Home  ·   News  ·   Weather  ·   Sports  ·   Jobs  ·   Community  ·   Pics N Videos  ·   Station  ·   Marketplace  ·   6 on Your Side  ·   Contests  ·   Get Connected  ·   Blogs
Health Check · Lottery · DTV · Seasonal · Mom to Mom · Traffic · The Omaha Buzz · CityCAMS · My Weather · School Closings · HS Cribs · Restaurants · McKnight Investigates
WOWT.com on Demand
6 On Your Cell
News, Sports & Weather
Information On Your Cell
Text ALERTS
Breaking News Alerts
Direct to Your Cell Phone
Daily e-News
News & Weather Updates
delivered via email
You Cast
Submit Your Pics
and Video
What's on 6
Your Guide to NBC
& WOWT Programming
Mayor's Dangerous Dog Proposal Save Email Print
Reporter: WOWT
Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com

A | A | A

Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey reveals a proposal that would establish a "potentially dangerous dog" designation. In his view, it's stronger than an all out ban because authorities will be able to identify dangerous dogs before they bite.

The Nebraska Humane Society would determine which dogs have a propensity to attack when unprovoked. Pit bulls owners would have to follower stricter rules. The pit bull would not be allowed outside, unless it was in a securely fenced yard. If outside the yard, pit bulls must be leashed, muzzled, and under the control of someone over 19.

If an owner has three violations in two years, the dog would be taken away and the owner must surrender all pets. They would also be prohibited from owning any others for two years.

The Mayor's proposal would also increase pet licensing fees next year. He says the extra money would be used to enforce the ordinance.

This all came about after 15-month-old Charlotte Blevins was attacked by a pit bull back in June. The little girl has since undergone several surgeries to repair damage to her scalp. Her family says she still has a long road ahead.

If approved by the Omaha City Council, the ordinance could take effect October 1st.

Here's the mayor's summary of the proposed ordinance:

Cruelty to Animals
• Anti Tethering – No dog can be tethered outdoors in excess of 15 minutes at any one time unless a trolley system is utilized. Tethering using a trolley system cannot exceed one hour.

Potentially Dangerous Animals
Establishes “Potentially Dangerous Dog” designation – Under the proposed amendment, the Nebraska Humane Society can designate specific dogs, based on their behavior, as “potentially dangerous”.

Definition of “Potentially Dangerous Dog” - Any animal that when unprovoked: (i) inflicts injury on a human being that does not require medical treatment, (ii) injures a domestic animal, or (iii) chases or approaches a person upon streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack. In addition, any specific animal with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack when unprovoked, to cause injury, or to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals.

Spaying or Neutering and Microchip Identification Required - Mandatory Spaying or Neutering and Microchip Identification of potentially dangerous dogs within 30 days of designation.

Classes Required - Owners of dogs designated as potentially dangerous must attend a responsible pet ownership class approved by the animal control authority within 90 days of designation. At the discretion of the animal control authority, a dog designated as potentially dangerous may be required to attend a dog behavior class approved by the authority within 90 days of designation.

Leash and Muzzle Required - It is unlawful for any person to permit a potentially dangerous dog to go beyond the property of such person unless the animal is under the control of a person 19 years of age or older, restrained securely by a leash and properly muzzled.

Reckless Owner
• Dog owners convicted of any provision of Chapter 6 on three separate occasions within 24 months is deemed a reckless owner, they must surrender all pets and are prohibited from owning a pet for 2 years of the designation.

Leash and Muzzle Requirement for Pit Bulls
• It is unlawful for any person to permit a pit bull outdoors unless confined in a securely fenced yard or unless the animal is under the control of a person 19 years of age or older, restrained securely by a leash and properly muzzled.

• A pit bull is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentina, Presa Canario or Cane Corso, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits/characteristics of any one or more of the mentioned breeds.

Records
• To increase licensing requirements, animal dealers are required to provide the animal control authority the records of the dates of sale, identification and sex of each pet sold, and the name and address of the purchaser of each pet sold.

Fees
• Each neutered male or spayed female dog license will increase from $15 to $20 in 2009 and to $25 in 2011.

• Each sterilized cat license will increase from $12 to $15 in 2009.

• Each intact male or female dog/cat will increase from $30 to $50 in 2009.

• The cost of recovering an unaltered dog that has been impounded by the animal control authority will be increased.



  • Click here to view the current city ordinance.

  • More Stories
    Senators Back To Work In Lincoln

    Bank Robbery

    Attempted Armed Robbery

    Young Burglars Sought

    Parking Rage Incident

    Elderly Syracuse Woman Dies in Crash

    Flag Theft Arrest

    Bible Stolen From Car

    Post Your Comments
    First Name:
    Location:
    Enter Comments: characters left
    Email (optional):
    Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
    Read Comments
    Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
    Posted by: Doug on Aug 20, 2008 at 06:41 PM
    I think the new dog law is a good start. However I would also add, that if you have been convicted of a crime in the last 10 years or someone who lives in your house has been convicted of a crime that they are not allowed to own a pit bull. Bad people own these bad dogs. This will also improve the level of ownership of good people with pit bulls. So its a win win. Compare this law to handgun ownership. You can own almost any kind of gun you want, but the government does regulate how many bullets it can hold and also if it can fire automatically. Both are broadly accepted compromises to hand gun owernship. Lets face it guns kill people and so do pit bulls. All very veryl little extra control can't hurt.

    Posted by: CoreyS. on Aug 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM
    only moron's think if you own pitbull's you dogfight!! What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? To ban or discriminate against pitbulls is a terrorist act of ignorance, Dont be a terrorist!!!!!!! the dogs are innocent the irresponsible owner is guilty get it right, do your own research, dont go by what the media tell's you or the people who have no idea what they are talking about, like 95% of the people for the ban!!!!

    Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:26 AM
    How about a law against dangerous dog "owners"? They are the problem here. It is not the breed of dog that is the problem, it is the type of people who predominately own this breed of dog that is. Once a person has been convicted of harboring a dangerous animal, they should never be allowed to own another animal period.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:26 AM
    How about a law against dangerous dog "owners"? They are the problem here. It is not the breed of dog that is the problem, it is the type of people who predominately own this breed of dog that is. Once a person has been convicted of harboring a dangerous animal, they should never be allowed to own another animal period.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 20, 2008 at 06:49 AM
    Apparently mayor Fahey, at least some members of the city council, and at least one important Humane Society donor are fans of dog fighting.

    Posted by: rustyfan on Aug 19, 2008 at 07:31 PM
    well, thats 2 comments FOR, and 95 AGAINST. looks like the mayor has done it again. with results like that, im sure the ordinance will pass, just like the stadium did.

    Posted by: Citizen on Aug 19, 2008 at 07:29 PM
    Yesterday the Humane Society again went to the house in the neighborhood with IMAGINARY pitbulls. The owner again pretended not to be home. Only one of the four dogs there has ever been caught and according to the kids their uncle paid high fines to get it back. The dog is still not wearing a collar and is still allowed to run. Today the same owner was walking her kid through the neighborhood with the newest puppy free to follow behind. These people with these dogs that attack are often not licensed with the owners pretending it is not their dog. The proposed ordinance will not EVER solve this problem. The owner of these dogs is even in HUD property with an attitude that they are from the projects so they can do what they want. This attitude is unchanged no matter what the penalty, how will an ordinance change attitude of those who believe they are above the laws others are required to follow? Why should law abiding citizens pay the cost when nothing will ever change?

    Posted by: CoreyS. on Aug 19, 2008 at 05:21 PM
    Posted by: ANGRY Location: GOT TO GET OUT OF HERE on Aug 19, 2008 at 12:16 PM I'm sure this has already been said (I'm not reading all these posts) but...THANKS ALOT PIT BULL OWNERS FOR THE INCREASE IN MY FEES FOR MY DOGS! NOW I HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR GOOD FOR NOTHIN BUT FIGHTING/ATTACK DOGS. ewww can't smoke in Omaha but can have dogs injure others. obviously you have no idea what you are talking about because they aren't bred for fighting or attacking so get your fact's right before posting!!!!! fahey is actually getting it right except you need to muzzle all dog's if you want biting and attacking to stop! And lower licence fee's, just making it more harder for people to get dog's licenced! and how about making a irresponsible owner proposal??

    Posted by: Politcal on Aug 19, 2008 at 05:06 PM
    This dangerous dog proposal solves nothing. It won't be followed or enforced. Fahey doesn't have the spine to do the right thing, which is to ban the pit bulls. Mayor "Yellow" Fahey does it again.

    Posted by: Kent on Aug 19, 2008 at 04:20 PM
    Teri, that's the problem. This proposal DOES NOT blame the "innocent animal". Actually, they need to blame both the owner and the animal. Really, how do you justify calling a dog that has mauled someone an "innocent animal"? Was the dog just following orders?

    Posted by: tHe clOWn PrinCe on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:34 PM
    another pitbull attack today at a day care in Maryland. 18 month old got his head ripped off, you could have a daily pitbull puts child in ICU report. The animal is by means innocent, it is genetically predisposed for violence by selective breeding, saying a pitbull isn't dangerous dog is like saying a bloodhound can't smell, or a border collie can't herd. this half-measure won't solve anything and soon another pitbull will hurt a innocent child and Fahey will be in trouble.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:15 PM
    To Angry: U wanted an all out ban, be careful what u ask for bcuz now everyone with a pet will pay, didnt get what u wanted, and now your mad that it effect us all:)U angry people have created a bigger problem, ask yourself why would these Good for nothing but fighting/ and attcking dogs even liscense ther dogs?

    Posted by: TO: "Here" on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:11 PM
    So just because your Cane Corso didnt bite anyone, that means all the rest of the pits and bully breeds that DO bite people should not be muzzled? I dont get why everyone is up in arms about this whole muzzling thing. You people won your ridiculous battle in keeping these worthless dogs, so just hush up and go along with the guidelines associated with them. Either muzzle them or ban them. You decide which is better. I am so sick of half the people in this city wanting to be advocates for an animal that was bred to attack and kill other animals, and is now directing this aggression on humans. Time and time again innocent children and elderly are KILLED by these dogs, and some people and the Humane Society only want whats best for the dog. And to Teri. "Innocent" animals? Yes, that poor little defenseless pit bull that tore the baby's scalp off was so ''innocent and threatened.'' My god give me a break.

    Posted by: Lori on Aug 19, 2008 at 02:14 PM
    Here's an idea...how about pit bull owners and owners of other large breed dogs pick up the tab by paying higher fees to license them? Since Fahey has taken office, the fee to license our NON-violent, INDOOR-ONLY cats has increased nearly 100% (was $8 per cat, now will be $15, so nearly doubled). Not that we do not have the extra $6 each year; it's the principle of the thing. When I complained the last time rates went up, Fahey sent me a snarky e-mail stating "people who can't afford to license pets shouldn't have them." Well sorry, Mikey, but I've paid extra all these years you've been mayor and I don't see a stitch of increase in services these increased fees have provided. Higher license fees on DOGS and MANDATORY MUZZLES on all dogs over 10 pounds...how's THAT for a solution.

    Posted by: Teri on Aug 19, 2008 at 12:43 PM
    Why don't they control potentially dangerous owners rather than blaming an innocent animal.

    Posted by: ANGRY on Aug 19, 2008 at 12:16 PM
    I'm sure this has already been said (I'm not reading all these posts) but...THANKS ALOT PIT BULL OWNERS FOR THE INCREASE IN MY FEES FOR MY DOGS! NOW I HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR GOOD FOR NOTHIN BUT FIGHTING/ATTACK DOGS. ewww can't smoke in Omaha but can have dogs injure others.

