Council postpones ‘dog control’ ordinance amid public feedback

THE DALLES — After a lengthy discussion with local veterinarians on Oct. 27, The Dalles City Council opted to postpone action on its dog control ordinance. Councilors concluded that public feedback, particularly regarding potential client confidentiality issues, necessitated extended time and revision towards a more thoughtful, accurate authorization.

The ordinance

The proposed ordinance, described as an update to existing city regulations, would require all dogs within city limits to be licensed and obtain proof of current rabies vaccination.

“The city already has a dog licensing program as a requirement, but it’s been inconsistently enforced and administered,” said City Manager Matthew Klebes. “The ordinance is really attempting to give some structure and outline how to run an effective program, be transparent to the public and have additional flexibility for dog owners.”

If passed, veterinary medical facilities within city limits would have to inform clients of the city’s licensing requirement, make city-provided license applications available and display city-provided posters about the program. Every 90 days, such facilities must send the city’s animal control officer a copy of each rabies vaccination certificate they issue for any dog whose keeper has a mailing address within The Dalles.

Moreover, the ordinance sets a cap on the number of adult dogs permitted in a household (four), with an exception for those who already own more dogs at the time of enactment. “We don’t want to be draconian in the application of this ordinance,” Klebes said. “So there’s a provision for pet owners to declare a non-conforming dog.”

A clear leash law is also proposed, with exceptions for off-leash parks and working dogs. When a dog is off its property, it must be attached to a handheld leash under its owner’s control. A loose dog, off premises and without control, would be considered at large — a public nuisance — which may be subject to citation and impoundment.

The ordinance distinguishes between personal pets and canine-related business operations, with limits applying only to the former.

Procedures for impoundment, return and the use of license information to reunite at-large pets with owners more efficiently are included. “An animal control officer who is out interacting with a dog at large will be able to look at the tag, run a quick search and return the dog directly to their owner,” Klebes said.

Public comment

The public comment portion of the meeting featured a mixed bag of support and suggestions, with many praising the ordinance’s intentions but questioning the finer details.

Breanna Wimber, board member of Columbia Gorge Humane Society, praised the ordinance’s commitment to public health and community animal welfare, but suggested a less strict leash policy to allow well-trained, voice-controlled dogs more flexibility.

“We hope these changes will make compliance simple and more accessible for residents, with the help of local veterinarians partnering with the city,” Wimber said. “We’re not recreating the wheel here, just making our community a little bit safer for the animals that we all care for.”

The Dalles resident Jim Wilcox expressed strong support for the ordinance, referencing a past negative experience with a neighbor who owned more than eight adult bloodhounds, spawning uncontrolled barking and unsanitary conditions. “You could see them making puppies on the deck on a regular basis,” Wilcox said. “The stench was unbelievable.”

While Veterinarian Cynthia Lindsay of Columbia Veterinary Hospital agreed with the core goals of public animal health and appreciated the city bringing vets into the discussion, she was dismayed that the process started at the county level without notification or meaningful outreach to local private clinics. Vying for more legal clarity, Lindsay expressed concern about risks in providing client info to the city and possible privacy conflicts.

“Are we vulnerable to legal action for disclosing this information?” Lindsay asked. “If somebody comes after us and brings a suit … who is going to bear the financial or legal ramifications?”

Lindsay worried about being required to determine whether clients’ addresses were inside city limits and requested that the process be made as simple and straightforward as possible for clinics.

Veterinarian Dan Davidson of The Dalles Veterinary Hospital echoed many of Lindsay’s sentiments, requesting that reporting and administrative processes remain as “streamlined as possible.” Davidson expressed that providing license services at the clinic scale was already very burdensome and warned that some clients might take their pets elsewhere if required to report rabies certificates.

(In)decision

“This is a lot to absorb,” said Mayor Rich Mays. “Councilors may have more questions that should be clarified before they feel comfortable voting on the ordinance.”

In agreement, Councilor Ben Wring advocated for the ordinance to return at a future date. “I would like to have a very clear legal understanding of their obligation to protect their clients’ information,” Wring said. “That information is extremely competition sensitive, and I think as a city, we have an obligation to protect it.”

Reaching a consensus, the council elected to bring the ordinance back on either Nov. 24 or Dec. 8.