Las Vegas to weigh sweeping dog law changes

Diana Sahagun

Monday, June 17, 2002 | 11:06 a.m.

The city of Las Vegas wants to take the bite out of bad dogs.

In an attempt to track dogs who habitually bite, city officials will introduce an ordinance this week that will require dogs deemed dangerous by animal control officials to be sterilized and to be implanted with a microchip.

Dog owners won't be off the hook either.

If their dogs are deemed dangerous by the city of Las Vegas, owners would have to obtain liability insurance for their dog -- no less than $50,000 worth.

The bill, which amends the city's current animal control regulations, also requires owners of one or more wild animals not intended for exhibition to have the animal implanted with an electronic microchip and maintain liability insurance -- no less than $100,000 worth.

Animal control officials say they have added new language to city code so the department can better track animals declared dangerous and stop aggressive breeds from passing on their traits. The ordinance is proposed by Mike Sheldon, director of Detention and Enforcement.

In 2001 there were 615 dog bites reported in Las Vegas, according to animal control officials. There have been 320 reported dog bites to date this year in the city.

While animal attacks have received a lot of attention recently -- including the mauling of a local 11-year-old boy by Great Danes in January -- Lt. Karen Coyne of the city's field services division said such attacks did not directly prompt the new requirements.

"This did not come about as response to any of the horrible stories we've heard about of recent animal attacks," she said. "It's been in the pipeline for some time."

Other cities and counties have gone even further in their approach to stopping bad dogs, including some that have banned pit bulls. The Las Vegas ordinance, though, is not breed specific. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has opposed breed-specific legislation.

Clark County has similar regulations, which require dogs deemed dangerous to be kept in an enclosed housing structure and must be implanted with a microchip. The county does not require sterilization.

According to municipal code a dog may be declared dangerous by an animal control officer if it exhibits a physical threat to people or to other animals on two separate occasions within 18 months. The dog is also considered dangerous if it has killed or harmed another animal or hurt a person, or is used in a crime by its owner.

Once an animal is declared dangerous, the owner would receive written notice from the city to get a permit within 14 days in order to keep the animal, said Roger VanOordt, animal control supervisor.

According to the proposed bill the owner must meet all requirements, including sterilization and implanting the dog with a microchip in order to receive the permit.

If the owner has not complied with the requirements upon inspection, the owner would receive a citation to appear in court, VanOordt said.

"A lot of cities are going to this because people are negligent with these animals, and those animals are out there causing injuries to people," he said.

While owners can keep a dangerous dog that habitually bites, they may not be able to keep a dog deemed vicious.

Animal control officers categorize a vicious dog depending on severity of the bite, including if someone gets mauled or mangled by the animal. A vicious animal can be euthanized.

The microchip -- implanted in the back of the animal's neck -- contains a encoded number that can be read if run under a scanner.

Coyne said with the implanting an electronic microchip, if a dog is sold the potential buyer would know of any previous reports of biting.

The insurance provision would protect the victim of a biting dog, Coyne said, by creating recourse if there are unforeseen medical bills.

"We just want to make sure we have done everything we can to protect the people within the city," Coyne said.

Dr. Joseph Freer, veterinarian and director at Dewey Animal Shelter, said he supports the changes, because they make the dog owners accountable for an animal's behavior, and don't condemn a breed.

"I think it's a great approach to not pick on the animals," Freer said.

The ordinance, which will be introduced at Wednesday's council meeting, will be submitted to a city committee for review and a public hearing. The committee will forward a recommendation to the council, which will vote on the ordinance.