    Posted by: Chris on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:17 AM
    "Here", so you walked your dog in front of the airport. Okay... please tell us how you managed to escape the attention of security as you walked your non-service pet at the airport without having him in a dog carrier? Unless you were at Podunk private airport, you're lying to us. Why are threatened dog owners so prone to lying?

    Posted by: Mary on Aug 19, 2008 at 09:42 AM
    The AKC is currently fighting laws across the country which ban pit bulls. How is requiring muzzling all pit bull & assoc. breeds irregardless of history being muzzled not cruelty inflicted based on breed? How can this city identify aggressive animals before they bite be fair to any dog? How can this city make good decisions when the police force is allowed to shoot and kill any dog that startles them with a bark whether on your property or not, will the owners then be further victimized by not being allowed another pet for two years? I have seen the police blow away a cow who moved when shot with a tranquilizer dart. It took half a dozen men to kill a cow, I was glad my children were in school at the time, this was years ago. You see the lack of how to handle an animal as an excuse to kill, now it seems this will include labeling a owner as well. Why not seriously hold owners responsible for letting them run, the last time I called on a pit bull, the pound was uninterested?

    Posted by: Ann on Aug 19, 2008 at 09:39 AM
    Good luck enforcing rules like this. I actually feel like laughing. Meanwhile, I still won't walk in my neighborhood until dangerous dogs are banned.

    Posted by: Here on Aug 19, 2008 at 08:14 AM
    I took my cane corso to the airport last week and got him out and walked him in front of the airport. Everyone was so impressed with him, he let everyone including small children pet him. I would of never taken him if he has every shown aggression. And guess what no one was afraid of him. He is well socialized and walks right beside you. So I don't feel that if I come to Omaha I should have to muzzle him!!!! Not a mean bone in his body.

    Posted by: J on Aug 19, 2008 at 08:10 AM
    @Chris: The pitbull mix who attacked and bit a police officer the other night at 30th & Woolworth was not licensed or vaccinated. I'm sure that those people would have simply ignored any background check provisions, too. This proposal will be just another set of laws for people to ignore. Waste of time and unfairly targets those who are in current compliance. Like all those scalp-ripping, genital mutilating cat owners.

    Posted by: Jeff on Aug 18, 2008 at 11:16 PM
    Mike, your right! Because the legislation against Iguanas is aimed specifically at Green Iguanas, it is BSL. I think that BLS is working. I expect to see pit bull owners protesting on the capitol steps with signs like "Legalize Iguanas" and "End Iguana BSL". Otherwise, their protest against BSL is breed specific, ignoring the other breeds already banned! Come on you hypocritical pit bull owners, "Speak."

    Posted by: Chris on Aug 18, 2008 at 07:56 PM
    So charging all dog/ cat owners more is the right way to cover the costs of a select few who own 'Dangerous Breeds.' As alot of people have said any dog can be dangerous of you dont treat it right. How about instead you do like a backround check or screening process for people looking to adopt or purchase an animal. Then make the penalties for having an un-registered dog more severe to pay for the process. The problem is by reacting to something after it happens, i.e. after the dog attaks someone we are reacting instead of trying to be pro-active and cut off the source of the problem. Being a pet owner is similar to being a parent in some aspects, you are accountable in some respects for your dogs actions.

    Posted by: Dog on Aug 18, 2008 at 07:16 PM
    Fahey should be the one on a leash. He wouldn't be ab;e to reach my wallet.

    Posted by: Mike on Aug 18, 2008 at 04:03 PM
    Funny how you cant have an IGUANA in Omaha, but boy they sure think pit bulls are harmless. WHAT does an Iguana do to humans that a pit bull cant do ten times worse? Wow, City Officials have their heads on backwards.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 18, 2008 at 01:55 PM
    The problem with the new ordinance is that there are many pet owners who do not liscense there dogs anyway, so with this 20 dollar increase and classes and microchipping, I bet the number of unliscened pets will increase, and many more stray dogs, and then the authorities wont even know who the stay dogs belong to bcuz they wont be liscensed! Way to go Mayor!

    Posted by: Joe on Aug 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM
    If I see a Pit Bull, I'm killing it.

    Posted by: Brent on Aug 18, 2008 at 11:49 AM
    Thank GOD I dont live in Omaha. So you have to be 19 or older, and you cannot chain a dog up. WHAT PART OF THIS had anything to do with the pit bull that bit that poor girls scalp off?? THAT dog was walked by a 30 some year old woman, not a person under 19, and that dog, to my understanding, was not chained up. GREAT job Fahey, and Humane Society. This ordinance will NOT stop these dogs or their owners. I cant wait to hear what you both have to say when one of these dogs that you have worked so hard to protect, ends up killing a member of society that you are supposed to serve. I am sure you will both have some pathetic excuse for that dog in that situation too, when it comes. It was a big mistake allowing the Humane Society to be involved in this decision. All they were there for was to protect the precious dog.

    Posted by: John on Aug 18, 2008 at 06:45 AM
    Fahey has stated that he came up with this solution because pit bull bans have not stopped pit bull attacks in Denver and Council Bluffs. We all know this isn't true. So what Fahey's motive for no pit bull ban in Omaha? Should murder or theft not be against the law just because some murderers and crooks don't get caught. It's just this this kind of backwards logic by our public officials that is the reason we have 20 million people livinging the U.S. illegally and people maimed or killed by pit bulls in the U.S. on a practically daily basis.

    Posted by: Kent on Aug 18, 2008 at 02:28 AM
    Okay, people, help me understand this. Pit bull owners agree it's important to spay or neuter your dog, because it makes your pit bull less aggressive. But pit bull owners say if you raise the dog right, it won't be aggressive. Then why is it important to spay or neuter pit bulls for aggressiveness? Does that make them less than aggressive? It makes no sense to me. Okay, people, flame away...

