City to decide if dog is 'vicious'
Johnston City Council considers overturning ruling against the golden retriever.
By JULI PROBASCO-SOWERS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
March 23, 2007
6 Comments
Bear is most likely oblivious to the controversy swirling around him.
The future for this 90-pound, 7-year-old Johnston golden retriever hangs in the balance as his owners, Mary P. and James Davis and their family, wait to find out whether the Johnston City Council will overturn Bear's vicious dog designation.
The police chief ruled in October that Bear is vicious after city officials received two complaints about his behavior. The first complaint generates a warning letter only.
If the ruling against Bear is upheld, the Davis family would have to build Bear a kennel with a concrete floor and a roof, keep a muzzle on the dog while he is outside, and build a 6-foot-high fence around their yard. The dog also could not be handled outside by anyone younger than 18. The family considers Bear to be son Ben's dog. Ben is 17.
The Davis family, which also includes daughter Liz, asked the City Council to overturn the ruling at Monday's City Council meeting.
"This whole thing has been very hard on the family," Mary P. Davis said. "Bear has been part of the family, and he is not a vicious dog."
Mary P. Davis, whose family lives on Romford Court in Johnston, is a different person than Johnston City Councilwoman Mary M. Davis.
About 10 letters have been sent to Johnston dog owners warning them after a report of their dogs acting aggressively or attacking people or animals since the ordinance took effect in 2002.
Bear's vicious dog designation is the first of its kind in Johnston to find its way to a City Council appeal hearing, Lt. Lynn Aswegan said Monday. Aswegan said only one other dog has been declared vicious by the city, and that dog's owners sent it to live in the country in 2003.
A letter was sent to the Davis family in May 2006 after the first report on Bear. The second letter was sent in October after a second reported incident, stating Bear had been declared vicious and that the family could appeal the ruling.
The first step in the appeal process is to have a meeting with City Administrator Jim Sanders, who can overturn the designations, Aswegan said. After the meeting on Oct. 19, Sanders said Bear's designation would stand. The next step is to appeal to the City Council.
The four council members at Monday's meeting indicated they would most likely have a split vote if they ruled on the appeal at that time. Councilman John Temple was absent.
In a tie the decision would stand, Mayor Brian Laurenzo said. Officials agreed to delay their decision until the April 2 meeting, when they expect all council members to be present.
During the roughly 90 minutes of discussion about Bear on Monday, council members Mary M. Davis and Gerd Clabaugh said they would likely uphold the dog's vicious designation. Council members Paula Dierenfeld and Richard Tingley said they were inclined to overrule the decision.
Prior to the two incidents reported in 2006 Bear had no history of problems, his owners and city staff said.
The first complaint against Bear came from Janelle Hall, who told police her dog sustained a puncture wound to its hip area that resulted in minor bleeding but no veterinary care, according to a police report.
The second incident was reported by Steven Cruse, who said Bear had leapt onto his dog and had the dog by the throat, according to the police report. Cruse told police his dog was not hurt, but he feared his dog could have been killed if he didn't ward off the attack.
Neither Hall nor Cruse could be reached for comment for this story.
Dierenfeld and Tingley said Monday they are particularly bothered at the lack of hard evidence about injuries to the first dog and whether the second incident could actually be called an attack.
"These are some pretty serious allegations," Dierenfeld said. She felt there should be more substantiating evidence.
"Where's the proof?" Tingley said.
Councilwoman Mary M. Davis said she would not overturn the designation even though she has been on both sides of a similar issue. Her dog was once attacked by another dog, and one time she had a small dog that bit a person who came onto her property.
Mary P. Davis said the family had already spent $4,000 on fences to keep Bear in the yard. First they installed an invisible electric fence, which worked fine for several years. She had a 4-foot-high chain- link fence, from which the dog has never escaped, erected after the second incident in October. Mary P. Davis said the family will wait to see how the appeal process goets.
If the designation is not overturned by the city, the family could take their appeal to district court, Aswegan said.
