Dearborn Updates Vicious Dog Ordinance
Dearborn is strengthening its vicious dog ordinance, following several recent incidents in which dogs seriously injured people in southeast Michigan.
The city is tackling the issue by focusing on owners’ responsibility for their dogs’ behavior rather than issuing breed-specific restrictions.
The Dearborn City Council earlier discussed updating the vicious dog ordinance to specify a ban on pit bulls (similar to what other cities have done) but backed off of that approach, agreeing with Friends for the Dearborn Animal Shelter that dogs causing problems could be any breed. However, under the ordinance it is possible for a court to order vicious dogs be euthanized.
In addition to emphasizing that Dearborn requires all dogs be kept on a leash whenever they are not on their owners’ property, the Dearborn City Council approved revisions at its Jan. 4 meeting to the Animals Chapter of the City Code.
City officials have developed a two-tier ordinance that is not breed-specific and implements measures that can help decrease instances of dog attacks or threats.
The tiers in the ordinance differentiate between two types of threatening animals — “dangerous dogs” and “vicious dogs” — and specify owner responsibilities in each case. Violations require specific steps to take place and there are penalties for non-compliance.
A dog is deemed “dangerous” if, when police investigate a reported attack or threat, it is found that the animal “behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would believe poses a serious and unjustified imminent threat,” according to ordinance language. Dogs can also be determined to be “dangerous” if they bite a person but do not cause serious injury.
Dogs deemed dangerous will be required to be evaluated by an expert, be spayed or neutered, and have an identification microchip implanted at the owner’s expense. The dog and owner must also go through training.
If it is found that an animal has caused serious physical injury or death to a person, it is deemed “vicious.” According to the ordinance, if a public safety officer “has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is vicious, he or she shall institute proceedings in the 19th District Court requesting the court to conduct a hearing on whether or not the dog should be declared vicious…”
Owners of vicious dogs face much steeper regulations and penalties for noncompliance. They must license the dog as vicious with the city, obtain insurance for the animal and confine the animal, and put up signage at their home or place of business.
As a further measure to deter dogs from becoming agitated, the council also approved an ordinance addressing tethering of animals. It requires that animals not be tied up for more than an hour at a time unattended, and for no more than three hours per day total.
A link to Dearborn ordinances is available on the City Clerk page of www.cityofdearborn.org.
January 6th, 2011 at 7:09 am
The off-leash ordinance needs to be enforced! The number of people who let their dogs off leash in public parks in Dearborn is amazing. Talking to these people invariably incites rudeness and no change in behavior. The merits of the ordinance can be debated, but the fact is that having a dog off-leash in a public place is prohibited, and it applied to all dogs big and small, friendly and not. So long as there are no consequences, people will keep ignoring the ordinance.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:44 am
What ever happened to the dog park that was supposed to be under construction overs 2 years ago?
All most pet owners want is a place for their dogs to be able to get some exercise in a protected, enforced area.
I am also very glad that the animal shelter fought to make sure that this rule applied to all dogs, not just “pit bulls”. I have had a pit mix who was the most gentle dog I have seen in a long time. I also know of a tiny, little, adorable yorkie that has bitten three people.
Which one was the vicious, dangerous dog?
January 6th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Cloe, with all due respect, if you want a dog park, then why don’t you start a fundraiser with other dog owners, and contribute your own hard earned money so that your dog has an ‘exercise’ place? I don’t want my tax money paying for a place so that your dog can get exercise. We have budget issues, and using taxpayer money to fund a dog park is simply the type of reckless spending government has taken us to.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
I think that most pit bulls (and rottweilers) are evil, aggressive animals. Many times people say “It’s all in how they are raised.” NOT TRUE. I can say from first hand experience I know of a loving couple that had one of these devil animals. They gave it plenty of food, good vetinary care, toys, it was an in-door pet with a pillow, and even had a sweater for chilly day walks. Guess what? I saw that evil thing try to bite a child.
When those beasts rip the arm or face off YOUR kid, then tell me how sweet they are!
