The Animal Shelter Commission respectfully recommends the repeal of Ordinance No.

27888 which
addedSec.7.4.12toChapter7oftheDallasAnimalCodetorequireapersonwhotakespossessionofa
straydogtoattempttolocatethedogsowner.Thereasonsforourrecommendationareasfollows:

1. Thestatedpurposeoftheordinancewastopreventordeterthetheftofdogs.Thetheftofa
dogisalreadyacrimeunderstatelaw.SeePenalCode,Section31.03.Further,mostdogsare
stolen from the owners property and the ordinance does not apply to a dog taken from an
ownersproperty,butappliesonlytoastraydogwhichisdefinedinChapter7asadogthat
is outside the boundaries of the premises owned, leased or legally occupied by the animals
owner. Thus, dog thieves who steal dogs from an owners property are exempt from this
ordinance.
2. A dog thief who has violated the states criminal theft statute will not comply with this new
ordinance.Thefirstthingadogthiefwilldoisremoveanycollarortagsandwillcertainlynot
call311ordeliverthedogtoDASforsurrenderwhystealadogonlytosurrenderittoDAS?If
the thief suspects a microchip or other form of identification he can quickly remove the dog
fromtheCityand/orremovethechip.
3. The ordinance is not enforceable. For example, how will a city prosecutor prove beyond a
reasonabledoubt:(i)thatthepersontookpossessionofthedogwithintheDallascitylimits;or
(ii)whenthepersontookpossessionofthedogforpurposesofthe72hourrule.
4. Subsection7.4.12(2)aswordedcannotbecompliedwith.Thissubsectionrequiresthefinderof
adogtotakethedogtoalicensedveterinarianforamicrochip,tattooorotheridentification
screening and call the owner identified through the screening (emphasis added). Microchip
registriesgenerallywillnotgiveoutownerinformation.Instead,thefindermustprovidetheir
contactinformationtotheregistryandtheregistrywillnotifytheowner(assumingtheowners
contactinformationonfileiscurrent).Thus,therequirementthatthefindernotifytheowneris
essentiallyimpossibletomeet.
5. Theordinancewillnotaccomplishwhatitwasintendedtoaccomplishpreventordeterdog
theft but will instead have the unintended consequence of causing otherwise good
Samaritansnottorescueandhelplostandstraydogs.
6. Notwithstandingthefiscalinformationthataccompaniedtheordinance,therewillbeacostto
the City. Two options in the ordinance involve city staff: (i) having DAS staff come to the
findershousetocheckforamicrochipand/orpickupthedog;or(ii)thefinderdeliveringthe
dogtotheDASshelterformicrochippingand/orimpoundment.DASstaffisalreadyoverworked
andrequiringthemtopickupandimpoundrescueddogsthatwouldotherwisebekeptbythe
rescuerorcaredforandrehomedbynumerousprivatenonprofitrescuegroupsthroughoutthe
Metroplex is counterproductive. Stray dogs are the biggest challenge for DAS. Discouraging
goodSamaritanswhosavehundredsofthesedogseachyearwillresultinDASstaffbearing
theburdenofcapturingandcaringfortheseextraanimals.Weneedtogetstrayanimalsoffthe
streets both for their benefit and the benefit of our citizens. To deter private citizens from
helpinginthiseffortiscounterproductiveandcostly.