your
proposed ammendment? I t does to me. The Judge ru 1 ed that the I
wording of this portion of their ordinance was too ambiguous to be
commOAntly undelrsttood'ti . d t'l th t .'
your as mee ng, concern was raIse over an ar IC e a
appeared in the Post Register that referred to residents killing
dogs they see attacking a person or animal. Mr Browning, you told
us at that meeting that you didn't know where the reporter got
that idea and that this proposal did not give anyone that right.
Well, Mr. Browning, in my own mind, either you don't know what is
in your own proposa 1 , or you f 1 a tout 1 i ed to us. I quote now
from your proposed new section 28 of chapter 3 of title 6 of the
City Code. "Further, any person may kill any pit bull dog which
is in the act of, or which the person has just witnessed
attacking, pursuing, injuring or killing any person or animal."
First of all, how is that person going to ki 11 it. Most people I
have talked to think that this means that thay can shoot it. I
understand that there is a city law against disgharging a firearm
within city limits. And I personally do not what some emotionally
crazed lunatic who thinks he saw a dog that he thinks is a pit
bull, attack what he thinks is his neighbors cat, shooting a gun
anywhere near my house or my family. Section 12 of our existing
ordinance mandates that any person authorized to kill a dog within
the city, ki 11 it in a humane manner. I contend that the average
person does not have any legal ability to humanely kill any animal
within the city 1 imits unless he take that animal to a vet to be I'
euthanized, and what person is going to want to carry that animal
themselves to a vet.
Now one more thing. The precedence has been set that these
kind of laws have traditionally been challenged in Court. Some
have been overturned, some have not. But the fact remains that
they are challenged. and I believe that this one will eventually
be challenged also. Every resident of the City of Ammon needs to
ask, when this ordinance is contested in Court, does the city have
the resources to defend it, and where will these resources come
from? There is no doubt that it will be costly. Will this cost
be bourn by the tax payers? And is it worth even defending? Is
the City Counsel willing to gamble these resources that it won't
be challanged? and if so, what makes you think that our law will
not be challanged and what makes you think that a Judge will not
strike it down? And even if you win, it will still be costly to
Attachment to Minutes of July 6, 1989
To the City Council of the City of Ammon
Re: Proposed Dog ordinance
First of al I, let me make it clear that I don't really like
so called Pit Bulls. Although, while contemplating this issue,
have realized that it is not the breed that I despise so much, but
it is the people who allow them to become a nuisance to others. I
wil I agree that it is a problem, but I feel very strongly that the
proposed ammendments to city ordinance are not the answer. these
so called Pit Bull dogs are not necessarily bad or dangerous
unless their owners allow them to become so, and sincerily
believe there are some dogs of these breeds that are as gentle as
anyone could want.
Now I would like to voice my concerns about
changes.
1. The definition of
I think this is the one
interpret this correctly,
deputies the authority to
..... Vicious dogs.
Gentlemen, I strongly oppose this proposed amendment. recently, a
pit bull ordinance was struck down in court in Minneapolis on the
grounds that it was vague, and that it wrongly assumed that al I
dogs of certain breeds are inherently dangerous. The way I read
this, it says all dogs of certain breeds are vicious. Section 12
of our existing dog ordinance prohibits any person from keeping a
vicious dog as described therein. I would like to ask, who
decides which breeds have known propensities to bite or attack,
and on what basis will they make the decision? It was pointed out
at your last meeting that Cocker Spaniels have bitten more people
than any other breed. Gentlemen it appears to me that your new
law would prohibit anyone from keeping or harboring a Cocker
Spaniel within the city of Ammon. Not only Cockers, but many
other breeds would fit in this definition of vicious dog. This is
terribly unfair to those people who would keep a good and friendly
dog of anyone of these breeds for training or companionship or
any other purpose that does not cause a problem to others.
3. Citation and Appearance. Our current ordinance allows a
person who has recieved a citation for violating this ordinance to
appear before the Court Clerk to answer the charge. Again, if I
interpret this correctly, The proposed amendment mandates that
person appear only in Court, and within 5 days. Why the change of
heart? Also what does it mean that the issuance and service of
such citation shall not be the exclusive manner of enforcement of
this chapter? What other manners of enforcement do you have in
mind, and why are they not listed here? The residents of Ammon
have a right to know.
4. New section banning Pit Bulls. If any law could be
accused of going overboard, this is it. First of all, to ban so
called Pit Bulls is bad enough. But to define Pit Bulls as Bull
Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Staffordshire
Terorier, is totally unfair. Not all dogs of these breeds are bad,
but this law unfairly assumes that they are. Again this ordinance
takes away the rights of those who would keep one of these dogs as
these
proposed
Animal Control Officer.
good change that is being made. If I
this gives Bonnevil Ie county sheriff's
enforce this ordinance.
I
I