January 6th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
The only legal dog park you will see from the big fella’s administration, is the one at Hines Park. When r u people going to realize the big boy will say anything for a vote (i.e. z dog park), and after he gets what he wants, he simply says screw u until he needs support again. When will the people learn.
January 6th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Chances are the little “vicious” yorkie didn’t clench it’s jaws around a human neck, break that neck and kill said human.
That argument is tiring.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
loveddearborn – I take it, that from your statement, it is okay for a dog to bite as long as it is too small to kill. Dogs are supposed to be under the control of the owner at all times. By the way, a yorkie is a terrier just like the “pit bull”. Therefore, their jaws both lock the same.
Moe – Thank you for remembering what was promised in the way of a dog park and more play fields. You’re right. It is easy to promise anything.
NoNo – The dog park was promised by the city and was not something brought up by dog owners. Dog parks are supported by the fees of the people who use them. The property is already there. Your tax dollars, and, by the way, mine would not be used. It would be like the pools – Pay to use.
January 7th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
First off Dogs jaws do not lock, stronger dogs clamp down tighter. all dogs can be vicious, thay are as different as people in character, strenth and agressiveness. Saying “Pit Bulls” are evil is no different then saying one race of people are evil. A Jack Russell terrier is related to bull terrier breeds so therefore you could call it a miniture pitt bull. Bull Terriers are large strong dogs which can do more damage then smaller less muscular dogs can. German Shepards, Rotts. Mastiffs, Labs have all been documented as causing severe damage and death including wolf hybreds which are half wild animals. Agressiveness is a conditioned social behavior and not a bred behavior, Vets and animal behaviorist will support this fact. The City council did a lot off homework addressing this ordinance thay believe is is much better than a breed-specific ordinace. With it they will be able to addess any issue with any breed of dog no matter if it is a Bull Terrier or a Lab, a Yorkie or a Rottweiler.
January 7th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Cloe – if a park was a ‘pay for play’ concept, and would be financed 100% by those that use it, and not taxpayer money, then I would not have an issue with it, as long as a current city park is not taken away and the users of the park maintain it and keep it up in good shape so that it doesn’t smell of crap or look like an eye sore after a few months. Thanks for letting me know what the original plan was calling for, as I did not recall it from 2 years ago.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
A dog park, a ridiculous idea. Another bloated extravagence for people who cannot cope with the plush life they already have. Give me a break. And I don’t care who promised it. Who would take a politician who talks about a dog park seriously anyway. I’m sick of tired of these people who dress their dogs, take them “doggie daycare”, Halloween parties, etc. Are you nuts?? If you have that much extra money, send it to Haiti or something. But please do not bore the rest of us with this dribble. Yes, there is a dog park at Hines and that is good enough. And by the way, it is an eyesore! We don’t need that in our parks. I have a border collie, one of the most active dogs there are, and she does not need to be pampered at a “dog park”. Take them for a long walk, run around the yard, toss a ball, and STOP MAKING A FEDERAL OR CITY GOVERNMENT CASE OUT OF EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE. How frustrating to know that people actually complain about this crap.
January 8th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Kay – Happy New Year to you too!
Taking a dog to a dog park does not pamper a dog. It gives it a chance to do what all dogs need to do – have interaction with their own species.
I do not dress my dog nor do I have parties for him. I do. however, let him play with other dogs every chance that I can. He is totally adjusted. He does not think that he is a person. He knows that he is a dog because he is allowed to run with, sniff at, and do what dogs always have done.
As a responsible pet owner, you must know that, even with as much exercise as you provide for your dog, you are not a substitution for his natural instincts.
The people who have forgotten that are the people having the parties, dressing up their animals, etc.
Stay healthy and happy in the new year.
January 8th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Hi Cloe. Happy New Year. My point was mostly that in these terrible economic times such a thing is not a priority for most people. That was my point. Dog parks are a relatively new concept, and dogs have lived for thousands of years without dog parks. I know some people at work who take their dogs and they are also people who take their dogs to ‘daycare’ and all that other unnecessary stuff. Perhaps I have a bad attitude about the whole thing because of them. But I still think that spending money on a dog park at this time is not a good idea.
