Lubbock’s city council has approved two amendments to the city’s ordinances concerning animal ownership and regulations.
The council gave initial approval to the amendments on Nov. 11 and gave final approval in its Dec. 2 meeting.
The first of the newly passed amendments provides clarification as to the definition of a dangerous dog and alterations to the procedure.
There was previously no distinction between a dangerous dog and a dangerous animal in Lubbock’s Codes of Ordinances. According to Lubbock Animal Services, those are treated differently in most cities.
Under the new code, a dangerous dog is one that causes bodily injury to a person, unprovoked and outside its enclosure.
The amendment also more clearly defines a “secure enclosure.”
Taylor Ruggles is the assistant director of operations of LAS. She says the amendment also updates the process for declaring a dog dangerous to bring city code in line with state law.
“Hearings would no longer be required in order for us to determine a dog dangerous,” she said. “They would have 30 days to get into compliance, instead of the 15 days now.”
Without hearings, LAS will still perform a full investigation, and owners can still appeal the declaration in Municipal Court within 15 days of notice.
If a dog is declared dangerous, the owner may euthanize it, remove it from city limits, or follow the city’s required procedures, including registering and sterilizing the animal, and obtaining liability insurance.
The amendment also increases the insurance requirements to keep a dangerous dog, from $250,000 to $1 million and increases the annual permit fee to $200.
There are currently nine households maintaining dangerous dogs in the City of Lubbock, according to Ruggles.
Laura Hopper owns one of those dogs, and she and her daughter came forward at the Dec. 2 meeting, imploring council members not to raise insurance requirements.
After the family’s dog was declared dangerous in May 2024, they had to get liability insurance in order to keep it.
Hopper said finding insurance was a difficult process with little guidance.
“You don't go to your local insurance company and do that,” she told the council. “I was told by Lubbock Animal Services to be careful when you do find liability insurance, as there are scammers out there, and they've actually had someone bring a certificate in for dangerous dogs, and it was not even a real company.”
Hopper said her deductible comes out of Florida. She said she asked the company what her premium would be to house a dangerous dog if the requirement was raised to $1 million and they told her it would be $2,000.
“And I remember because it's very the same as my house mortgage, and that would be very devastating,” she recalled.
Laura Hopper’s daughter, Madeline Hopper, stressed that their family has been in full compliance with the requirements to keep their dog.
“We do not know how many others have had to surrender or euthanize their dog due to cost, but we know that only eight other families in the city of Lubbock have been able to make these compliances,” she said.
She also believes that raising insurance costs does not support LAS or improve public safety.
“If Lubbock Animal Services needs more resources, I've seen they are increasing the annual fee already, and that actually is money that funnels back into our city that they can use, but they cannot use any of the insurance money,” she explained.
While there are some companies that charge up to $20,000 a year, Ruggles said after working with the city’s risk management department and speaking with insurance companies, LAS has found the typical range is $1,500 to $3,500 per year.
“These prices may depend on the severity of the bite or the attack and the breed of animal, as well as where you live,” she explained.
While the city does not offer a list of liability insurance providers to avoid looking like endorsement, council members requested that Lubbock Animal Services provide more public education regarding dangerous dogs.
In the end, the council passed the amendment with an added requirement that dangerous dogs be muzzled outside of their enclosure.
The dangerous dog amendment passed on second reading with a vote 4-3.
Along with additional language clarification and definitions within the codes of ordinances, the second passed amendment removes inspection requirements for a multi-pet permit and waives fees for impounded animals if the owner agrees to spay or neuter it within 30 days.
“Spaying and neutering is something we are very passionate about, and is going to help the problem, in the long run,” Ruggles explained. “The fewer animals having unwanted litters is going to decrease the unwanted pet population and the roaming animal population.”
The second amendment passed unanimously.
Originally, the amendment proposed an annual permit requirement for breeding cats and dogs, but that element was removed by council members in their November meeting.
The requirement of breeding permits and higher liability insurance for dangerous dog owners were also brought before the council by LAS in January. Both of the January amendments passed on first reading, but failed to pass in the final vote.