John Scarffe, Gilpin County.  An ordinance for controlling loose and noisy dogs was unleashed before the Gilpin County Board of County Commissioners during a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, at the Gilpin County Courthouse. The County already has a resolution regarding dogs, but an ordinance would formalize the regulations and put them before the public.

County Manager Roger Baker told the Board that current regulations have been passed by resolution, and he presented them in the form of the first reading of an ordinance with the addition of a phrase about noise control. It would be much better if the resolution could be changed to an ordinance so it can be posted in local newspapers.

“You’re not going to make major changes, but the fact that it will be in the paper will get some attention,” Baker said. “Some people will get a little panicked.”

“The keeping of dogs within Gilpin County has proven to be a potential hazard and annoyance to the citizens of the County,” according to the proposed ordinance. “A dog owner should assume the full and complete responsibility for the action of any dog owned kept, harbored or in the custody of the dog owner.”

All dogs at least six months old must have a County dog license and rabies tag, according to the ordinance. A dog will be considered unlicensed in the absence of either tag. Tags can be obtained at the Sheriff’s office.

The Sheriff will impound dogs without a license or running at large. A dog can be impounded for biting a person or another animal, and the owner will be responsible for impoundment costs, according to the ordinance. If not claimed within ten days, the dog can be disposed of at the discretion of the sheriff.

“Nothing in the Ordinance shall be construed to prevent the Sheriff, any other law enforcement officer or any member of the public from taking whatever action is reasonably necessary to protect his person or members of the public from injury by any dog,” according to the ordinance.

Dog owners must prevent their dogs from disturbing the peace by loud, habitual or persistent barking, howling, yelping or whining, whether or not the dog is on or off the owner’s property, according to the ordinance. It will be an affirmative defense to these offenses if the dogs were working livestock, locating or retrieving wild game, assisting law enforcement officers or being trained for those pursuits.

“Further, this Ordinance shall have no application to licensed kennels, breeding, boarding or training facilities, or veterinarian offices and hospitals, so long as such facilities are in compliance with all applicable zoning, commercial and business regulations, laws and statutes,” according to the ordinance.

The ordinance establishes fines for noisy dogs at $25 to $300 for the first offense, $150 to $300 for the second offense within twelve consecutive months of the first offense, and $300 for the third offense within 24 consecutive months of the first. Any owner convicted of a fourth violation will be deemed a persistent offender and can be fined $300 and sentenced to the County jail for not more than 90 days.

Commissioner Gail Watson asked if the ordinance contained any protection against animal cruelty. She has looked at Boulder and Clear Creek county regulations, which acknowledge it’s not usually the dog’s fault, but the fault of owners who don’t keep dogs at home and abuse dogs.

The County has received comments from rural subdivisions, and they are confused about the process, Watson said. “Who is allowed to report it and how do they do it? Let’s put a little more teeth into it.”

Sheriff Bruce Hartman suggested that if major changes were made he would want to submit it to the District Attorney because their office would need to prosecute violations. He has already talked to them about the dogs-at-large part. “I consider this a significant change to what we have. It would make it easier to prosecute, but they need to review it.”

Commissioner Buddy Schmalz asked if the Board could go ahead and approve the ordinance as is.

“We had months and months of meetings. I’m afraid we won’t get anything done on this.”

Watson responded that, when you read this, it says dogs are the issue. “What we’re doing is protecting the animals, but it doesn’t say anything about that.”

Hartman said dog cruelty and neglect are already dealt with by state code, and Watson said that Boulder and Clear Creek included it in theirs. Chair Linda Isenhart asked if, when impounding dogs, do the owners usually have ten days, as stated in the ordinance.

Under Sherriff Jon Bayne said officers usually get the dogs within 24 hours after a complaint, and then after ten days they are put up for adoption. They have never ordered a dog euthanized.

Attorney Jim Petrock said those regulations are in the state statute. Nothing in the ordinance precludes state statute. Hartman said that if the County includes that it in the ordinance it would be a burden on sheriff’s officers. “Since it’s covered already, I don’t know why we need to muddy up ours.”

Watson said it might require reinstating an animal control officer. Currently, Gilpin County shares an animal control officer with Clear Creek County. Hartman said the County previously had an officer 20 hours per week, and Clear Cree County has three full-time officers.

Watson said: “It may work for us to add that position back in. It gets pretty tricky. If a dog is barking at a predator that is different than if it is barking nonstop. We have to stay on top of it.”

Bayne said noise control is currently at zero tolerance in subdivisions. Owners get a warning and then get a letter. Petrock said that Jefferson County requires two witnesses to make a complaint, but they have a huge issue. The volume in Gilpin County is probably nothing like Jefferson County. Bayne said Gilpin County also used to have that regulation. “You have to have two people, but that got taken out. There’s no one else close enough, so we couldn’t get a second letter.

Schmalz said that it’s not the animal that’s the problem, it is the person in control. Watson agreed. Clear Creek says it follows the person and not the dog.

Schmalz said that if they approve this today they are not approving this for final adoption, but Baker explained that the Board wouldn’t want to make substantial changes between the first and second reading. “You may smoke some things out when this is in the paper. If you want to do something more substantial you would want to have public meetings.”

Watson asked, “Why wouldn’t we do the research and do this right now so we get it like what we want it? We could research other best practices and have a work session at the next meeting.”

Schmalz suggested fixing this now and then moving on. “I’m not sure there is a problem yet.”

Watson said she had an email message from a long-time resident who was going to move away from Colorado Sierra. After a letter of warning is sent, people behave themselves, and then the noise problem comes back again.

“When I read our ordinance, it talks about barking dogs, but it doesn’t say how it is handled. We have the responsibility to have it say what we want it to say.”

Bayne said what they were doing is zero tolerance and the word gets around. “We show up and they get a ticket. That seems to fix things.”

Isenhart said the Board should put this on the agenda for the next meeting, but Watson said: “We should be looking into research on best practices. I think it lacks detail.” She suggested having a work session for further discussion.

Isenhart then directed that a work session be scheduled after the next meeting and then put it on the agenda in a month. The next meeting of the Gilpin County Commissioners will be on Tuesday, April 26, at 9 a.m. at the Gilpin County Courthouse, 203 Eureka Street, Central City.