    Posted by: Kent on Aug 18, 2008 at 02:23 AM
    TJ, it's certainly nice that you showed your dog some affection when your wife came home from walking him. I know you didn't want her walking alone, so you got her the intimidating pit bull. Will you keep the pit bull after your first child is born? It would be useful if you neutered him, instead of holding on to dreams of stud fees.

    Posted by: john on Aug 18, 2008 at 12:37 AM
    what a joke!!!!!!!! This is not an answer.

    Posted by: TJ on Aug 17, 2008 at 11:45 PM
    Poor Omaha mayor grasping at straws. I was outside today and a big pitbull walked up to me (on a leash). I knelt down and pet him all over. I didnt even lose a finger nail. Why is that? Maybe because he was raised by a responsible owner? Im sorry for those of you who cannot think for yourselves.

    Posted by: David on Aug 17, 2008 at 09:37 PM
    Why don't we ban all dogs? Reading these comments, I don't think there is one caring or responsible dog owner here in Omaha?

    Posted by: Tones on Aug 17, 2008 at 08:48 PM
    This "Dangerous Dog Proposal" is not very dangerous to the owners of dangerous dogs. How can a proposal without any "teeth" do anything to stop pit bull attacks?

    Posted by: Jane on Aug 17, 2008 at 08:45 PM
    We want and need an ordinance for Pit Bulls. How did they get so far off track? These "rules" could NEVER be enforced. Why involve all pet owners ? Costs too much and very ineffective. Let's either deal with Pit Bulls or not.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 17, 2008 at 07:50 PM
    We need an inept mayor proposal.

    Posted by: John on Aug 17, 2008 at 06:27 PM
    If a person identifies to the humane society a potentially dangerous dog, the owner will have to mandatory spaying or neutering and microchip identification of potentially dangerous dogs within 30 days of designation and attend classes. All of this will cost the dogs owner. Think about this, the owner will be imposed a cost to them without any court hearing, or the opportunity to face their accuser, going against the rights that the Consitution provided.

    Posted by: Jen on Aug 17, 2008 at 06:21 PM
    So now EVERYONE has to pay more to license there dogs and cats just so some idiot can have a dog that makes them look "tough". I say lets make the people with these dangerous dogs pay a seperate fee for wanting/having a dog that has the reputation for being "dangerous" . Why do I have to pay more to license my 10 dog just so that someone can have a pitbull. It's just wrong.

    Posted by: J on Aug 17, 2008 at 04:12 PM
    You all wined and wanted a ban. But do all of you want to pay for it? A couple $$ a year isn't going to kill anybody and if it is, you should't own a dog if you can't affford to take care of it. They are putting the responsibility back on the owner, where it should be!! Hopefully this will weed out the bad owners, but I think they should lower the time to one year, not two.

    Posted by: Stinger on Aug 17, 2008 at 03:54 PM
    This is BULL!!! Fahey created fees for 911 service -- he created new fees for owning a monitored buglar alarm -- and NOW we have higher pet licensing proposed. Just another Fahey money grab that adds no value.

    Posted by: RM on Aug 17, 2008 at 03:08 PM
    How much are the fines going to be for violating the ordinance big enough to make a difference I hope. Also if the Human Society has to be called out to a location the the pet owner should have to pay all costs associated with the call. Much like the city billing you when a rescue squad is called to an accident.

    Posted by: roni on Aug 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM
    why don't the owners of horses, birds, snakes, hamsters and other rodant pets have to be licensed?

    Posted by: Annonymous on Aug 17, 2008 at 10:18 AM
    There sure are pitbull owners who do not obey the laws. In our area, there are at least a couple of pitbulls who have been seen unleashed out in the streets, sidewalks and driveways. We have lot of joggers and walkers, especially dog walkers in our area that could certainly be at risk for an attack. So we wait to see if an innocent person, dog or child gets attacked and then something will be done about the dog. How ridiculous is that??????? Last year a big dog attacked a smaller one in our area and no one has seen the dog or owner since. She never bothered to find out if the injured dog survived or offered to pay the vet bill, etc. Both HEAFTY fines & jail time (NOT either or but BOTH) should be LAW!!!! for anyone owning a dog period. Laws are supposed to be followed. No one is special enough to be an exception!!!!!

    Posted by: Jeff on Aug 17, 2008 at 09:32 AM
    Courtney, this ordinance does NOT put the responsibility on the right people; it only puts responsibility on the already responsible owners, but not on the currently irresponsible 4/5 of pit owners. If those pit bull owners were held accountable with large fines, the responsible owners wouldn't need to pay more! And NHS would not need to revamp to hold all the pits. NHS would not hold the pits. Understanding that requires one to think. Courtney, obviously you don't think.

    Posted by: To Angie of lincoln by me on Aug 17, 2008 at 07:57 AM
    Angie i think that this is a way that Fahey can up something. Hes money hungry. I read where the city has an excess of money and wheres that going? That money could be used to educate some people that do have dangerous dogs. No I am not picking on pitts as i like them however i am not a dog owner of any kind now but i have had many dogs of different breeds and never once has anyone got bitten

    Posted by: Jay on Aug 17, 2008 at 02:44 AM
    I have read all of the comments here and its funny to hear that some people want an all out ban on large dogs. If that is the case then we should ban suvs and trucks. The problem is not with the dog but how they are raised and who the owners are. I also think this is a way for the mayor to get the money for the new ball park he wants to build. I think if you band all large dogs then half the city would move and the city would be in big trouble, and what about the police dogs they should be concider as dangerous dogs as well and be band. I have large dogs and they are as friendly. from reading what the mayor wants to do i see that if someone walks in front of the house and the dogs are out and just barks at them they would be dangerous. i do not think that is right for the fact that it is their natural habit. if the mayor wants to make a difference then he should make it mandatory classes for proper training of dogs and follow up to make sure its done. not all dogs who bark are aggresive

    Posted by: Patrick on Aug 17, 2008 at 12:04 AM
    Where are the hefty fines for not obeying the ordinance? That's the only way you'll get the attention of the 80% of pit bull owners who don't follow the law today. Otherwise, this ordinance is just a way to INCREASE TAXES (something Fahey is adamantly against, right?) on the law abiding pet owners, nothing more. Fahey's Grade: F.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 16, 2008 at 10:55 PM
    You are NOT going to get the people that don't follow the law now to follow this law. Spay and neuter YES. this is obviously a ploy by NHS to make more money and do less as usual. Come on City Council wake up.This breed needs to be banned with in the city limits. You can't out a bandaid on and stop the bleeding.

