From: Matthew Malik
To: Public Safety Subcommittee Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: public comment for a non-agenda item for the April 20th meeting Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 1:16:18 PM
Dear Council Members:
Clearly the Animal Code and procedures need to be revised to today’s world after the recent killing of our cats, considered as our family members, in their own back yards. Currently the code is biased to protect dangerous dogs while affording limited recourse to their victims. Victim’s must retain priority in our code. Owning a dog is a privilege, not a right. Proof of liability insurance in the animal licensing process would go a long way in protecting victims of dog assault. Today’s society often views the feline’s they own as ‘family members’, yet no protections or considerations are given to them, this needs to change. A system of notifying the community where dangerous dogs reside and which also alerts people when Animal Control is notified of loose dogs would be extremely helpful in avoiding future tragic dog attacks. Uniform larger signs provided by Animal Control that are readable from the street must be posted in front yards where dogs deemed ‘potentially dangerous or ‘vicious’ reside. Each dog attack or killing that occurs in the same night must be counted as individual incidents. All dogs involved in a killing or attack on another animal or person which involves any medical care or death to the victim must be impounded until a full investigation is completed. Bias comments noted in reports by Animal Control officers must not be tolerated. Recorded video showing violations of dog owners must be submittable evidence when complaints are made (currently officers need to witness events first-hand before action is taken). Additionally, Animal Control services are woefully underfunded. An officer must be available in incorporated Santa Rosa at all times. Please consider these ideas and change our Animal Code to protect all of our family members.
Thank you,
Matthew L. Malik
J Mullineaux
From: Gail Ellestad
To: Public Safety Subcommittee Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Cats killed by dangerous dogs
Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:53:37 PM
Outrageous that they were returned to irresponsible owners.
Why do they need guard dogs in this neighborhood? What goes on that requires such protection. I live here and have been afraid to go for a walk.
Feared that someone might let my INDOOR cats out by accident.
Why was the address of these l irresponsible owners not made public so one can avoid walking there.
I sent letters of concern to council members and Chris Coursey but received no comment.
Why are elected officials so unwilling to address the issue? From: Sheralynn Freitas
To: Public Safety Subcommittee Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment for non-agenda item for April 20th meeting Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 9:10:26 AM
I am writing in support of the Public-Safety Subcommittee making modifications to the city code/ordinances regarding animal ownership and accountability following vicious animal attacks, particularly on private property.
My Grace Tract neighborhood was recently traumatized when two dogs slaughtered two cats in from of their owners in their private property backyards. In addition to killing the cats, the dogs chased a person into a carport before leaving. This ordeal lasted 1.5 hours and has been the focus of two articles in the Press Democrat.
Once the dogs were caught, they were immediately returned to the owners with the agreement they would comply with the dangerous dog requirements. Weeks later the dogs escaped again only to frightened the neighborhood. The sight of people rushing to get home with pets and grandchildren, afraid that the dogs would maul them was terrifying and ridiculous in that it should never have happened.
As a result the following changes of the city’s code/ordinance are supported by my neighbors and my household:
1) When Animal Control is notified of dogs roaming loose, neighbors should be notified using the existing Nigel system.
2) When an attack occurs, the victim family should be immediately provided the information regarding the owner’s address and contact information.
3) Dogs that attack animals or people should be kept by Animal Control until a full investigation can be conducted to evaluate the seriousness of the incident. Dog owners should be required to comply with the dangerous or vicious dog requirements prior to being returned, with the owner paying the cost to board the animal(s). This includes the required collars, posted signs, and check of yard to ensure no escape.
If these things are required, neighborhoods will feel safe and have trust that the government systems in place are responsive and thorough.
Sheralynn FREITAS
2142 Grahn Dr
Santa Rosa, Ca
Sent from my iPad
From: Cynthia Axell
To: Public Safety Subcommittee Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] public comment for a non-agenda item for the April 20th meeting Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 12:12:55 PM
To whom it may concern,
I write in support of changing the city code regarding the designation of potentially dangerous versus vicious animals.
