‘Arf,’ says Sandy

The city council of Sandy, Utah, seems impressed by testimony from citizens opposing breed-specific legislation.

By Michael Rinker, Best Friends staff

The cards were all gone.

And so too – at least we hope – is the idea that Sandy, Utah, needs a breed-specific ordinance to protect itself from “dangerous dogs.”

About 200 citizens attended a public hearing of the Sandy City Council, which was considering a recommendation by the city’s animal control director that onerous restrictions be placed on owners of pit bulls and Rottweilers (mixes, too) and other dogs who are deemed dangerous.

That’s why all the cards were gone. Typically, if you want to address a government hearing, you must fill out a card so you can be allotted time to speak. The crush of people the council chambers depleted the supply of cards.

Best Friends campaigns manager Nikki Sharp, who attended the hearing, said the crowd was “beyond standing room” despite relatively short notice by the city. Even with the strong turnout, the number of people there represented a small percentage of those who contacted council members prior to the meeting.

Not a single one of those folks was there to support the proposed ordinance, Nikki said.

“From my perspective, you couldn’t have scripted it any better. Everyone sounded intelligent, sounded like they did their research, and presented it in a heartfelt way.

“The ‘wow effect’ was really happening last night. I think it was a real eye-opener for [the council].”

The Salt Lake City Tribune reported that opponents of the ordinance – many of whom were dog trainers or veterinary workers – provided so much information, that councilman Chris McCandless remarked, “It's like an encyclopedia that was delivered to us.”

And it worked, at least for now.

Council members agreed to take no action, and chairman Scott Cowdell suggested creating an advisory committee with some of the professionals who testified to help refine the proposed rules. The Trib speculated it could be months before the amendment is ready for a vote.

Director of Animal Control Rich Bergan is pushing the new law, which is in the form of an amendment to the city code. He cited a litany of statistics supporting his call for tighter regulation of certain types of dogs.

The proposed restrictions include keeping dogs in roofed enclosures in their yards or inside their homes at all times unless leashed and muzzled. They would have to be implanted with microchips for identification and tracking. Owners would have to notify the city if a dog changed hands. Read the full ordinance.

Nikki said Bergan did not present a balanced view, and he selected his statistics to create a sense of hysteria.

“He set the scene that we were living in some kind of wild kingdom.”

Steve Edmunds, who arrived nearly two hours early to sign up so that he’d the first to speak, “really set the tone,” Nikki said. “He used his three minutes perfectly.”

The Sandy resident told council members that, “We need to address the dog owners with dogs that have actual problems.”

He added that it would be “more proactive and inclusive to have all dogs treated fairly regardless of their breed.”

Those in the audience – many of whom were carrying signs reading “Punish the deed, not the breed” or “I have a dog and I vote” – countered Bergan’s assertions with evidence and examples of how breed-specific ordinances have failed, and how pit bull-caused fatalities tend to be from un-neutered males.

They suggested increasing spay/neuter and educating owners on how to socialize their dogs.

Among the general criticisms of the proposed amendment was that it makes people with dogs subject to more regulation than gun owners. Another person noted that the registration requirements under the ordinance would be more complex than those for sex offenders.

We here on the Utah community will be watching this story. Return often to check for updates.

Photo by Best Friends staff

Your two cents? Put it here:

You can contact the Sandy city council by phone at 801.568.7141 or by email.