    Posted by: Barbara Damewood on Aug 16, 2008 at 10:19 PM
    Late last fall I was on 93rd and Fort, while walking my small dog I was cornered by a by a loose Pit Bull. I was able to get my dog over over a fence to safety. I was not able to get over the fence or get to the gate, the Pitt Bull would not let me move. I called the Humane Society on my cell for HELP.I called every 15 minutes. It took almost 2 hours for help to arrive. They are located less than 4 blocks away! If this is an example of how they will enforce the new regulations that are proposed, we are in serious trouble. Again Mayor Fahey continues to show hard working taxpayers what a embarassment he is to our City, and for Judy Varner to condone his stupidity shameful. To say that this is the "Most Comprehensive" package is a insult. My comments are true and I have no reason to hide behind anonymity.bdamewood bgdamewood46@yahhoo com

    Posted by: Courtney on Aug 16, 2008 at 09:09 PM
    Most of you people obviously don't think. A pit bull ban would cost Omaha much more than this proposal. Yes, you will have to pay more, because you DEMANDED something be done. The fees for a BAN would have been increased SO much more due to the space at the NHS having to be completely revamped to hold so many pits. Plus, this is a blanket plan, that acknowledges that ANY dog can be a dangerous dog (i.e., the child who got his face ripped off by a boxer last week, or the woman who's nose got ripped off by a lab a few weeks ago). A ban would do no more than completely encourage and wrongly educate the youth, and everyone else, that profiling is OK! It is NOT ok. It does nothing but make the panicking people feel a bit more in control. This ordinance will put the responsibility and on the people it should be on; the owners. And, hopefully, it will wake people up to the fact that spaying/neutering (and it contribution to overpopulation) is a much bigger issue than any breed

    Posted by: ANON on Aug 16, 2008 at 04:49 PM
    I'm so glad I don't live in Omaha, you guys are so hard to please. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    Posted by: Laura on Aug 16, 2008 at 04:47 PM
    I heard that a cop got bit by a PITBULL mix and shot the dog. That is so funny....why dont we just shoot them all, seriously. Mike Fahey's plan is so stupid and because of this lame idea I have to pay more to license my non violent pets...go figure that one.

    Posted by: Dog Walker on Aug 16, 2008 at 04:35 PM
    I for one will be glad about the tethering. Nothing is worse than walking by a home not sure if the tether will hold a barking dog. It is especially bad for me walking my dogs as that gets the tethered dogs worked up and I am always afraid they will "get us". There is a house on the corner of 56 & Blondo that scared me as they had their dog in the front yard, came out of nowhere and I did not see the tether--I have altered my route to avoid that situation. Pit bulls are to me as dangerous as their owners--there are good ones and there are bad ones. The license fee--I am willing to pay. Have you seen other counties humane societies? The poor animals there live pretty bad compared to ours in Omaha. If enough people supported it willingly when they had crises like capturing 100s of cats from mentally ill people, closing puppy mills, etc. they probably would not need to up fees. Get over the mayor thing-this is about the animals of our city. Separate the issue !!

    Posted by: Bulldogg on Aug 16, 2008 at 04:28 PM
    so this will only affect the people who are responsible with there pets. and not the low lifes that have these dogs on log chains with no shots and are not liscensed. just drive around the poorer neighborhoods and you will find the lowlifes with these dogs. go after them. and leave us responsible pitbull owners alone.

    Posted by: Happy to pay the increase on Aug 16, 2008 at 03:33 PM
    We should all stop complaining that the rates for liscesing our animals is going up, the money collected goes back into the Humane Society to help sick, homeless and injured animals. I cannot think of a better cause. But yes, I do think it a bit odd to increase cat fees as well. I think that Mayor Mike and his board have done a wonderful job coming up with this plan. It seems only fair to not ban a breed, but reach an agreement that both sides can agree upon, if the pit owner is irresposible I doubt they will chip,vaccinate or liscense their dog, therefore it will be taken away and will no longer be a threat. As a pit owner I have been doing most of these things for a long time (we need to get the dog chipped). To me it seems like these rules will prevent dog crulity i.e outside for long periods, increase the public and owner awareness and benifit Omaha. I hope it is adapted into all surrounding communities. Thanks Mike Fahey, from a responsible pit owner, good call.

    Posted by: Sunshine on Aug 16, 2008 at 01:51 PM
    Why must everyone who owns a dog be punished, for those who own a pit bull. Increase the fee for those dogs, why must the fees for licensing a pet go up that high. I live on limited income, $50 is going to be more than I can afford, and besides my dog is a service animal. This is not fair

    Posted by: Dad on Aug 16, 2008 at 01:35 PM
    This proposal is going to do NOTHING. Pitbull owners that did not obey leash laws will not obey any of THESE new ordinances. Why did the mayor and the city make such a big fuss about doing something about this problem? This is NOTHING. Nothing will change because of this. Pitbull attacks will still happen.

