Emily Mills|Mansfield News Journal
MANSFIELD - Mansfield's pit bull ban is officially gone, while the future of a proposed city animal control officer has not yet been decided.
Mansfield City Council members on Tuesday night voted to remove the city's breed-specific legislation, which bannedAmerican pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire terriers and any mixed breed of those dogs.
"This ban is not working," said councilman-at-large and safety committee chairman Don Bryant, who abstained from the vote.
The breeds were previously classified as vicious dogs and banned within city limits.
The city had already temporarily lifted theban after a state appeals courtstruck down in Aprila similar ordinance in Reynoldsburgas unconstitutional.
Tuesday's vote officially removes it from the city's ordinance.
As part of the vote, the city's dangerous dog definition was amended to describe a dangerous dog as one that"chased or approached a person in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack."
Under Mansfield law, vicious dogs include those that killed or injured a person or killed another domestic animal. Dangerous dogs are dogs that chaseor tryto bite a person without provocation while off their owners'property.
More: Law director wants Mansfield to have animal control officer
Two other proposed bills would increase penalties for irresponsible dog owners.
"It holds the owner responsible, which is consistent with the battle cry that it's the owners that should be held responsible," said law director John Spon.
One bill wouldincrease penalties for owners, keepers and harborers of dogs who recklessly allow their dog to run at large.
Any owners, keepers or people with control over dogs found running at-large, unaccompanied or unrestrained would be strictly liable to pay or compensate anyone who is injured or sustains damage to their property as a result of a "reckless dog attack," according to the proposed bill.
The requirement is in place regardless of whether or not the attack occurs on or off the owner's or keeper's property.
Bryant said "reckless" means that the person should have known their actions would cause harm.
Spon gave an example of a dog owner letting his dogs out in a backyard with a fence with a hole in it. If the dogs escaped, attacked and injured someone, that would be reckless, he said.
"Itcreates for the first time strict liability if a person recklessly allowed their dog to run free," Spon said.
More: Mansfield could change dog laws after pit bull ban lifted
The second bill would stiffen penalties against dog owners who recklessly fail to register their dog.
Reckless violations of the two proposed laws would be first-degree misdemeanors, carrying a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a six-month jail sentence.
Spon said current violations are minor misdemeanors.
"This gives some meat to a penalty under our city ordinance that says if you have a dog in the City of Mansfield, you better register it," he said.
The Mansfield Municipal Court would also have the authority to issue an order for payment, compensation or restitution, including veterinarian or medical expenses.
Another proposed billwould create two unfunded animal control officer positions to allow for the future enforcement of the other proposed laws.
One position would be added to the police department's civilian personnel, with a pay range of $31,200 to $45,864. The second position would be added to the police department's sworn safety personnel, with a pay range of $42,167 to $59,528.
The money is not currently available to fund the position, said Mayor Tim Theaker.
Spon said if the money would become available, only one position would be filled. Creating the two positions allows future administrations flexibility as far as offering a civilian or sworn position.
Spon said he would want the officer to work five days a week from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., with the county dog warden providing services during off hours.
Spon said the officer, who would also patrol the city streets for dog issues,would be given a cellphone, with the number given to residents to report dangerous dogs.
Theaker questioned if one animal control officer would be enough. He also predicted the phone number might be abused.
"That number is gonna be inundated because there's gonna be people calling and complaining about dogs barking at night," he said.
And human resources director Dave Remy said the position should be more finalized before it's potentially added as law.
Remy said the city needs to determine if the position would be civilian or sworn and if it would be AFSCME or non-bargaining.
"Those decisions have to be made ahead of time," he said.
More: Mansfield temporarily lifts pit bull ban after court ruling
Spon said without an animal control officer, the police department would enforce the proposed new laws.
"Our police officers don't have the time to chase barking dogs," third-ward councilman John Van Harlingen said.
Van Harlingen suggested going back to the county to work on a possible solution for enforcement.
"We need to talk to the county," he said. "Ireally am optimistic that we need to try to resolve some of these issues with the county."
Van Harlingen said a city animal control officer could get costly quickly with equipment and vehicles. The question of where dogs would be put also remains unanswered, he said.
Fourth-ward councilman Butch Jefferson, who also said he doesn't agree with the animal control officer proposal, suggested working with humane society agents for services.
Bryant encouraged community members to bring ideas for the animal control issue to future council meetings on Nov. 21, Dec. 5 and Dec. 19.
The three proposedbills on increasing penalties for irresponsible dog owners and creating an animal control officer position will not see a vote until Dec. 19, the last council meeting of the year.
ejmills@mansfieldnewsjournal.com
419-521-7205
Twitter:@EmilyMills818
