Town revisits town rules for dogs (Springfield, VT)

[Rene Allegrini]

Springfield revisits town rules for dogs

June 25, 2007

By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff

SPRINGFIELD — There may be no such thing as a bad dog, but Springfield wants to do something about dog owners and their badly behaved dogs.

The town is revising its ancient dog ordinance, in large part in reaction to a slew of dog complaints in the past year, including several attacks by dogs on pedestrians walking or running by their homes, and dogs running at large, which is a violation of the town's leash law.

The dog attacks, which sent at least one person to the emergency room for treatment of bites, revealed problems with the dog ordinance, according to Select Board Chairwoman Mary Helen Hawthorne. Dogs have attacked other dogs, she said, with serious consequences, including the death of a pet.

"We've had a number of problems and concerns about dog complaints and dog bites," Hawthorne said. "We want teeth in our ordinance because we've had an awful lot of problems recently, three or four serious incidents."

Hawthorne said she believed there were "no bad dogs … there are irresponsible pet owners."

The dog ordinance was the first thing tackled by the Ordinance Review Committee, which is looking over what municipal ordinances Springfield has on the books and whether they need a rewrite for the 21st century.

The rewritten ordinance also for the first time defines a vicious dog, which was one of the problems the board encountered last year in trying to resolve a dog dispute. It also defines what constitutes being a "public nuisance."

If a dog annoys pedestrians or obstructs vehicle traffic, it's a nuisance, as well as attacking other animals, or damaging private or public property, or barks, whines or howls "in an excessive, continuous fashion."

The ordinance also states dog owners must provide their animals with "sufficient food, water, shelter and proper medical attention."

"No person shall beat, cruelly treat, torment, overload, overwork or otherwise abuse a dog," the ordinance says.

The new ordinance also clarifies how errant dogs are released from impoundment and how many violations a dog and its owner can receive before impoundment.

Springfield Police Chief Douglas Johnston said he read the proposed ordinance for the first time Wednesday and he had a couple of concerns about it.

Johnston said the 2007-08 town budget included $10,000 toward animal control, in addition to the money the town traditionally gives to the Springfield Humane Society as the town-designated spot for lost animals.

He said he has no idea how the money will be spent, and he said it wasn't really enough to do anything, since an animal control officer would need a vehicle to transport lost or problem animals.

One woman who was at the Select Board meeting on Monday said that "nothing ever happens" to people with misbehaving dogs.

"People get tickets, but they don't pay them," she said.

But Town Manager Robert Forguites said while people may appear to be scofflaws, they do face an arrest warrant from White River Junction District Court for failing to pay a fine.

Another man told the Select Board that unleashed dogs "wander our neighborhood." He said he could no longer walk freely in his neighborhood because of problem dogs at some homes.

"I don't feel comfortable because I don't know where that dog is," he said.

"It's not a good situation for the neighborhoods," Hawthorne said, noting that if people will call the police department, they will try and capture them.

The ordinance also proposes to increase the dog license fee surcharge, now $1 that goes toward dog control efforts. The ordinance would raise it to $5 per license.

The ordinance also specifies the ordinance also applies to wolf hybrids.

The proposed ordinance, which got its first review on Monday, still has more review and public hearing before it is adopted.

Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pb...43/1003/NEWS02