Part of the Bay Area News Group

Proposed Contra Costa County Dangerous Animal Ordinance

By Gary Bogue
Monday, October 31st, 2005 at 9:49 am in Animals, Cats, Dangerous Animal Ordinance, dogs, Pets.

Hopefully the proposed Contra Costa Dangerous Animal Ordinance will pass when the county supervisors vote on it on Nov. 15. After reading it, I think the ordinance works for me. Hopefully it will strengthen the county’s dangerous dog laws enough to help the Animal Services Department deal with problem owners and their animals before somebody gets hurt, instead of after. That’s what this is really all about. Time will tell.

You can read a copy of the proposed ordinance at:

Please click on "Comments" below if you have anything to say about the ordinance.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

6 Responses to “Proposed Contra Costa County Dangerous Animal Ordinance”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    Finally! I have some recourse against the neighbor’s cat who came into my backyard and beat the crap out of my cat. Just trap it and have it declared a dangerous animal.

  2. rosalie howarth Says:

    This is a great example of shifting public safety issues away from punishment and towards prevention.
    No use punishing a dog or its owner AFTER a totally predictable maiming or death has occurred.
    When we can clearly “see it coming”, our obligation is to stop it before it occurs.
    My one concern is that it does nothing to address pit bulls ,who can be loving family pets for years until one day something just sets them off, and they chew up a child. Many of them have no prior offenses, but when they finally “go off”, they kill.
    I heartily approve this ordinance and more like it.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    How about an ordinance for law enforcement officers who unload their guns on a cowering pitbull who was not posing a danger at the time? I would be very afraid to have a law enforcement officer in my neighborhood or who is involved in law enforcement in any county or town in any way who cannot control his temper. Unloading the whole revolver…..extremely unnecessary. The man is a menace. He should be put in jail. The dog, Sammy, had removed himself from the situation, so should the officer.

    Not all pitbulls are a menace. The majority of them are well trained and make quite nice pets. Remember “Spanky and Our Gang”? That dog was a pitbull. I am in favor of the ordinance, but this tragedy should never have happened.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    This is a step in the right direction, and being proactive is better than being only reactive. Pet owners need to be responsible for the animals they take into their homes – too many do not. Our domesticated pets rely on their humans for not only food and water, but also for training, play, and the setting of rules for acceptable behavior.

    I know two persons whose dogs have been attacked by pit bull dogs – one of the attacked dogs was a puppy-in-training for Guide Dogs for the Blind, the other was a pet dog. In both cases, the humans and dogs were going about their business and the unprovoked attacks were from dogs that had escaped from their owners. Both of the dogs that were attacked were seriously hurt and required medical attention. Fortunately, neither of the humans were injured.

    While I agree that not all Pit Bulls are bad, there are some that show signs of being dangerous – if their owners take on such a dog, then they need to be regulated in some manner, before something happens rather than after. The same is true of any dog that presents behavior that is potentially harmful to humans or other animals – it doesn’t matter what the breed of the dog might be.

    Gary, I appreciate your support of the CC County ordinance.

  5. Bill Says:

    Where to start…let’s start with the lack of honesty regarding the intentions of those pushing forward with this ordinance.

    The reality of the situation – if it is determined you are required to get a permit for a potentially dangerous animal, you probably won’t be able to keep it.

    For renters, landlords will start including clauses preventing tenants from owning such animals.

    For homeowners, insurance companies will refuse to underwrite policies, or increase rates astromomically for people who own such animals.

    The authors and supporters of this ordinance know this. Their intention is to ban these animals, but in a roundabout way that makes others the bad guy – insurance companies and landlords.

    Setting aside how disingenious the ordinance authors/supporters are, those most responsible for harboring dangerous animals, are the same folks who ignore a multititude of other laws. Drug dealers and gang bangers are not going to be affected in the least by this.

    And finally – let’s hear about all the extra resources the county has to administer and enforce this program. We all know they don’t exist.

    This is just politicians and special interest groups, blathering on about feel-good legislation that any objective person knows won’t make a bit of difference.

  6. Shari Day Post Says:

    Hello… I saw an interesting “cat” in my backyard tonight; I live in Port Costa… larger then a house cat (or one VERY LARGE) house cat… not a mountain lion and not a bobcat… was somewhere between white and tan in color.. no markings, wide set pointed ears normal length tail… maybe 30 lbs or so. Can you tell me what it might have been? Can housecats get this large?

    My email address is:



Leave a Reply