Any animal that, without provocation, kills a domestic pet should be considered vicious. It is ludicrous to deem such an animal ‘potentially dangerous’ when the potential has been realized. Furthermore, if that animal enters fenced private property to hunt down and kill a domestic pet or has killed more than one such domestic animal, that animal is definitely not just 'potentially dangerous'--it is vicious.
Returning vicious animal(s) to their owners on the same day unprovoked kills occur is unacceptable.
Simply because Animal Control arrives on scene well after the killings when the animals are no longer in a hunt and kill mode and seem currently docile does not negate the horrific reality of what occurred. The killing frenzy may be over, the animals no longer agitated, but I assure you the neighborhood is experiencing emotional trauma and the dogs are still vicious. The victims’ owners are in a state of shock, having helplessly watched as their beloved family member is torn apart in front of them in their own backyard. The neighbors are terrorized, and all walk fearfully, worried the killer animals are free to repeat the horror. Sales of self-defense equipment goes up.
It is also questionable to pin a ‘vicious’ designation on a dog only after a human injury requiring two or more stitches. Stalking a human is terrorizing behavior, automatically potentially dangerous. Just because someone successfully evades dogs in hunting mode does not diminish the threat. I shudder to think of the neighborhood toddlers and children whose size and behavior make them attractive prey to that dog. No one, from the youngest child to the eldest senior, is safe when vicious dogs are mislabeled potentially dangerous.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cynthia Axell
1649 El Camino Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
From: Donald Steffy
To: Public Safety Subcommittee Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment for a non-agenda item for 4/20/22 meeting Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 8:00:12 PM
Dear Public Safety Sub-Committee Members,
It’s time to protect our family pets as well as Santa Rosa citizens against vicious dog attacks. Recently in the Proctor Terrace neighborhood, two beloved cats from two different families a few blocks away from each other, were viciously mauled and killed by two aggressive dogs on the loose. They also stalked and cornered two different individuals and attempted to kill our neighborhood donkey in his corral during this rampage. These dogs were finally rounded up by Animal Control, but then they were immediately taken back to their home. Something is inherently wrong with this scenario.
A few weeks later, these same two dogs got out again. Our neighborhood rallied quickly to alert everyone and their pets to seek shelter and the reason why these dogs weren’t able to kill again.
This recent example is exactly why we need to change the code to help increase the public safety against aggressive and vicious dogs. I hope you agree to allow a dog to be deemed vicious, not only if they injure a human, but also if they injure or kill a domestic animal. That way they can be seized and kept from doing additional harm pending a hearing.
No one wants to live in a neighborhood in fear of what vicious dogs may do.
Do you?
Thank you.
Don Steffy
Santa Rosa
From: Beth Steffy
To: Public Safety Subcommittee Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment for a non-agenda item for the April 20th meeting Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:21:27 PM
Hello,
I want to thank the members of the public safety subcommittee for agreeing to take up the issue of changing the city code pertaining to dangerous/vicious animals at your June 15th meeting.
I am in support of adding the killing of a family pet by another domestic animal to the list of criteria for a vicious animal so Animal Control can seize the attacking animal pending a hearing. The current code calls for deeming them only potentially dangerous even if they kill a family pet in that pet's own yard, and as such they are returned home. I feel this change needs to be made for the sake of public safety.
Thank you very much,
Beth Eurotas-Steffy
707 217 7764
[email protected]
From: LaDonna Moore
To: Public Safety Subcommittee Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Traffic
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:31:32 PM
Dear Subcommittee Members,
I have been keeping track for the past 4 weeks and can note that I have witnessed cars blatantly and sometimes extremely dangerously running red lights every day I have ventured out. Twice in one trip on College I saw two separate trucks stop at a red light and then make a left hand turn. On Fulton I have seen cars race through lights that have been red for several seconds with cross traffic having to careen out of the way. This isn’t new. I have just made point of tracking it recently. I know that others are sharing my experience. What is the city of Santa Rosa doing to improve traffic safety?
LaDonna Moore