Park Ridge Considers Changing Penalties for Keeping ‘Dangerous’ Animals

Park Ridge councilors were open to repealing a rule that bars residents from owning pets labeled “dangerous” if they live within 500 feet of a school or park. But they were more reluctant to pass a rule that would establish a two-strikes rule that would require a dangerous animal to be euthanized if it attacks someone a second time.

Both changes were recommended by the Park Ridge Animal Commission, which argued that the 500-foot limit is ineffective because a dog can cover that distance in seconds. It also noted that pet owners whose animals are deemed dangerous face three similarly difficult options — euthanizing the animal, moving it or finding it a new home, a difficult task considering that animal shelters don’t accept dogs that attack someone.

The two-strikes rule would be an improvement for pet owners in this situation, as their pets would get a second chance. However, it would not necessarily apply to pet owners who do not have a problem with distance.

During Monday’s (Aug. 19) meeting of the Park Ridge Procedures & Regulations commission, councilors agreed that lifting the 500-foot limit was a good idea. However, they expressed hesitation about the two-strike rule, saying they wanted to see how other municipalities dealt with dangerous animals first. Because it was just a discussion topic, no vote was taken.

Currently, Park Ridge city code defines “dangerous animals” as domestic animals that have attacked a person or another domestic animal without provocation and caused injury. Although the code does not specify what type of animal that is, the proposed changes were discussed with the assumption that it applies to dogs. There is one instance where dogs are specifically mentioned — dogs that are trained as guard dogs or attack dogs that are not Park Ridge police dogs automatically receive that designation.

The Animal Commission decides whether a pet receives the tag. If so, the pet must be muzzled and on a leash at all times when outside the owner’s home, and must undergo obedience training at the owner’s expense.

During Monday’s meeting, commissioners said it’s not a designation they give lightly. If there are minor issues, the animal is first designated as “endangered animal,” but if the attack is serious enough, they go straight to “dangerous.”

“(There was a recent case) where the dog was at one of the outdoor restaurants and another resident was walking by and the dog just lunged at that person and caused serious bodily injury,” said Commissioner Kenneth Fletcher.

“Some of these attacks are intended to kill,” Commissioner Bruce Gilpin said. “They want to hit you in the face; they want to do as much damage as they can.”

Park Ridge Police Chief Robert Kampwirth said the city decided to discuss the regulations after two cases involving the 500-foot limit. Commissioners wanted to show some flexibility, but the law tied their hands.

In a letter to the city, attorney Steve Judge argued the limit is arbitrary and “arguably unconstitutional.”

“Many families in our community have expressed frustration with this bill because it places undue burdens on them without tangible benefits,” he wrote. “We believe responsible pet ownership, including proper training and confinement, should be the focus, not arbitrary distance restrictions.”

Mayor Marty Maloney asked if the revised ordinance would make it easier to euthanize dogs. City attorney Adam Simon said the city has the authority to euthanize dangerous animals after an initial incident, but rarely uses that authority.

Councilwoman Harmony Harrington (4t) said she would like to see national standards for dangerous animal regulations. The federal government has not historically made those regulations, leaving them to states and localities.

Other councilors said they at least wanted to see how other municipalities were doing by asking staff to conduct tests. No date was set for when councilors would take up the issue again.