Arlington council tells advisory board to study dog ordinance revision

Residents who want the city to revise its dangerous-dog regulations to include dogs that attack “domesticated animals,” and not just humans, will take their case to the city’s animal advisory board, the City Council decided Tuesday.

The board will study legal issues and options and report back to the council.

The issue stems from a pit bull’s recent attack on a boxer named Marnie — the second time in a year, and both occurring in Marnie’s own back yard in southwest Arlington. After the last attack, on Jan. 17, Marnie’s left front leg was amputated.

Her owner, Kim Ashley, complained that the pit bull had escaped his owner’s fence several times, had terrorized the neighborhood, and that the city’s response to calls had been inconsistent.

A half-dozen residents who saw posts of Marnie’s plight on social media joined the cause, saying pets need special protection not currently provided in the city animal ordinance’s definition of “dangerous dog.”

They took their concerns and photos of Marnie’s injuries to the last two council meetings, which prompted the council to take up the issue during a work session Tuesday.

“I’ve done everything I can,” Ashley said after the session Tuesday. That includes spending several thousand dollars to replace her standard wood screening fence with one that has overlapping boards.

“It goes back to the other owner. He [did] nothing to contain his dog.”

After the last attack on Marnie, the city picked up and euthanized the pit bull after its owner signed away ownership.

The problem for city officials is that changing the definition of “dangerous dog” — which currently refers to one that bites a human or acts so menacingly that a reasonable person would consider it dangerous — would put it at odds with state health and safety statutes. City attorneys cautioned that making such a change could lead to legal challenges.

Several area cities, including Fort Worth, do include attacks on animals in their dangerous-dog ordinances.

The council’s decision to ask for more study was fortified by an email from Arlington attorney Donald Feare, an animal law specialist who teaches the subject at Texas A&M University School of Law. He warned that the Texas Constitution prohibits city ordinances from being in conflict or inconsistent with state law.

“I submit bad law often results from a knee-jerk reaction to a high-profile event, such as the one here,” Fear wrote. He suggested an ordinance “punishing the owner by fine if his or her dog attacks without provocation, rather than treating a dog as dangerous” under the dangerous-dog definition.

The city staff report noted that some cities have created alternate designations such as “aggressive dog” or “nuisance dog,” which can be defined as a dog that attacks pets or other animals.

The animal control advisory board meets only quarterly, with the next meeting set for April, but code compliance Director Mike Bass told Ashley and other supporters that he would ask the board to move up its meeting, possibly within two weeks.

This story was originally published February 23, 2016 at 8:49 PM with the headline "Arlington council tells advisory board to study dog ordinance revision."