A few new wrinkles. A bit more teeth, and a lot more detail.

There’s an assortment of changes in store that local law enforcement believe will help to beef up, button down and make the rules that apply to dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs, and those that own therm, crystal clear and, ultimately, more effective.

They’re not designed to usher in a new era of enforcement, however, and, according to Sheriff Bill Cumming, would work instead to plug several loopholes and to clarify many of the legal points which have proven problematic under the existing ordinance.

“The intent is all the same,” Cumming said. “There’s a lot of tripping points in the old ordinance that’s made it difficult to follow through on some of the determinations that we have made.”

Changes to ordinance will be considered by the San Juan County Council on Tuesday at a public hearing.

New features would require owners of a dangerous dog to have a microchip implanted on the animal, notify authorities of a change in ownership or residence, have a muzzle on the dog when its outside a secured enclosure, not leave it unattended, and to post a $250,000 bond or an equivalent amount of liability insurance to cover the cost of any injuries it might inflict.

Owners of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog that fail to comply with local restrictions are subject to prosecution and gross misdemeanor penalties — up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine — if convicted. Allowing a dog to run “at large” remains a civil infraction and may result in a fine.

Currently, there’s a total of 13 potentially dangerous dogs — countywide — registered with the Sheriff’s department, but not a single dangerous dog. Undersheriff Jon Zerby said most owners have chosen to have their dog put down if it’s been determined dangerous because local regulations are considered too onerous.

Deputy prosecutor Karen Vedder said some of the amendments take into account real-life situations in which enforcement or prosecution was complicated by ambiguities or omissions in the current version of so-called “dangerous dog” ordinance. For example, she noted, a motor vehicle would now be considered a “secure enclosure” — though temporary — only if it is locked and its windows are rolled up far enough to prevent a dog from escaping or from sticking its mouth out far enough to bite someone.

Crafted by the prosecuting attorney’s office in consultation with the Sheriff’s department, Vedder said that the bulk of the amendments, as proposed, would clarify how a dog is declared “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous”, the process by which such a declaration can be appealed, and the protective measures that an owner must take, like having a secure enclosure, if their dog is determined to be either.

Most of the changes, Vedder said, fall into one of two categories.

“No. 1 would be the appeal process, I think everyone agreed it was way too fuzzy,” she said. “And No. 2 was simply to make things clear that weren’t clear.”

Also clarified in the proposed changes are the steps authorities must follow in order to seize, impound, quarantine, and in the case of a repeat offender or severe injury, to have a dog destroyed. In addition, the definition of “severe injury” would be expanded to include lacerations that are “disfiguring”, as well as those that would require multiple sutures.

In 2007, the Sheriff’s department responded to a total of 249 dog-related complaints, 13 of which involved a person being bitten. Last year, that total rose to 274 and included 30 reported dog bites, and one attempted bite, according to the Sheriff’s office. Three dogs were ordered to be euthanized.

Though the number of complaints is clearly on the rise, Cumming said whether it means there are more incidents or that people are more inclined to lodge a complaint is largely speculation. But having better tools should only help the department to enforce the law , he said.

“We do seemed to be handling more calls,” he said.