    Posted by: ANOTHER Fahey Failure on Aug 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM
    ONCE AGAIN, his lack of leadership is on display! This Bozo Mayor continues to impress me by how INEFFECTIVE one man can be.... This dog proposal is a COMPLETE joke and does NOTHING to stop PitBull attacks. Im counting the days until this clown is out of office.

    Posted by: John on Aug 16, 2008 at 12:01 PM
    The mayor admits that 4 out of 5 pit bull owners currently do not follow city ordinances, so this proposal only protects people AFTER they are attacked. Why doesn't Omaha follow Council Bluffs proven example? BAN PIT BULLS

    Posted by: RM on Aug 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM
    How did the Humane Society come up with a half a million dollar cost for this? Is that for one year or spread out over several years? Also why should the cat license go up there are no additional costs associated to the cats. I agree with Grandpa owners should be required to pay all medical costs because of the pets actions. Is the humane society going to patrol backyards and time how long you have your dog on a long chin or rope?

    Posted by: Bob on Aug 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM
    What a joke this has been. Omaha has a problem and this proposal will do nothing to solve the pit bull bitting. First of all the NE Humane Society had no business be on a committee drafting up this proposal. Second it does nothing to protect individuals. Third, this is not a dogs right it is the right of people not to worry when walking down the street, this a pit bull will attack them. Also people who have a pit bull should be responsible for damages, they should get jail time of at least 3-5 years, and the dog should be destroyed after insuring it does not have rabies. Lets hope the city council throws this proposal out, and bans pit bulls.

    Posted by: eric on Aug 16, 2008 at 10:34 AM
    HOW OMAHA IF ITS ALL HOW YOU RAISE YOU DOG THESE PEOPLE THAT CHAIN THERE DOGS UP TO A TREE ALL DAY EVERYDAY YOU DONT PLAY WITH THEM DONT WALK THEM DONT LET THEM INTERACT WITH OTHER DOGS THEY DONT KNOW HOW TO ACT ITS THE PEOPLE FALT MORE THEN IT IS THE DOGS NO ONE WILL AGREE WITH ME THATS FINE BUT ITS THE TRUTH FAHEY JUST WANTS TO SEE HOW BAD HE CAN SCREW THIS TOWN UP BEFORE HE LEAVES YES PIT BULLS KINDA OF A MIX FEELING FOR ME BUT OTHER DOGS COME ON ITS STUPID I KNOW JUST AS MANY CRAZY LITTLE DOGS THAT BIT ALL THE TIME SHOULD WE PUT MUZZLES ON THEM I DONT THINK SO STEP PEOPLE AND RAISE YOU DOGS LIKE YOU RAISE YOUR KIDS!!!!!!

    Posted by: Grandpa2 on Aug 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM
    Sounds like someone ignored the results of Council Bluffs and Denver. This proposal allows 1 free bite before the dog is labeled dangerous. I guess the proposal does have a bite. ;o)

    Posted by: What!!!! on Aug 16, 2008 at 10:11 AM
    More money and thats it. To everyone who says all dogs should be banned no way. Some of the smaller dogs under 10 pounds can also be mean. i think that if you wn a pit bull or any dangerous dog even a weiner dog that has bitten even if its only once than you should have to pay a higher fee to liense your pet. When a person gets bite and the police are called the info can be sent into the humane society that person should then be charged a higher fee then if the dog bites again then the dog should be put down. that would make more sense than to ban all dog over 10 pounds or muzzle a dog or the higher fees.

    Posted by: Angie on Aug 16, 2008 at 10:09 AM
    So, now any dog that has the characteristics of a "dangerous breed" has to be muzzled? So, anyone who has the "characteristics" of being a criminal should be put on house arrest? Doesn't sound fair, does it! Why should a dog be labeled just because of what breed they are? I refuse to muzzle my dog and I own a pit. Some people just don't understand what a pitbull is and for someone to tell me that my dog will attack because of who she is, is preposterous. You need to know and trust your dog and have respect for them if you want your dog to have respect for your fellow man. I do trust and respect my dog and she is the "ambassador" per say of our neighborhood. I challenge you to come and meet my dog and then tell me that she is dangerous and I have to muzzle her. Hey do they have tail restraints? That is the most dangerous part of my dog, her tail. I am just sick and tired of hearing about the bad pitbulls and I for one will be fighting this so it doesn't come to my city!!

    Posted by: Mitchy on Aug 16, 2008 at 09:45 AM
    This proposal is a JOKE! A BIG NOTHING. Pitbulls will continue to be a menace to Omaha. Hopefully the next mayor will do something about it.

    Posted by: David on Aug 16, 2008 at 09:34 AM
    There is something very wrong here. Why should responsible dog owners be required to pay for irresponsible dog owners? Why is there no fine for reckless dog owners? This is just appeasement, not the answer. There is no place in society for these animals. Period. This committee failed. I will never donate to the Humane Society again.

    Posted by: Tim on Aug 16, 2008 at 09:11 AM
    Any dog owner CONVICTED of any provision of chapter 6 on 3 seperate occasions within 24 mos. is deemed a reckless owner. So first you have to be convicted. Which in this town is no easy task, even with a full confession. On three seperate occasions...3 kids have to get mauled first...in 24 mos. right? So if you have a mauling every 9 mos. you're OK. And the fine is...wait, wait here it comes...you must surrender your pet and can't own one for 2 yrs. Oh my god are you kidding me. 2 whole yrs. WOW thats tough. Laws & rules are for law abiding people. This does nothing to stop dog attacks or punish owners. I believe it is against the law to shoot and kill someone, yet it still happens. Weird isn't it? Must be a strong pit bull lobby here in town.

