Opponents of vicious dog ordinance push referendum

A new Mariposa County multiple pet permit ordinance set to take effect Oct. 2 might instead be decided by voters in a referendum, if opponents can gather the 784 signatures needed to put it on the ballot.

But time is not on their side.

Opponents to the new ordinance must collect the signatures of 784 registered voters in one week, by the close of business the day this newspaper is published, Oct. 2.

The ordinance would require homeowners with more than 10 dogs to have a permit, and it expands the power of Animal Control Officers to inspect a property before granting the permit.

Any dog not included in the multiple pet permit may be subject to impound.

Opponents have argued the ordinance is vague, arbitrary and gives animal control officers the right to inspect a property without a warrant and to seize private property— a person’s dog.

“It’s unconstitutional,” said Colleen Rhodes of Greeley Hill, an organizer of the opposition movement, and a former prosecutor with the Stanislaus County Attorney’s Office.

“Requiring an individual to waive a constitutional right to achieve some administrative objective is coercive and illegal,” Rhodes said.

If they fail to collect the necessary signatures, organizers anticipate they will file a lawsuit arguing the ordinance is on its face unconstitutional.

Over the weekend, organizers opposed to the ordinance began collecting signatures for their petition at the Mariposa Art Park.

They also gathered signatures on Saturday at CoyoteFest in Coulterville.

By Monday morning, organizers said they were within striking distance of getting the necessary number of signatures over the next 72 hours.

Referendum process

Under California’s Constitution, residents have 30 days to challenge a law before its enacted by gathering the signatures of 10 percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election.

In 2022, when Gavin Newsom was reelected, 7,840 votes were cast in Mariposa County.

If a petition is turned in prior to the ordinance going into effect, the ordinance is placed on hold as the elections office validates the signatures.

If the petition has the necessary signatures, the ordinance would not be enacted. The board of supervisors could either uphold or rescind the ordinance.

If the board votes to uphold the ordinance, a special election would likely be held sometime in February and would cost county taxpayers $60,000, said Courtney Progner-Morrow, Mariposa County Treasurer, Tax Collector and County Clerk.

A split board

The Mariposa County Board of Supervisors approved the vicious dog ordinance Sept. 2 by a vote of 3-2, with Supervisors Jenni Kiser and Shannon Poe voting against the measure.

Rhodes, the former prosecutor, told the board the ordinance is “not a well written law” and forces people to give up their 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures “just to count their dogs.”

Mariposa County Sheriff Jeremy Briese was noticeably frustrated during the board’s discussion.

“It’s unfair to play the lawyer game of unreasonable search and seizure,” Briese said.

“We’re not proactively pulling into people’s driveways counting dogs. We are not going to be searching homes,” he said.

Briese said the sheriff’s office is searching for a tool that can be a positive deterrent for animal abuse and neglect when there is no criminal intent.

The permit is free, and it would be a quick process, with the goal of making it an educational experience for the dog owner, he said.

The ordinance provides exemptions for agricultural operations, rescue groups, boarding facilities and veterinary clinics.

The 10 dog limit does not apply to puppies under six months of age.

Briese suggested a scenario where a neighbor may have 47 dogs, barking non-stop, with a foul odor and the potential for abuse and neglect.

“They’re going to call us and we’re going to say go talk to the civil court,” he warned.

There are similar ordinances, that allow even fewer dogs, in Merced, Tuolumne County, San Luis Obispo and San Bernardino, County Counsel Kevin Briggs told the board.

Supervisor Poe said this one of the few issues that has garnered a lot of attention in his district.

“We can’t be compared to other cities. We don’t even have a stop light,” Poe said.

Poe wondered out loud why animal cruelty and neglect laws currently in place are insufficient to address the problem.

“Are we trying to pass an amendment to make murder more illegal?” Poe asked facetiously. “Where is the main roadblock?”

“We’re talking about addressing five issues a year like this. Now we’re talking about impounding and seizing dogs,” Poe said.

A compromise dies

On Sept. 16, a week after the vicious dog ordinance was approved, Supervisor Kiser tried to introduce a substitute ordinance that might mitigate privacy concerns by making the home inspections voluntary.

And instead of getting a permit, those with 10 or more dogs would be asked to voluntarily register the animals, under the revised ordinance.

“I know we’ve spent a lot of time on this,” Kiser said. “This is keeping it vague, keeping it short, because we’ve kicked it around quite a bit,” she said.

The measure died without a motion.

The revamped animal control ordinance set to take effect Oct. 2 also has a section on barking dogs as a public nuisance.

The barking dog provisions are not covered by the petition to rescind the vicious dog ordinance.

It requires two written complaints from separate neighbors before animal control notifies the owner to control the dog.

The animal control officer must also observe unprovoked barking for 20 consecutive minutes before issuing a citation to the owner.

Ostrom’s Chickens

The debate over vicious dogs in Mariposa County began in earnest in 2022 when a pack of dogs killed 70 chickens on Brenda Ostrom’s farm in Lushmeadows.

She lost about half the flock, during peak egg laying season.

Ostrom estimates the dog attacks, and the loss of income, has cost her $100,000.

The attacking dogs belonged to a neighbor, who had a total of 19 dogs locked inside sheds and had been cited by county officials hundreds of times, court records revealed.

Ostrom was one of 12 neighbors who complained about the dogs.

And yet, no one seemed to be able to help.

Everywhere Ostrom turned — the district attorney, the sheriff, county administration — they told her there was nothing they could do, she said.

Ostrom thought the vicious dog ordinance was a step in the right direction and is incredulous that people want to put it to a referendum.

“To me it has to do with a lot of people being misinformed,” Ostrom said.

“Either you didn’t have the tools to deal with the problem, or you had the tools and failed to enforce the law?” she asked rhetorically.

Ostrom believes everyone in county government is ducking the problem.

“No one is going to own this,” Ostrom said.