In new animal ordinance, Ada County could redefine a ‘dangerous’ dog. What would change?

Ada County leaders are considering whether to update their animal ordinance to make it align more closely with state law related to “dangerous” dogs and to add more specific animal cruelty provisions.

At a Wednesday meeting, members of the Ada County Commission discussed a new 24-page animal ordinance, which would replace the shorter existing ordinance.

Under current county law, dogs can be declared “vicious” through a hearing process with the Idaho Humane Society. If a dog is determined to be “vicious,” it will be killed, though dog owners can appeal the society’s decisions to a magistrate judge.

Under the new ordinance, dog owners would be able to keep a problematic dog in some instances, so long as the dog is licensed with the county, micro-chipped, enclosed on the owner’s property, muzzled when out in public, inspected annually and has liability insurance, according to a draft of the ordinance. Dangerous dog determinations could still be appealed in court.

The new ordinance is part of an effort by the Humane Society to reform animal control ordinances around the Treasure Valley, which the group says will help officials enforcing the laws determine when a dog is really dangerous, and will also allow pet owners to keep their pets with restrictions when they don’t pose a serious danger to the public.

Under the existing ordinance, any dog that barks at the mailman could be found to have posed an attacking attitude, and be deemed dangerous, said Jeff Rosenthal, the CEO of the Idaho Humane Society.

By adding specific descriptions of cruelty to the law, the Humane Society also hopes it will be easier to prove in court that animals are being mistreated.

Kuna recently passed a new dangerous dog ordinance, and Boise updated its code in 2021, as part of an initiative to reform animal cruelty laws by former Council Member T.J. Thomson. Meridian is in the process of updating its ordinance.

How is a ‘dangerous’ dog defined?

The existing code defines a dangerous dog as a dog that “approaches any person in an apparent attitude of attack.”

“You can imagine how vague that is,” Rosenthal said, adding that it could be applied to a dog that is not really a threat, and that such a definition has been found to be unconstitutional in some jurisdictions around the country.

Rosenthal said most dogs have high bite inhibition, also known as “soft mouth,” where they’ve learned to softly bite during play or in other instances. He said his own dog is an example.

“I have a little dog that has very high bite inhibition. He bites me all the time, but I never get hurt,” Rosenthal said, noting that such behavior can be a nuisance, but that it’s “not really the kind of public safety issue that we’re worried about here.”

In some instances, any dog could bite someone, but it doesn’t mean the dog is a threat to the public.Examples include a dog biting someone who stepped on the dog’s tail, or a dog biting someone who placed the dog under duress or caused it a lot of pain.

Other dogs rarely bite people, but when they do they cause major injuries. Those are what the ordinance is meant to prohibit.

“Those are animals that we cannot have in our society,” he said. “Every dangerous dog ordinance and statute is imperfect ... But I think (the new ordinance) provides a pretty reasonable approach to the problem that prioritizes public safety.”

Since Boise updated its code, there are three registered “dangerous” dogs still under the care of their owners in Boise, and there have not been further incidents, Tiffany Shields, the director of animal control services, said at the meeting.

Rosenthal said another problem with the existing law is that a state law, passed in 2016, is more similar to what the updated law would be, leaving a large discrepancy in how the laws can be enforced today.

“If I don’t like you, I use the unfair code, but if I like you, I use the other one,” Rosenthal said. “We need to just make our local codes more consistent with state code. The don’t have to be exactly the same. They can be more strict. It can be a little bit different. But if they’re vastly different, that’s a problem for my organization.”

Rosenthal also noted that he hopes the new law will lead to more reporting of problem dogs by the public. In the past, he said neighbors are often hesitant to report a problem dog because they know that, if declared dangerous, the dog will be killed.

By adding options for a person to keep a problem dog under certain conditions, people should feel that there’s more due process, and be more likely to come forward with serious problems, he said.

Commissioners asked questions about how the law relates to service animals, which are required to be allowed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rosenthal said the Humane Society supports service animals and doesn’t interrogate someone about whether a service animal is legitimate or not, as that could lead to lawsuits.

Existing law allows a person to have a maximum of four dogs without obtaining a kennel license. The new law would limit residents to a combined four dogs and cats without such a license.

Under the new ordinance, an owner with a dog that bites someone else — or a companion animal — and doesn’t cause serious injury would be guilty of a $150 infraction. If the dog bites someone again within 12 months, the incident would be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $1,000 and up to 30 days in prison. A bite causing serious injury would be a misdemeanor the first time.

Animal cruelty

Unlike the state provisions about dangerous dogs, the Idaho statute that defines animal cruelty is not specific. That means that prosecutors must “start from square one” to prove in court that an animal is being mistreated.

“Why is hitting a dog with a hammer 20 times cruelty? You have to prove that,” Rosenthal said.

By enumerating definitions of cruelty more clearly, the Humane Society expects a cruelty charge to be easier to establish in court.

Outreach

The county has asked the public about the new ordinance, and the primary responses it has received relate to concerns about feral cats killings birds and a desire to not have additional fees, according to Elizabeth Duncan, a spokesperson for the commission.

Free-ranging cats have been estimated to kill between 1.3 and 4 billion birds each year in the U.S.

Rosen said that the Humane Society will sterilize cats that it receives without an owner, and that it generally returns them to the field. He said cats are part of our communities and will maintain feral populations regardless of what animal shelters do.

Duncan said the county plans to do more outreach before the ordinance comes before the commission again at an open business meeting on Nov. 29.