Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dangerous Dogs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fond du Lac council adopts broader dangerous-dog rules after residents’ complaints
Summary
The Fond du Lac City Council on Feb. 26 approved ordinance 3808, amending multiple code chapters to expand penalties and nuisance provisions tied to dangerous dogs. Residents urged clearer enforcement during public comment and council members said state law and city code provide enforcement options.
The Fond du Lac City Council on Feb. 26 approved ordinance 3808, a package of code changes that adds provisions for dangerous dogs, battery, alcohol in parks, excavation in parks, animal bites and park closing hours.
The ordinance includes a new nuisance provision inserted after council discussion to allow abatement in accordance with state law and the city’s Chapter 476. City Attorney Hoffman told the council the change was added at Councilmember Schuessler’s request to “bring in all of the other state code sections” referenced in staff materials.
Residents who came to the meeting told the council the changes respond to sustained neighborhood problems beyond single dog-bite incidents. Jim Thomas, a Fond du Lac resident who spoke during audience comments about a prior ordinance (3792), thanked the council and city staff for revising municipal code and said enforcement remains the unanswered question: “We can say all we want on paper, but if there's no action taken on what we have written down, then it's pretty much useless.” Peggy Zechek, another resident, said she filed a police report after her own incident and did not hear back until she requested the report online; she noted the city no longer has a humane-society animal-control contact and urged stronger enforcement if the ordinance takes effect.
Councilmembers voiced support for the change. Councilmember Mullen thanked City Attorney Hoffman and Councilmember Schuessler for work on the nuisance language and said the ordinance makes “real progress.” The council president echoed thanks to neighborhoods that raised the issue. A motion to approve was made by Councilmember Mullen and seconded by Councilmember Godfrey; the motion passed unanimously.
The ordinance text also references state law and city code as enforcement authorities; Hoffman said she believes existing state code and other code sections, together with the new language, “are pretty, pretty well addressing dogs.” The council did not specify a new enforcement lead at the Feb. 26 meeting; residents raised questions about whether enforcement would fall to the police department, the city attorney, or private civil actions.
The council did not adopt separate enforcement protocols at the meeting; the ordinance passed as amended. The city did not provide a timeline in the meeting for when the ordinance becomes effective.
The council moved on to other business after the vote.
