Arnold targets dangerous animal law

Contradictions between Lafourche Councilman John Arnold’s philosophy and his proposed ordinance to further regulate what constitutes a dangerous animal and the consequences of that label are not intentional, he said.

So Arnold plans to heavily amend his proposal at the council’s May 13 meeting, when the issue is subject to public debate and a potential vote, he said. Arnold could not provide the specifics of his amendments on Monday.

Under Arnold’s proposal as written, owners of “an animal 3 months of age or older” would have to register their pets with parish government and be required to pay an annual $25 fee to maintain legal ownership. This would seemingly extend to all breeds of all animals, from hamsters to snakes, rabbits to cattle, but Arnold said that’s not his intention.

“I wrote this in a hurry, so we’re going to have to amend some of that,” Arnold said, adding he only wants the permit fee applied to animals deemed dangerous or vicious.

Arnold also said he wants to grant a yet-to-be hired parish animal control officer the latitude to make decisions as to whether an animal is dangerous or vicious. His proposed ordinance does not formally add that position or fund it, though he said he would propose adding the position at some point this year. His proposed new language, however, stands to effectually eliminate subjectivity from the process.

Current Lafourche Parish law defines dangerous animals as those that have bitten or attacked people on public or private property or chased or otherwise terrorized a person on public property, and these aggressive acts must occur without provocation.

Arnold’s proposition would include animals that have killed, seriously bitten, severely injured “or otherwise caused injury to any human or animal on or off the property of the animal,” even if the action was provoked.

Provocation means different things to different people. The ordinance’s author in conversation explained interpretations of provocation as a child attacked after riding a bike past a poorly restrained animal or someone unintentionally walking on private property patrolled by an aggressive dog.

“If somebody walked by and stepped into a yard and didn’t know there was a dog there and it came out from underneath a trailer and bit him, is that considered provoked? There’s too many ways to look at that, different angles, so that’s why I went with that,” Arnold said.

But even if a miscreant throws rocks at an animal, that would be provocation, so the animal is not expected to retaliate, because then it would be a dangerous animal. If the penalty were the same for behavior that is provoked and unprovoked, then the circumstances surrounding any attacks would seemingly not make a difference.

“Common sense tells you if a dog bites somebody, it’s vicious,” Arnold said, though he declined to indulge the above hypothetical. “I think the animal-control officer, once he gets his education, will be the one to decide whether or not it’s deemed vicious.”

Existing law also holds animals to be labeled dangerous if they have “a known propensity or disposition to attack unprovoked” or have undergone quarantine for rabies observation two or more times within 2 years.

In terms of penalties, current law requires owners of dangerous or vicious animals to keep the animals quarantined from any human contact other than the owners themselves, unless the contact is supervised, and maintain liability insurance of at least $500,000. It does not restrict breeding of these animals.

Under Arnold’s proposal, owners would not be able to breed any animals labeled dangerous or vicious without first receiving a $200 permit from parish government. The author said this is in response to rampant backyard, for-profit breeding of animals of aggressive breeds, supporting the statement with anecdotes about classified advertisements of such.

The proposal would also make it mandatory for owners of these animals to install a microchip in their pets, with the information provided to all police agencies inside the parish.

“I’m not trying to hurt the responsible people out there,” Arnold said. “I’m out here trying to get the irresponsible people to step up and take on their responsibilities for having these kinds of animals.”

Existing penalties for violating the parish’s dangerous-animal regulations, which are not immediately subject to change, are a fine of $300 for first offense, $600 for second offense at $1,000 for the third offense, with possible jail time set at three, six and 10 days, respectively.

Arnold drafted the proposed law in reaction to a domestic dog fatally mauling 4-year-old Houma resident Mia Derouen earlier this year, he said, as well as other documented instances of dogs attacking humans.

He said his proposal could have saved Mia’s life because “surely to goodness” somebody in the apartment complex held the opinion the dog was too large for the unit and would have contacted an animal-control officer. But his law as written doesn’t explicitly provide that avenue.

The ordinance’s outlook is negative, according to Arnold’s fellow councilmembers.

Councilman Jerry Jones said he wouldn’t support any version of the ordinance Arnold proposes. “You can’t start regulating what people have in their houses,” Jones said. “That’s not our job.”

Councilman Joe Fertitta, who is still reviewing Arnold’s proposal and hasn’t yet made a final decision, said two weeks before the vote he would apply strict scrutiny.

“To do it right, you need a lot of manpower and a lot of resources that we don’t have,” Fertitta said. “I’m studying it, and I’m going to make my decision in a couple of weeks.”

Councilman Jerry LaFont said he would vote against the measure.

“I think the parish has a lot of things we need to worry about before animals,” LaFont said. “I understand his point, and he’s trying to do good. … But we’re trying to put too many regulations on people.”

Councilman Lindel Toups said the proposed permit regulation amounts to a new tax that would be burdensome to all pet owners while not necessarily preventing domestic animals from one day attacking their owners. Toups said he would likely vote against the ordinance.

“I don’t think you ought to punish everybody who has an animal,” Toups said. “Something needs to be done, but I don’t think we ought to tax them.”

Arnold, on the other hand, said his proposal would be the start of a multifaceted reform process.

“Once I get it in place, there can be more amendments added to it in the future,” he said. “This is just a step in the right direction. We just need to get our foot in the door and get started on this, because we can amend it later.”

This March 11 AP file photo shows Mickey, a pit bull, at West Valley Animal Care Center in Phoenix, Ariz., who attacked a 4-year-old in February. Lafourche Councilman John Arnold’s proposal to tighten local restrictions on dangerous animals goes to the floor May 13.

AP PHOTO