The Lake Today

Several proposed changes to the Camdenton ordinance outlawing pit bulls within the city limits was given a nod of approval by the Board of Aldermen at last week’s meeting.

According to City Administrator Brenda Colter, on a vote of 5-0 (with one absent) aldermen approved several changes designed to strengthen a city ordinance that makes it illegal to keep pit bulls within the city limits.

Burden of proof

Colter said City Attorney Phil Morgan recommended strengthening the ordinance language to “put the burden of proof for identifying a dog as a pit bull” on the person in possession of the dog rather than on city officials attempting to remove it.

“The previous ordinance didn’t create any presumption that the animal was an actual pit bull,” Colter said. “Now the city has a checklist of markings that identify the breed which will make it easier for police officers when they have to go out and enforce the ordinance.”

The original ordinance read: “It shall be unlawful to possess a pit bull dog within the municipal limits of the City of Camdenton, unless such an animal was licensed to be within the city prior to Oct. 4, 1988.”

That language has been changed in the new ordinance to read: “It shall be unlawful to keep, harbor, care for, own or possess in any way a pit bull dog within the Municipal limits of the City of Camdenton. A pit bull may be identified as any dog which exhibits those distinguishing characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club as described in the identification checklist, which is on file in the city offices. Such identification by city personnel using the above standards shall be prima facie proof and shall create a rebuttable presumption that a dog is a pit bull. Such presumption may be rebutted in municipal court actions for violations of this section only upon ample proof offered by the defendant in such action.”

Colter said it is the section of the ordinance that allows city officials to use the American Kennel Club standards for the breed that is most important.

“With the additional language and the checklist, city employees will be protected if they have to remove a dog even if the owner swears it is not a pit bull, so long as the dog meets the Kennel Club checklist for the breed’s marking,” she said.

Colter said the changes also allow the owner to take the matter before municipal court if they disagree with the city’s decision the animal is a pit bull or pit-bull cross.

One of few

Camdenton is one of few cities in Mid-Missouri barring a specific breed of dog from its corporate limits.

Although both Osage Beach and Lake Ozark have an ordinance dealing with owning vicious dogs, neither town specifically names pit bulls.

The Lake Ozark ordinance “Chapter 215: Animal Control Code” of the city codes names a number of animal species deemed “dangerous” because of the breed, but nearly all those animals are wild by nature. Another section of the ordinance gives a clearer view of what the city considers dangerous when it comes to dogs. Basically the ordinance gives police officers or the city animal control officer the right to confine any dog that proves to be a “public nuisance.”

While a separate section of the code makes it illegal to “own, keep harbor or allow to be upon any premises occupied by him/her or under his/ her charge or control any dog of a cross, dangerous or ferocious disposition,” the Osage Beach ordinance governing “vicious” animals is not quite as restrictive.

That ordinance reads, in part: “No animal of a vicious nature or disposition as determined by the Animal Control Officer shall be allowed to attack or bite any person or animal or cause annoyance to the neighborhood or persons using the public street, or chase, worry or molest other animals or children, or cause damage or injury. Any animal exhibiting any such tendency shall be muzzled, confined on chains, tethers or leashes of such length that it cannot get off the premises of the owner, or shall be securely confined upon the premises within a pen or other enclosure. Notice of the presence of such animal shall be clearly posted upon the premises where it shall be confined.”

The ordinance goes on to prescribe penalties for violation of the ordinance, including a section giving a municipal court judge the right to call for the animal to be euthanized if the owner is convicted of a third violation of the ordinance and the judge deems it necessary for the safety of the public.