The dangerous dog ordinance is simply too broad.   In fact, it puts the majority of the pet population at risk of being classified vicious.  Think about your neighborhood chihuahua who every morning barks at squirrels.  This is what dogs do.  What if a dog charges a fence after seeing someone that looks like a threat? Or what if they bark/growl at a bicyclist simply because they don't like bikes? Both of these issues are not relevant as long as the dog/cat is not loose.

If a person says that a dog attempted to bite them, this needs to be followed up on to make sure it is valid.   You can't simply take the persons word for it.  Just like everything else, it needs to be confirmed, because as of now, numerous dogs are at risk for being wrongfully accused if they are at the wrong place at the wrong time, particularly outside dogs in bad neighborhoods.   

Of greater concern though, is this particular piece, " * Any dog with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to
cause injury to, or otherwise threaten the safety of human beings or domestic animals."

 When the situation happened with Beau, one could challenge whether or not he was provoked as he was being surrounded by people trying to catch him.   He was also possibly let loose by someone other than his owner and this may have startled him.  The above verbiage needs to be altered to allow for more of a differentiation between a vicious dog(pet) and a misjudged character/etc.     A dog growling with his hair standing up, means that there is an element of fear within the dog.  Let's also not forget about the situations when there is just cause for an animal to protect itself and/or its owners.  

The ordinance favors those who don't want to research situations further.For example, it needs to be explained what is/isn't a provocation or at least a better definition of it within the ordinance.  Excessive barking means a dog is vicious?  This is simply too vague.   Determine the reason for the barking and go from there.  In some situations, that it is simply unclear, have it be a requirement that the dog be seen by a licensed behaviorist within a set amount of time.    We simply cannot forget that its in the dogs instinct to protect its owners and/or property.  

The ordinance can be found here  http://www.dyersburgtn.gov/dog_ordinance.pdf and it is the same a few other cities still use today, it seems to be a generic ordinance.

I am merely asking you to make the ordinance more friendly to members of the community, including pets, pet owners and the citizens, because the structure will shape the handling of incidents in the future.

Several months ago, Beau was freed from his circumstances, and as a supporter, I am requesting that he no longer be banned from the city.  There is nothing he did wrong and having him banned from a city is simply odd.     

In closing, I can only hope that you update the animal ordinances in your town, in a manner at which they will truly identify those that are vicious and not put risk those that are not.