CC PACKET 09092008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13 2. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack, or 3. Has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. A "dangerous" dog is defined as any dog that has: 1. Without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property, 2. Killed a domestic animal without provocation while off tile, owner's property, or 3. pound to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has been notified the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. On 05-18-07, My -. Blackey was sent a letter indicating that his dog, per state statute, is now considered a "potentially dangerous" dog, due to the bite report made by Justin Oldre. Due to the reports made by W. Towle on 11-16-07 and by Mr. Mceihose on 06-26-08, state Statute would now define Mr. Blackey's dog as "dangerous." St. Anthony City Ordinance 1205.02 indicates that no person may keep on their premises, or on premises occupied by them, nor permit to run -at -large in the city, any dog or any other donxestic animal of a ferocious or vicious character, habit or disposition. Based on state statute as well as city ordinance, Mr. Blackey's dog could be considered "dangerous" and not allowed in the City of St. Anthony by ordinance. I would remind the council that two of the 3 reported dog bite incidences were not documented by police through photographs or other means other than a verbal report to our office. If the council should decide to disregard two of the 3 reports, Mr. Blackey's dog could still be considered as "potentially dangerous," requiring another documented bite to gain "dangerous" dog status under the statute. JO:vj