Spencer's City Council approved the second filing of a controversial dog ordinance which targets specific breeds of dogs with the intention of revisiting the matter in committee and returning with a further revised ordinance that would remove the breed specific language and incorporate strong accountability for irresponsible pet owners.

The action came during Monday night's council session held in chambers at City Hall.

When the second filing of the new amendments to the vicious animals ordinance came to the floor, Dr. Tom Beall, owner/operator of the Homestead Small Animal Practice in Spencer raised his concerns over the ordinances proposed language. And he was not alone.

"I felt compelled to voice my opionion," Beall said to the council. Stressing that he supports a vicious animals ordinance, he continued, "I do not support ordinances that support breed specific animals."

Beall cited nationally recognized animal agencies that stand against breed specific ordinances as well. "It doesn't address irresponsible pet ownership."

Mayor Reynold Peterson pointed out that both Sioux City and Spirit Lake are both looking at similar ordinances and considering options.

"Any dog, big or small with a tooth in its mouth can be a dangerous animal," said Beall. "I'm asking the council to ask themselves, 'Is this breed specific ordinance going to address the problem?' If not…."

The dogs mentioned specifically in the ordinance include: A Staffordshire Terrier breed, American Pit-bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or any dog which has the appearance and characteristics, or being predominantly of those aforementioned breeds.

Ward 3 Councilman Steve Bomgaars asked for Beall's assistance in helping to construct a better ordinance that would address the problem. Beall said he would be glad to offer his help, and offered to provide examples of other model vicious dog ordinances that are in place.

Ward 1 Councilman George Kruger suggested the matter be sent back to committee for a more detailed observation.

Ron Hanson, Ward 5 councilman agreed that it was wrong for an ordinance to automatically determine that a pit bull walking down the street without supervision is automatically a "vicious dog" without committing any kind of aggression.

Beth Johnson, a long time animal medical technician said she was pleased to hear the city was looking at removing the breed specific language from the ordinance. "Don't punish the breed, punish the irresponsible owners."

Johnson said she is the proud owner of two pit bulls and they make fantastic family pets.

She shared an incident where a police officer brought in a pit bull and insisted it be euthanized because it was a vicious dog.

"That dog was not vicious. It had never been vicious," Johnson explained, having had several previous contacts with the dog. The dog was captured and struggled when it panicked based on Johnson's version of the story.

"It was reacting to circumstances - protecting itself."

Lisa Johnson, who works with People For Pets; and Amy Clark, who works at Homestead with Dr. Beall, both spoke to the notion that other dogs that are not portrayed in the media can be more vicious that any of the breed specific dogs named in the amended ordinance as it reads currently.

After the input from the floor, Peterson suggested rather than starting entirely from scratch, the committee receive the input and make the necessary adjustments.

City Attorney Don Hemphill told the councilmen that the amount of changes made will determine whether the city will have to go through three filings again, or whether they can just continue with the final filing.

It was noted at a previous meeting, and again Monday night, that this new ordinance does not ban ownership of these animals, it merely deals with animals that are unsupervised and running loose.