    Posted by: Patrick on Aug 16, 2008 at 08:55 AM
    From what I see here, this is a toothless ordinance. An animal isn't designate a "potentially dangerous dog" until the dog has done something dangerous? That's NOT a "POTENTIALLY dangerous dog"; that IS a DANGEROUS DOG, and by then it's too late! This ordinance would not have protected Charlotte Blevins. It would not have prevented any other attacks this year, because those dogs wouldn't have been labeled "potentially" dangerous, yet. In fact, THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS WORSE THAN NO ORDINANCE AT ALL, because it gives legal cover to pit bull owners. Owners will claim they aren't responsible for their dog's attack, because the city hadn't declared their dog potentially dangerous. Hence, the city will open itself to lawsuits for not recognizing "potentially dangerous dogs" before they attack. Pit bull owners will feign their objections to this proposal, so the general public will think it's a good thing. But just when we thought Fahey can't do anything more stupid, he's topped himself.

    Posted by: Steven on Aug 16, 2008 at 08:52 AM
    Increased License fees...be careful what you ask for. A full ban... Mortgage your homes!

    Posted by: Lookingforanewhome on Aug 16, 2008 at 08:42 AM
    Nice job. So basically the Nebraska Humane society can take your dog for what ever reason one of their minimum wage officers see fit. And we still have the problem of pit bulls to deal with. It's the patriot act of dogs laws. My wife and I knew Fahey would find a way to screw this up in the worst possible way.

    Posted by: Dave on Aug 16, 2008 at 08:41 AM
    I don't have any children, yet I pay huge taxes to put children through public schools. I don't have any criminals in my family, yet I pay taxes to keep convicts in prisons for life. I ride my bike every day to work, yet I pay to pave the roads. You want the public to be kept safe from pit bulls? Where did you think the money would come from? The city budget has already been proposed, theres simply no extra money to go around. Their even cutting the graffiti van program. All of you who wanted this increased inforcement without giving a though as to where the money was comming from are getting what you had coming. I have two cats and two dogs and am HAPPY to pay for this program. Buck up whiners and pay your fair share to live in the city or move to the country!

    Posted by: Allen on Aug 16, 2008 at 07:26 AM
    Sounds like the ordinance is just an excuse for NHS to raise fees. We will still have problem dogs, but at least the NHS will have more money for doggie daycare etc. The spend, spend attitude of the NHS at the expense of responsible pet owners needs to be stopped. Raising fees and the proposed ordinance will not stop dog attacks.

    Posted by: John on Aug 16, 2008 at 06:44 AM
    Anti Tethering – No dog can be tethered outdoors in excess of 15 minutes at any one time unless a trolley system is utilized. Tethering using a trolley system cannot exceed one hour. This means that those people who have dogs on chains outside all day no longer can do so. How will this be enforced? Will it only be looked at if a neighbor complains first. Now it means that dogs will have to be indoors most of the day since they can only be out on a trolley tether for one hour. (But if you bring the dog in for a minute, will you be able to tether it again for another hour right away?)

    Posted by: frank on Aug 16, 2008 at 01:06 AM
    Unlike the pit bulls, this proposed ordinance is toothless and gutless. Omaha needs to ban the breed, period. Do we have to wait for the next mayor that will have a little more intestinal fortitude and stand up to the Humane Society's Langdon and Wiese and tell them that one little boy and one little girl was enough. The little boy had his testicles removed by a pit bull, the little girl had the top of her head removed. Pit bull owners are even scarrier than the breed, and yes I am stereotyping and profiling. Once, again, this mayor and the city council will drop the ball, and next time it will probably be a child's life. Let's hope it isn't one of their kids or grandkids. Do the people in Council Bluffs have more sense than we do here in Omaha? It appears so.

    Posted by: jja on Aug 15, 2008 at 02:20 PM
    This is total crap!! Why should cat owners pay for the problems of these dogs?!?!?!? In fact, these increases are not necessary to begin with if you just fine the pet owner in the first place.

    Posted by: Biff on Aug 15, 2008 at 01:08 PM
    Oh, good. The fees of the responsible pet owners who spay and neuter would increase, too? Additionally, OWH reports the president of NHS doesn't really favor the muzzling of pits, as it takes time to determine which dogs really are pit bulls (?), which takes time away from other duties. Um, they've not been overly responsive any time I've called about dogs (and cats) running amok in my area, so that means they would be even less effective than they already are? Nice.

    Posted by: JH on Aug 15, 2008 at 01:04 PM
    Where are the fines, penalties and jail time for these "reckless owners"? This proposal has no bite to it and will do nothing to stop these dog attacks.

    Posted by: Grandpa on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:59 PM
    I know this is only a summary of the proposal, but it would be beneficial if the ordinance could contain a legal financial responsibility requirement for all animal owners. This would force the owners to also take financial responsibility for their pets and give victims an automatic legal right to sue for damages if needed and necessary. Just my $ .02 cents !

    Posted by: T on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM
    Maybe we should add a "potentially dangerous mayor" designation and list Fahey and Daub as banned from running for city offices.

    Posted by: CJ on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM
    finally!! Now maybe the children of our city can go on a walk without the fear of being attacked. Hopefully this will hold all pet owners responsible for their pet's behavior.

    Posted by: Chris on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:46 PM
    What's next for the mayor? A potentially dangerous person ordinance so that he can stop someone before they commit a crime. There is absolutely no way to predict what animal will or won't become dangerous. Any city councilman who votes for this is not a Democrat or a Republican, just an idiot.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM
    My old dog loved to be out on a chain for hours at a time, we would let her in whenever she scracthed at the door. What is wrong with that?

    Posted by: jj on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM
    Again more Fahey rheteric...much to do about fixing nothing......

    Posted by: Dog owner on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:35 PM
    Get tough on pit bull dog owners is fine. This kind of dog is nothing but trouble anyway. Most people would not want to own this particular breed of animal. Why shoud I be penalized because I own a small house dog. Why should I have to pay more to license my house pet. Go after the Pit bull owners and charged them $100 to $200 to license their dogs. Then you will see how many people still want to have this kind of animal in their poesseion. Let the touble makers pay the bill not the innocent dog owners.

