Shutterstock photo
A failed proposal to address dangerous dogs will come back before the Lubbock City Council, said Mayor Mark McBrayer.
The mayor and two council members spoke to LubbockLights.com – discussing why the proposal is needed or not needed.
“This issue didn’t go away with a failed ordinance,” said Tim Collins, city councilman for District 6.
“This issue” is an increase in the last 7 years in dog bites and citizens complaining more often to the council about loose dogs on the streets as we reported in December.
A woman complained to Collins about a dog in the intersection of 34th Street and University Avenue on the same day he spoke with LubbockLights.com.
David Glasheen – councilman for District 3 –voted against the latest proposal, saying Lubbock Animal Services (LAS) has the tools to address the problem. He favored an earlier version of reforms but withdrew support when it was amended.
What happened; bringing it back
McBrayer says he’ll bring the issue right back to the city council at its next meeting, Tuesday, Feb. 11.
“I think we need a full council to vote on it,” McBrayer said. “There’s no prohibition on bringing it up again at the next meeting.”
A proposal to both increase the liability insurance requirement for dangerous dogs – raising it from $250,000 to $1 million – and require a permit for dog breeders in Lubbock passed on the first reading 4-3 on January 14. But two weeks later, it failed on the second reading by a vote of 3-3. Councilman for District 4 Brayden Rose was out due to an illness.
At one point, there was a plan to reduce the number of pets in any one household. Currently, Lubbock limits people to four dogs and four cats for a total of eight. Earlier plans called for a total of four. Exceptions would be made with a multipet permit. That idea was scrapped for now but could come back in a different form.
Summary of what’s next
- The mayor will bring a proposed ordinance back for another vote
- The city asked local lawmakers for changes in state law
- The city manager will reexamine current ordinances and policies and report back to the council
Enemy of the good
“It’s not just the dangerous dogs. It’s the loose dogs that threaten people and scare people,” McBrayer said.
“People shouldn’t be … afraid of loose animals that are going to attack them. We don’t have to have an attack for it to be a problem,” McBrayer added.
He supported the new regulation along with Collins, Rose and Jennifer Wilson – councilwoman for District 5. David Glasheen – councilman for District 3, Gordon Harris – councilman for District 1, and Christy Martinez Garcia – councilwoman for District 2 opposed it.
McBrayer thinks new rules are justified.
“An overpopulation of animals means that there’s animals out on the street. And so I do think the breeder’s permit is something that I’m favorable to because that’s a business you run. In a business … you have to have license and permits,” McBrayer said.
“It’s not the be-all-and-end-all,” McBrayer told LubbockLights.com said of the proposed ordinance.
But it’s a good first step, the mayor said.
“I don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good,” McBrayer said.
Glasheen disagrees
“The public safety priority is to get loose and stray dogs off the streets,” Glasheen.
The failed proposal did not address the public safety problem, Glasheen said.
“We don’t need more tools. We have enough tools to get animals off the streets. The problem is, we’re not using the tools,” Glasheen said.
“I think the existing policies are enough,” Glasheen said.
That means the officers with LAS need to pick up more stray animals off the streets, Glasheen said. Breeding permits and insurance requirements don’t do that, he said.
Collins voted yes, but ‘It’s not enough’
Collins voted in favor of the permits and insurance but added it’s not enough.
“One of the things that government tends to do far too often is we recognize the problem, and we start doing things all around it. The problem is we’ve got stray and loose dogs on the streets. That’s the problem,” Collins said.
“Personally, I think that registration for breeders or fosters would be helpful,” Collins said.
He pointed out Steven Greene, animal services director, spoke in favor of a breeder permit and higher liability insurance as “tools” LAS can use.
“Registration doesn’t have to include a fee,” Collins said – in case that’s the objection someone might raise.
Collins, in contrast with Glasheen, wondered if existing policies make the problem worse. He points out the shelter is consistently full so there’s no room for additional dogs.
“Operating at maximum capacity on a daily basis is very, very challenging,” Collins said.
Collins wondered if policy should call for a day-to-day capacity lower than the absolute maximum. That would give the shelter room for unexpected situations.
Collins asked City Manager Jarrett Atkinson in the mid-January meeting to reexamine city ordinances and policies between now and the next round of budget talks this summer, which Atkinson agreed to do.
Atkinson also wanted to see what, if anything, Texas lawmakers do on this issue.
Collins told LubbockLights.com, “You’d have a good idea toward the end of April or first of May of the things that have passed through the legislative process – or at least have an idea if they’re going to pass.”
Also what’s next – the debate continues
McBrayer said, “If your population of animals in the city is not controlled, eventually you’re just going to outgrow and override your shelter, and you have to spend a whole lot of taxpayers’ money to build a larger shelter just to have a hotel for animals. Or you look at trying to control the population.”
Glasheen said, “I’ve seen no data that the stray and loose dogs are the results of unpermitted animal breeding. And in fact, we know that LAS is not conducting enough field operations to even be able to enforce that ordinance if it were to pass.”
Adding rules and regulations is not the solution, Glasheen added.
“The people letting stray and loose dogs roam around are not going to come in and pay a permit. It goes back to field enforcement where we have to have officers out doing the public safety mission of getting stray and loose dogs,” Glasheen said.
“I’m also deeply skeptical of restricting liberty – individual freedom as the first response to a problem,” Glasheen said.
Glasheen might go along with adding more LAS staff. He proposed cutting a grant program for the repair of backyard fences – diverting roughly $70,000 instead to a new position at LAS. The council voted to keep the grant program with Collins arguing LAS already has two job openings. In the short run, a third job opening would not help.
Collins said when the next budget comes up for discussion later this year, that might be the time to consider adding employees.
“We’ve got to do something about the people problem as much as we do the pet problem. … I don’t think the government wants to impose on how many dogs you can have in your backyard – so long as they’re in your backyard. When your dogs are on street, it’s a problem,” Collins said.
Collins used the loose dog at 34th and University as an example.
“The back gate was open where this dog lives. And so, you’ve got this situation where these pet owners are not making a very good effort to keep that dog where it belongs,” Collins said.
The debate continues because the council needs to do something, Collins said.
“I don’t think that the citizens are going to let us just say, ‘Oh well, never mind. We tried,’” Collins said.
Please click here to support Lubbock Lights.
Comment, react or share on our Facebook post.
Facebook