[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: RE: Questions re June 4 Agenda items 5A and 7B

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Michels, Janet

Thank you for your questions. We responded to Councilwoman Ageton's questions in the second reading memo. In response to Mayor Appelbaum's questions, we provide the following:
 
-- Section 6-1-7(a)(2): An animal can go much longer without food than it can with water. Lack of a sufficient quantity of food that rises to criminal conduct can be detected with recognized and scientifically accepted body condition scoring. Conversely an animal can perish in a relatively short amount of time without a constant supply of water. In order to protect animals from illness or death resulting from dehydration the amendment seeks to criminalize the failure to provide tethered or confined animals with a constant supply of clean water.
 
-- Section 6-1-20(a): An aggressive animal can approach a person or domestic animal in a vicious and terrorizing manner where the attack is not capable of being consummated in a number of circumstances we have seen over the years. One was an incident in the parking lot of a local outdoor retailer. A dog was confined in a vehicle with the windows rolled down several inches, but not far enough for the dog to escape the vehicle. A man walked between the aggressive dog's vehicle and the vehicle parked next to it. The dog, previously unseen by the victim, jumped up from the seat of the vehicle, and charged the man through the window, barking and snarling viciously. The man was caught off guard by the dog, reflexively jumped away, fell, and broke a bone in his hand.  The attack was not capable of being consummated because the dog was confined to the vehicle. However, the dog was clearly aggressive and caused injury to an innocent person. Another example is where a dog was tethered outside of a business without a person present. The tether allowed the dog to come within inches of a sidewalk. As a person walked on the sidewalk and the tethered dog came running at the person, snarling and barking viciously. Again, the tether prevented the attack from being consummated, but the incident caused a great deal of distress to the pedestrian. A personal example not reported to authorities is a cat on the screened porch of its house, sunning itself on the railing. An unattended dog ran into the yard barking and snarling viciously. The dog jumped to that its front paws were on the railing and it pushed in the screen next to the cat as it continued jumping, barking and snarling. The cat jumped down, ran into the house and was not injured. The attack was not capable of being consummated because of the screen, but that dog clearly was a danger to the community and in need of behavioral training.
 
-- Section 6-1-20(d): The aggressive animal ordinance necessarily focuses on the behavior of the guardian/keeper: that person's ability to control the animal and protect the public or other animals from the animal’s conduct. It shouldn't matter if the victim dog has been involved in other incidents. All dog guardians and keepers are expected to control their pet so attacks, bites and injuries to people or domestic animals do not occur.
 
Please let us know if we can provide additional information.

Janet T. Michels
Assistant City Attorney
City of Boulder City Attorney's Office
P. O. Box 8015
Boulder, Colorado 80306
303-441-3025


________________________________________
From: Appelbaum, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:22 PM
To: Ageton, Suzy; HOTLINE
Subject: RE: Questions re June 4 Agenda items 5A and 7B

I'll simply add a couple of questions on Agenda item 5A:

-- Section 6-1-7(a)(2): The first sentence regarding access to water is proposed to be deleted, according to the agenda memo, because you can't prove an animal has "sufficient" access to water.  While this isn't a big deal, I don't really understand how this is so different than (a)(1), which requires a "sufficient" quantity of food.  Seems like if someone is mistreating an animal (that is not tethered/confined), by either lack of food or water, we might want to be able to do something about it.

-- Section 6-1-20(a): While the memo gives a somewhat plausible rationale for including "or domestic animal," I'd still like a truly plausible example of when this would be applied when the attack is not "capable of being consummated," either in regard to people or domestic animals, but especially the latter.

-- Section 6-1-20(d): I suppose that not being "entitled" to present certain evidence doesn't exactly preclude one from doing so, but why the need to state this explicitly instead of just leaving it to judicial discretion?  If a dog does bit another dog, might it not be relevant to know that the bitten dog has been previously involved in such incidents and thus might have also been "responsible" (even if it did not "intentionally provoke")?

Thanks --Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Ageton, Suzy
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:48 AM
To: HOTLINE
Subject: Questions re June 4 Agenda items 5A and 7B


5A - Section 6-1-20(a) (p. 105) - How are we defining "in a vicious and terrorizing manner?"

Also, same section - If two dogs on leash and with guardians/handlers are approaching each other, and one starts growling, baring teeth, maybe even straining on the leash, but nothing happens b/c the guardian/handler controls the dog, does this behavior constitute a violation under 6-1-20(a)?

7B - On average, how long does it take the City to process a medical marijuana (MM) license?

Suzy

Sent from my iPad