    Posted by: Jered on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM
    As always, the mayor wants extra money from the innocent to pay for the guilty. Can't wait for this guy to leave. The City Council needs to come up with a better plan than this.

    Posted by: t on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM
    I've said for quite some time, muzzle these animals and the risk of a bite descreases immensely.

    Posted by: pay for the mistakes on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:25 PM
    Looks like the people who follow the laws are going to have to pay for the mistakes of the low lifes that probably don't even have their pets licensed. Sounds like a big jump in prices. Other than the price jump, everything else sounds good.

    Posted by: CHAS on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:19 PM
    Seriously? This is a joke; let's label every owner of a pitbull bad person as they walk down the street committed to doing what they have to have a balanced dog. Using a muzzle is only encouraging more hysteria; get a clue Omaha, the Humane Society doesn't even enforce the oridnances that already exist!

    Posted by: Deborah on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM
    All dogs are dangerous. This ban is not tough enough. All dogs over 10-15 lbs should be against code to stop these attacks on our children or the city should be held responsible if more incidents occur.

    Posted by: Sandi on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM
    I have one concern about this proposal. If I am reading the proposal correctly, a dangerous dog can still be outside in a fenced yard and not be muzzled. I think they should amend the proposal so a dangerous dog has to be muzzled anytime they are outside, including when they yard is fenced. If the dog is muzzled at all times when they are outside, the rest of the public has a fighting chance if the dog jumps over, digs under or breaks through the fence.

    Posted by: FarmBoy on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:05 PM
    Thanks Everyone. My turn to whine about increased license fees. Waaaaaaaaaaa. THANK YOU Mayor for the courageous solution - putting the responsibility where it should be. On the pet owner.

    Posted by: llr on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM
    WOW. I must say, I am in favor of every part of this proposal. It's every bit as strict as I thought it should be. But how did cats get drug into this? Why should the licensing fees go up on CATS? Other than that, 99.9% in favor of this entire proposal AS STATED.

    Posted by: Marianne on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM
    Oh great, because we own animals, we must pay for more for licensing, why? To pay for ordinances to be enforced for other folks animals that are not taken care of properly. My animals are confined with a 6' privacy fence and a LARGE yard. My animals never come out of their yard, or are allowed to "do their business" on someone else's property. I as a pet owner feel the added fees are simply wrong. Why should I pay for other animal owners who are stupid and not responsible for their pets actions? Take responsibility for your animals, and leave the City out of it. We are taxed to death in this City and in this State, one of my children is moving to Texas; the taxes we are charged here is the main reason. I understand his reasons more and more with each day that passes.

    Posted by: T. Banker on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:56 AM
    I kind of like this.

    Posted by: Jamie on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM
    I can live with this..... it promotes responsible pet ownership. It is unfortunate that pitts must be muzzled in public, but it's better than an outright ban. What's up with the increased licensing fees though? Is that help pay for aspects of the new laws?

    Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:45 AM
    And this will be enforced how? The bad owners will still go on about their daily routine. All this will do is cause the people like me who do pay the license fees already is to pay more, while these bad owners still hide and dont pay.

    Posted by: Texas Eagle on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:30 AM
    So now everyone is punished and has to pay more for dog licenses because of the few people who own these "pit bull" breed animals.

    Posted by: E on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM
    It's not the ban I wanted, but it's not terrible. What I want is a mandatory enforcement clause for the police. My neighbor has kept his pit bull, who's gotten out repeatedly, because he told the officer who responded to my call that he was "sorry" and "wouldn't let it happen again." Except, of course, that he did. Any law will fail if it's not enforced.

    Posted by: Me on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM
    Sounds like a weak plan to me. Why should someone get 3 violations? Thats like saying its ok to drive drunk, but after the 3rd time, you lose your license. I'm sure people that don't care and get even 1 violation will want to be compliant after the 3rd time... because they're responsible dog owners, right? Uh huh. Think of it like this. Would you put your 4 year old child in a room with a bunch of his favorite toys and a loaded gun? Tell him not to touch the gun and be a good boy. You're watching from the window. Its just a small risk that he'll shoot himself, right? No big deal. It won't happen to your kid. Its worth the risk, right? No? But its ok to have a dangerous dog around your kids, right? Such a small risk of attack. No big deal. It won't happen to your kid, right? Oh but a dog isn't a gun. True. Guns don't attack on their own for no reason. I live next to one of those dogs. I got my gun solely because of that dog.

    Posted by: Ken on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM
    This ordinance is useless. These new measures will not change things, and now I have to pay more for my own pet because of the people that own a dangerous weapon. How many more people have to die, get maimed, or get attacked before these animals are banned?

    Posted by: Erin on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:17 AM
    Pitbull owners should also be forced to prove they have insurance to cover the cost of their lawsuit once they are sued if their dog bites...

    Posted by: Carl on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:07 AM
    All dogs are dangerous if provoked. We need an ordinance that makes them illegal in the city. If you can't own tigers or bears in the city why dogs? Protect our kids, the petite and the elderly from these dangerous animals now. God bless you.

    Posted by: Jennifer on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM
    So I have to pay more for my pet license for my cat because someone else has a potentially aggressive dog? So not fair. Make the owner of the dangerous dog pay a higher license fee, not me

    Posted by: Bad Idea on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM
    All dogs over 10lbs should be banned from city limits as THEY CAN ALL BECOME DANGEROUS. If you want dogs, horses, etc - live outside of the city so innocent children do not have to be mammed for killed for your selfishness! Thank you

    Posted by: Dave on Aug 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM
    I think what we need to do...is build a giant baseball stadium. Yeah, that's it! A giant baseball stadium and all the dangerous dogs can gather there. Like a doggie prison! :)

    AP Online Network
    YOU CAST - YOUR PICS N VIDEOS
    Media Partners