Sorry, didn’t mean to upset you and start the year out that way. Peace.
January 9th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Species-specific parks are a waste of taxpayer money. The government should not be spending money to provide public space for your dog to play and sniff. If you don’t have a big enough yard for your dog, or he is too aggressive on his own turf to play well with his dog friends, get a fish. And don’t be upset when the city won’t close a pool in each end of town for fish parks.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Kay – I really am not upset. I was just making the point that the city had brought it up. I do believe that dogs need to play with their own kind. Don’t let your crazier friends disturb you. People are people and dogs are dogs. Unfortunately, or, maybe fortunately, we all know that dogs are always loyal and there for you when your friends may not be.
Spot. I agree that species-specific parks may be a waste of money. However, if you have a dog, you must know that they are not allowed in the parks. We have a big yard and many friends and family who have dogs. Our dog gets plenty of “his species” time. Many dogs, however, don’t get the opportunity. If more dogs spent more time doing what they were meant to do, we would have better adjusted dogs and ones that are not as aggressive with people.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I agree with Milwood Fordson about the city’s decision. I think this stance on the issue allows the city to address all dogs–not only those who might fall under the “vicious” dog label. I have read a lot, for and against, breed specific laws. Having reviewed lots of literature and opinions, I am not for breed specific laws. I think these laws are too narrow, perpetuate stereotypes, and facilitate the notion that a given breed is inherently vicious, when, in reality, much responsibility should be placed on the owner, the breeder(s), and the economic forces (e.g. pet shops, backyard breeders, puppy mills) that allow dogs with sicknesses and bad temperments to mate and do not provide practical follow up advise to pet owners.
My father was a mailman in Detroit for almost fourty years. He saw plenty of vicious dogs. He does have a stigma against pitts because of what he saw and after being attacked by a few of them over the years. He also has a stigma against chihuahuas too because of what he saw and after being chased by packs of them. He also developed stigmas against people who had pitts because he saw many that were abused and starved by their owners.
I used to take my dog to the D.O.G. park on Hines drive. Just last year, I think, they put some new fence up and moved the park closer to the road. The old dog park was built in a low spot where water always puddled. The park was usually muddy and gross after a good rain. To use the park, you had to bring your dogs papers and registration to Nankin Mills and pay a few dollars for a key to the park. While a dog park may seem like a luxury, I do not think it is an outrageous one nor is it one that is pampering a dog. Dogs are healthy and less destructive when they can exercise. Unlike humans, dogs umwelt–their worlds–are built primarily around their sense of smell. Interaction with others dogs, I believe, is healthy for them. I have taken a class with a woman who earned her Ph.D studying dog cognition and with another professor of animal behavior who, instead of studying relationships among primates in Africa, now studies relationships among dogs. As best I can tell from my studies and experiences, play is a good thing for dogs. Kay–I understand there are people who have dogs and treat them like subhumans and that there are dog daycares who market themselves like childcare facilities; I hope you can also see that not all dog owners see dogs as human kids.
Dogs, in particular, have been shown to enhance people’s mental health. When I say this, I am not being trite. There have been at least a few sound studies that show having a dog friend is more beneficial than taking certain medications for mental health and for recovering from surgery (i think the study focused on people who underwent heart surgery). Dogs have also been linked in more than a few studies in encouraging prosocial behavior in children and adults, and in alleviating symptoms of depression.
