Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves first reading to reinstate physical leash requirement after residents describe recent attacks
Summary
After several residents described dog attacks and public-safety concerns, Mitchell city council advanced the ordinance to reinstate a physical leash requirement (moving away from remote collars/verbal-command allowances); the measure passed first reading and returns for a second reading.
City staff introduced an ordinance (O2026‑09) amending the city code to require a physical leash for animals at large, reversing a 2022 update that had allowed remote collars and verbal commands as alternatives. The ordinance passed its first reading after the council voted to advance it for final consideration two weeks later.
Several residents and animal‑welfare advocates urged the council to restore a physical leash requirement. Gail (speaker 24), president of a local rescue group, told council, “Please reconsider reinstating this leash ordinance,” citing incidents where remote devices or verbal control were unreliable and saying loose dogs risk being euthanized if they attack. Lorraine Hussman (speaker 15) described a recent attack in Doty Park in which her dog was severely bitten; Mary Naff (speaker 17) said she feels unsafe in neighborhood parks when animals run loose.
Police described enforcement procedures: a first offense generally yields a warning or ticket; repeat or severe incidents may be charged and referred to court, and officers use a severity scale when declaring an animal restricted or vicious. Staff reported that among surveyed first‑class municipalities, all required some form of physical leash (length varied) and that a simple leash ordinance would be easier to enforce than the existing, more ambiguous language.
Councilmembers acknowledged concerns about enforcement and about dogs that escape residential yards, but several said a clear leash rule is the ‘‘bare minimum’’ to protect people and animals. The ordinance passed first reading and will return for a second reading and final vote; residents may provide additional comment at that hearing.
