A handful of Santa Barbara County residents begged the Board of Supervisors on Nov. 4 to save two dogs sentenced to death under the county’s current dangerous dogs ordinance.
About seven people made the request during the public comment portion of a hearing on the county Public Health Department’s potential changes to the Animal and Fowl chapter of the county code, which includes some controversial revisions to the dangerous dogs ordinance. Commenters wanted supervisors to implement the changes retroactively to prevent Daisy and Duke—dogs labeled earlier this year as dangerous under the current ordinance and sentenced to be euthanized for killing three cats on three separate occasions in an Orcutt neighborhood.
Supervisors responded by unanimously saying they weren’t satisfied that the changes made to the ordinance were the right changes and asking the Public Health Department to try again with some suggestions.
“I understand the intention behind this, but … ,” 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr said at the hearing, adding that she didn’t think the county had the money to enforce the changes, didn’t believe the definitions regarding what constitutes a “dangerous” or “vicious” dog were clear enough, and felt that the changes gave too much leeway in terms of punishments for dogs that mauled or killed a human.
The Public Health Department wants to make changes to the ordinance to update it, make it more relevant, and give hearing officers in dangerous dogs cases more options than euthanasia. The revisions outline two different labels—potentially dangerous dogs and vicious dogs—and lists a variety of punishments, fines, and requirements that can be levied against a dog and its owner, depending on what the charges against the dog are. The hearing officer can also elect to have a dog humanely destroyed, if it’s labeled a vicious dog.
The other four supervisors echoed Farr’s comments; 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino responded to the specific requests made for Daisy and Duke’s future.
“We’re not here today to judge Daisy and Duke,” Lavagnino said. “What we’re doing today is taking a look at the ordinance and deciding where we want to make changes.”
Supervisors made it clear that they wanted a specific label and punishment in the ordinance covering dogs that mauled or killed humans.
“I have a real issue with that, the way it is right now,” Farr said. “I think the greater expectation of the community would be that that dog is euthanized.”
She and 2nd District Supervisors Janet Wolf said the way the ordinance was worded made it seem like there could be other punishments levied in those cases, and that wasn’t what county residents wanted. The board voted 5-0 for Public Health to make more changes to the ordinance based on what was discussed during the hearing and come back at a later date.
“I know what incredible companions [dogs] can be,” Farr said. “It’s our job here to do what we can to serve and protect the public.”
This article appears in Nov 6-13, 2014.