Johnston City Council considers overturning ruling against the golden retriever.
By JULI PROBASCO-SOWERS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
March 23, 2007
6 Comments
Bear is most likely oblivious to the controversy swirling around him.
The future for this 90-pound, 7-year-old Johnston golden retriever hangs in the balance as his owners, Mary P. and James Davis and their family, wait to find out whether the Johnston City Council will overturn Bear's vicious dog designation.
The police chief ruled in October that Bear is vicious after city officials received two complaints about his behavior. The first complaint generates a warning letter only.
If the ruling against Bear is upheld, the Davis family would have to build Bear a kennel with a concrete floor and a roof, keep a muzzle on the dog while he is outside, and build a 6-foot-high fence around their yard. The dog also could not be handled outside by anyone younger than 18. The family considers Bear to be son Ben's dog. Ben is 17.
The Davis family, which also includes daughter Liz, asked the City Council to overturn the ruling at Monday's City Council meeting.
"This whole thing has been very hard on the family," Mary P. Davis said. "Bear has been part of the family, and he is not a vicious dog."
Mary P. Davis, whose family lives on Romford Court in Johnston, is a different person than Johnston City Councilwoman Mary M. Davis.
About 10 letters have been sent to Johnston dog owners warning them after a report of their dogs acting aggressively or attacking people or animals since the ordinance took effect in 2002.
Bear's vicious dog designation is the first of its kind in Johnston to find its way to a City Council appeal hearing, Lt. Lynn Aswegan said Monday. Aswegan said only one other dog has been declared vicious by the city, and that dog's owners sent it to live in the country in 2003.
A letter was sent to the Davis family in May 2006 after the first report on Bear. The second letter was sent in October after a second reported incident, stating Bear had been declared vicious and that the family could appeal the ruling.
The first step in the appeal process is to have a meeting with City Administrator Jim Sanders, who can overturn the designations, Aswegan said. After the meeting on Oct. 19, Sanders said Bear's designation would stand. The next step is to appeal to the City Council.
The four council members at Monday's meeting indicated they would most likely have a split vote if they ruled on the appeal at that time. Councilman John Temple was absent.
In a tie the decision would stand, Mayor Brian Laurenzo said. Officials agreed to delay their decision until the April 2 meeting, when they expect all council members to be present.
During the roughly 90 minutes of discussion about Bear on Monday, council members Mary M. Davis and Gerd Clabaugh said they would likely uphold the dog's vicious designation. Council members Paula Dierenfeld and Richard Tingley said they were inclined to overrule the decision.
Prior to the two incidents reported in 2006 Bear had no history of problems, his owners and city staff said.
The first complaint against Bear came from Janelle Hall, who told police her dog sustained a puncture wound to its hip area that resulted in minor bleeding but no veterinary care, according to a police report.
The second incident was reported by Steven Cruse, who said Bear had leapt onto his dog and had the dog by the throat, according to the police report. Cruse told police his dog was not hurt, but he feared his dog could have been killed if he didn't ward off the attack.
Neither Hall nor Cruse could be reached for comment for this story.
Dierenfeld and Tingley said Monday they are particularly bothered at the lack of hard evidence about injuries to the first dog and whether the second incident could actually be called an attack.
"These are some pretty serious allegations," Dierenfeld said. She felt there should be more substantiating evidence.
"Where's the proof?" Tingley said.
Councilwoman Mary M. Davis said she would not overturn the designation even though she has been on both sides of a similar issue. Her dog was once attacked by another dog, and one time she had a small dog that bit a person who came onto her property.
Mary P. Davis said the family had already spent $4,000 on fences to keep Bear in the yard. First they installed an invisible electric fence, which worked fine for several years. She had a 4-foot-high chain- link fence, from which the dog has never escaped, erected after the second incident in October. Mary P. Davis said the family will wait to see how the appeal process goets.
If the designation is not overturned by the city, the family could take their appeal to district court, Aswegan said.
. Lots of dogs can climb/jump chain link fences with ease.