HOW WE SEE IT

Springdale Eyes Dog Limitations Via Predictions

Should Springdale become a city without dogs?

Debate over revisions to Springdale’s regulation of animals within the city is driven by good intentions. After all, who wouldn’t want to stop a dog attack?

“I hate to think that the animal could attack a child next,” Mayor Doug Sprouse said at a recent meeting on the proposed changes.

Anyone would hate for that to happen, so perhaps the best, most successful solution is to ban all dogs from Springdale. Thatwould provide a strong assurance against the likelihood a canine might attack a youngster. It would reflect the strong commitment of public offcials to prevent such a tragedy from happening.

WHAT’S THE POINT?

Springdale’s proposed ordinance involving vicious dogs attempts to predict future behavior, an approach destined to fail. Containment of animals is a straight forward enforcement standard to protect residents.

Too far? Most folks would say so, which demonstrates that even the best of intentions havetheir limits when it comes to city ordinances that seek to control future behavior. The drive for Springdale’s changes remind us a bit of “Minority Report,” the Tom Cruise movie in which a “Precrime” squad of law enforcement offcers make arrests before crimes are committed based on the prognostications of three people with future-telling capabilities. But even in this fictional tale, those abilities are not foolproof.

In Springdale, that concept comes in the form of “potentially dangerous animals,” the designation given for animals that fit a predetermined collection of behaviors that indicate it might be dangerous to other animals or to humans. The debate started with the concept of banning specific breeds, a sort of mass conviction based on suspicions, probabilities and possibilities. That approach was flawed enough it faltered.

Changes to be discussed and maybe decided at this week’s City Council meeting are designed to give animal control offcers and Springdale District Court more authority of the preventative kind. Based on a complaint from a fellow resident, a dog would be impounded until the the court makes a determination as to the animal’s disposition.

According to definitions proposed in this revision, a potentially dangerous animal is one that without justification. behaves in a manner a reasonable person would believe poses an unjustified imminent threat of serious injury or death; or without provocation.

chases. confronts. or threatens to attack a person or domestic animal; or approaches a person or domestic animal on a street sidewalk or public or private property in a menacing fashion such as would put a reasonable person in fear of attack.

It can be a convoluted process to discern what a “reasonable person” thinks.

This ordinance won’t stop attacks. It wouldn’t even prevent dangerous animals from living in Springdale.

It would create a revenue source and a directory of dogs for the city by creating a $100-a-year permit for keeping potentially dangerous animals whose owners must carry at least $50,000 in liability insurance.

These pre-emptive measures simply cannot ensure a dog will or won’t attack. The city doesn’t have to attempt any predictions of future behavior for a dog confined by a leash or a fence. The fundamental issue is containment of animals, and the city must focus its enforcement against those who allow their dogs to roam freely.

We appreciate the desire to prevent attacks and injury. But if that’s possible, let’s get busy talking about a law that will ensure no murders happen.

The fact one exists and yet murders still happen demonstrates the frivolity of predictive enforcement against potentially dangerous animals (of the human or canine variety). But it’s pretty easy to determine whether an animal is contained or not, regardless of disposition.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 02/10/2014

Upcoming Events