I have four dogs myself. One of them is a pitbull given to me by a neighbor this summer. I was only suppossed to watch this dog temporarily while the neighbor discussed the dog with his wife. Needless to say, this neighbor told me he didn’t want the dog and I could just give it away or give it to him and he would give it to someone at the gas station that he owns. I still have this dog and have been training him. In a way, I am glad that I have had the chance to train and socialize this dog at his young age, rather than have my neighbor neglect him or pass him off onto anyone. Two years ago, I also took in, on several occassions, my next door neighbor’s pitt bull who was constantly crying and escaping from their yard. She was a puppy, left in the garage in August, that would cry all day. Eventually, he gave the dog to his girlfriend. This summer, and last summer too, I rescued kittens from my neighbor down the block. I am not actively seeking these dogs and cats out—my plate is already full, so to speak. These instances have left me with the impression that people do not realize the responsibility required to take care of a pet, especially when the pet demands more time and effort than one expected. I know at a time like this, dogs, dog parks, and dog ordinances may seem silly, but dogs are a big part of many people’s lives. I would pay to have a dog park, and I would not be surprised if other dog owners paid too. There are dog parks in Michigan and elsewhere that are private. Living on the east side of Dearborn and being a dog loving person, I have often felt that I am in the minority. This sentiment, though, has also motivated me to offer advise, when solicited, and help, usually when solicited, to those neighbors I mentioned above.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Nobama & Noreilly – why shouldn’t a dog park be financed by the city? I pay for schools that I’ll never use since I don’t have kids
January 11th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Sandy – You are not in the minority. I agree with you. I have taken in stray dogs too. I live in East Dearborn and saw many more strays when I first moved in 20 years ago than I do now.
I am sure that many dog owners would work for a dog park. Everything that you said is logical and true. Thanks for the sensible blog.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
becki – are you seriously comparing tax money spent on children vs. dogs? Simply put, children contribute directly to society, and the education of the schools indirectly helps you out (economically & socially). A dog running wild in a dog park to pi$$ wherever it wants does not provide you any benefit whatsoever. Here’s a little perspective for you: dogs are animals, not children!!!
January 12th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Nobama…you are a poet!
January 13th, 2011 at 9:09 am
yes, NO/NO, I am. Please remind me when the last time a dog went on a shooting spree in a Safeway. Why should I pay for schools that I’ll never use because I chose NOT to breed? Most people that have children let them run wild, that I have seen, that have such attitudes like yours.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Dogs are animals, Nobama, it is true. Animals that are allowed to exercise properly are more apt to behave properly around people. This makes an indirect benefit to all citizens a result of a dog park. With it, there will be fewer people who let their dogs off the leash in city parks or schoolyards so the dogs can get a little exercise. Where else can that happen if there is no dog park?
That doesn’t make the building of a dog park a priority over the schools, or police patrols, or many other things. I am simply pointing out the benefits of the idea. Becki would probably agree with me that private funding would probably be enough to set up a dog park. How to organize the fundraising is the question.
For my two cents, I think pit bulls and certain other breeds should be banned from our city. The difference in dog breeds is well known, and the knowledge can be used to avoid problems. At least one of the recent attacks in Dbn Hts was from a pit bull who only knew kind treatment and had never shown a tendency to attack before. Some breeds are loaded guns…
January 13th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
NoNo – I believe that you missed Becki’s point. You are always complaining about your tax dollars being spent on things that you don’t use.
She doesn’t use the school system but she still pays for it.
If you don’t already have one, you might want to adopt a dog from a shelter. They make great friends for people who need a little bit more love. They have been known to be great therapy, calm the nerves, and give people a sunnier outlook on life.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
omg. sometimes I just cannot believe the posts on here. wow.
January 14th, 2011 at 12:20 am
Dogs are animals
Dearborn Heights already has a ban on pit bull, proof banning does not work. thier council is considering something like Dearborn has created. putting a dog in a bsckyard alone without supervision makes dogs territorial and agressive, and unsocialized. Bull Terriers dig (big holes and under fences) they get out when no one is there to stop that behavior. 3 years ago a rotty killed an infant in Warren. 15 years ago in east Dearborn a husky got loose and attecked 3 children at the bus stop. What other breeds would you have banned?
January 15th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Since when do we “adopt” animals? Animals are property; you purchase them, they’re not people. If I get a raise at work, maybe I can adopt a new car.
I wonder if people who try to substitute dogs and cats for kids are any more likely to be nuts than people who have kids?
Another news flash: Animals don’t have rights like people do either. They’re used for scientific research every day and that research benefits people at the expense of the animals’ lives. They’re also used to make clothes, AND for food! It’s true!