The Stanley Health and Sanitation Committee met Wednesday, May 27 at 5:30 p.m. in city hall, voting to deny appeal of a dangerous dog designation for a dog at 343 East First Avenue.
The appeal from resident Jennifer Pahl came after police were called Monday, May 18 at 6:03 p.m. for what was described as a “dog related complaint.”
Two dogs, one at the house and another passing by with its people, had had an incident. The dog at the house was a two year old pit bull, while that passing by was a smaller unidentified breed.
No visible injuries to either dog had resulted from the incident, but investigation had resulted with the invocation of city ordinance 7-1-7 regarding dangerous dogs, the dog at 343 East First Avenue being labeled “dangerous,” rather than vicious, which has a separate definition in city ordinance.
A “dangerous” dog or animal is defined in city ordinance 7-1-1(10(a) as “any dog or animal which, when unprovoked, inflicts bodily harm on a person, domestic pet or animal on public or private property,” as well as “any dog or animal which, when unprovoked, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog or animal are off the property of the animal’s owner or caretaker. Also included are animals with “a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack, cause bodily harm injury to, or otherwise threaten the safety of, humans or other domestic pets or animals,” and “any animal which, when unprovoked, bites a person or another domestic animal causing a less severe injury than is defined in subsection (a)(5).”
Full city ordinances are available at https://stanley.municipalcodeonline.com.
Present at the appeal hearing were dog owners Allen Holston and Jennifer Pahl, along with neighbor Erika Gilpin in support.
The owners of the small dog were not present.
“My dog is not dangerous,” Holston said in appealing the dangerous dog designation by the city, saying his dog was two years old and wasn’t out in front of the house without supervision. The house had a fence, with the dog spending its time in the back.
“She’s great with kids, any kids,” he said. The dog was a puppy and jumped up at times, but was being trained. “She has to learn, just like any child,” Holston said. “My dog is not dangerous.”
“It also depends on how the owners take care of them and how they’re training,” Committee member Laurie Foster said. “Because you can train them to be good wonderful dogs, but it depends how they’re treated when they’re young.”
The dog had come home at eight weeks old, Holston said. There had been no reason to fear in the intervening time.
“We’re not the owners to just open our doors and let the dog wander around,” he said. “We don’t do that. We abide by the leash law and have a fence.”
“Thank you,” Mayor Ben Wald said.
Pahl followed Holston, sharing details of the incident in question.
“That day the door was open, the kids were outside and I was inside,” she said. “Nella was outside unattended and in the back. She wears a leash and a harness. In the front I don’t and that day the kids yelled ‘Grandma, the dog got out.’ And by the time I stepped outside which was a matter of seconds she was back in the fence and this lady was standing there with her puppy.”
Pahl said she undertook measures to make sure the puppy was ok.
“I saw her set the puppy down and continue on the walk. So to be honest I didn’t think anything more of it. I take responsibility that my dog got out of the fence.” Pahl said the family didn’t get much company, which might explain why the dog was so hyper.
“She jumps,” Pahl said of the dog. “As far as I know there were no injuries to the puppy. This doesn’t excuse that my dog got out, but I don’t think she should be labeled as dangerous for something like this. I wouldn’t keep a dangerous dog, we’ve had her since she was a puppy. I would make the choice to probably find her a different home.”
“How high was the fence?” Foster asked.
“Well she burst through it,” Pahl said. “She didn’t go over it.” The front fence in question is a wire fence, while that in back is a wood fence. The dog would not be back in the front fence area. The front fence was made for a 13-year-old pug dog who was blind.
The dog was to be licensed as of Thursday, following vaccination in Owen.
Also speaking at the hearing was neighbor Ericka Gilpin.
“I live next door to them,” she said of the dog owners. “First of all, the pup is not vicious.” If it was vicious, Gilpin would not tolerate it being there.
“But what all happened, I don’t think you got the full story,” she said. “The dog was three feet into their yard on their fence. The two kids were outside, and Nella was on a leash. So in the wrong was their dog going in their yard in the first place.” Gilpin said the smaller dog had been allowed to approach the fence and both dogs had been at fault. “You can’t punish one without the other,” she said.
Gilpin then added further details of the incident.
“They got the dog in, the little girl put her in right away and closed the gate. They walked away and it was fine. But it was his behavior. And I’m sorry I am so angry. The little child puts the dog back in that fence. That man stood there and swore and was in their faces...It was not those kid’s fault. The dog is not vicious, she is protecting them. But nothing gets said about what he said,” The children had been in tears.
Committee member Morgan Marek asked a question.
“Do you think it was because he was scared the dog was going to attack his dog?” she asked. “People react out of fear.” Pitbulls had a stigma, which might also have factored into the incident. “He probably was defending himself and was upset.”
Following resident testimony it was into deliberations, with members have mixed feelings.
“Can we step out and have a conversation?” Committee member Therese Metzger asked.
“No, that would be a closed session,” Wald said. Foster asked where the other people were.
“They weren’t asked to be here,” Police Chief Lance Weiland said.
“I wasn’t asked either,” Gilpin said.
A statement provided to the police by the couple stated that the dog had continued to jump up, while Sergeant Adam Kuechenmeister said there were no visible wounds from the incident. The city had faced a similar incident five years prior with a dog that was not a pitbull.
“I’ve not judging them or their animal,” Weiland said. “I’m a dog lover myself and I would be heartbroken if I was in their situation.” That said, the incident met the ordinance definition for dangerous.
Mayor Wald then laid out the options before the committee: approve the appeal, thus removing the designation or else deny the appeal, leaving the ‘dangerous’ label in place. A designation of the dog as dangerous didn’t prohibit keeping the dog but meant extra rules would go into place. The danger of approving the appeal was a potential lawsuit for the city if another incident happened, as the details were believed to meet the designation of ‘dangerous’ under city ordinance.
The committee ultimately decided to uphold the designation as dangerous, with motion by Metzger seconded by Marek and passing unanimously.
Pahl asked what her options were, which included registering the dog as dangerous or appealing to the full city council, with removal of the dog from the city if the appeal was lost.