Board Seeks To 'Put Some Teeth' Into Vicious Animal Ordinance

At Tuesday night's work session, members of the Lake Saint Louis board of aldermen and city staff discussed ways to "put more teeth" into the city's dangerous dog ordinance.

Current city code defines a dangerous animal as: any animal which, without justification, attacks a person or domestic animal causing physical injury or death or behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would believe poses an unjustified imminent threat of serious injury or death to one (1) or more persons or domestic animals.  In reference to dogs, a dog's breed shall not be considered in determining whether or not it is "dangerous".

"The current ordinance is way too soft and not enforceable," Alderman John Pellerito said.

"We need to send a message to people that there is a concern both about domestic animals and vicious animals," said Police Chief Mike Force.

Alderman George Rich read part of the proposed ordinance: "Police officers shall seize and impound any animals alleged to be dangerous, until the owner appears before the municipal court."

"We need to change 'shall' to 'may'," Force said. "'Shall' mandates them to do it. 'May' gives the officer the chance to go out there and listen to both sides and look at other calls we've had. If the dog's bitten someone, that makes it easy."

Both Vennard and Rich expressed concern about citizen complaints resulting in the impounding of the dog. 

"If a complaint is sworn under oath, the owner gets a summons," Force said.

Alderman Larry DeGroodt said, "Any animal with a 'known propensity'—what’s that mean?"

Force said that it meant behavior that had been investigated and validated, even if there was no conviction.

Alderman Karen Vennard expressed concern about how a dog's breed would be taken into consideration in evaluating a dangerous dog.

Force said that the wording about the breed of dog would be changed. "We changed it from 'shall not be considered'  to 'shall not be the only consideration'," he said.

"I share your concern. Three or four years ago, there were animal activists who were concerned about banning certain breeds of dogs. I do think it’s legitimate to consider breed as one of the things, but you can’t ban a dog solely on the breed," Force added.

Vennard also expressed her concerns about enforcement. "Is this truly going to solve the issue? How do we enforce this short of getting a dog catcher?"

Force replied that it would be important to have people report incidents when they occur. He mentioned that when residents call police about off-leash or barking dogs, by the time police are able to respond, the dog is gone or the barking dog in the yard has been taken back into the house.

"But biting dogs, there’s a record of that. It has to be reported," Force said. "This puts the decision in the judge's hands, and he can look at the history of that particular dog."

Lake Saint Louis does not have a full-time animal control officer. Calls are handled by the police, the code enforcement officer and St. Charles County Animal Control.

The board agreed to refer the proposed ordinance to the prosecutor for advice about the wording.