Dangerous dog law debated, changes are rejected

An animal control committee and the SPCA appealed this week for more discretion under Dare County’s dangerous dog ordinance, which was put in place after two pit bulls mauled and killed a Labrador retriever at its owner’s home in Kitty Hawk last year.

Amendments were proposed out of concern that the ordinance was so strict that the health director and a county appeals board face only two choices in cases that might not be clear-cut: euthanizing a dog or returning it to its owner.

But county commissioners were not convinced any changes were needed.

The ordinance, which says that an animal considered dangerous or potentially dangerous must be put down, was discussed at length during Monday’s Board of Commissioners meeting and again Tuesday by the county Board of Health.

Commissioners rejected a motion to approve the amendments.

Public outrage intensified in the Kitty Hawk case when the pit bulls were returned to their owner after she paid a $25 fine because there was no county ordinance specifically dealing with such cases. The two pit bulls were subsequently euthanized after the owner signed them over to the county.

Dogs have been euthanized in seven cases since the ordinance was enacted, and it was widely agreed during the commissioners’ meeting that there were no doubts in any of those instances.

“From what I’ve heard, we haven’t put down any innocent dogs,” said board Chairman Warren Judge.

Judge expressed concerns that any change would suggest that the county was backing away from protecting the public after last year’s furor over the attacks.

Proposed amendments to the dangerous animal ordinance centered on more specifically defining serious injury in determining if a dog is dangerous. The ordinance now could be read to mean any instance in which a dog inflicts an injury to person that requires treatment. It also is not specific about the circumstances in which an injury occurs, raising the possibility that a one-time or inadvertent injury could lead to euthanization.

It defines a dog outside its own property that has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal as potentially dangerous. The amendments would have defined dogs in those cases as dangerous and eliminate the potentially dangerous definition.

The amendments would require “disfiguring” lacerations, punctures, broken bones or other injuries that would need “substantial” out-patient or in-patent medical treatment.

Judge suggested that the word “substantial” was subjective and could provide too much discretion. But County Manager Bobby Outten, who is also the county attorney, said that advocates of the change were looking for a more specific “trigger” to start the process of declaring a dog dangerous and avoid the risk of marginal cases leading to euthanization.

Asked by Commissioner Mike Johnson whether animal control officers could be held liable if a dog is released after an incident and then is involved in another attack, Outten said he would give a lawyer’s answer by saying “it depends.” But he added that it would be highly unlikely.

Under the ordinance, after an animal control officer investigates a case, the county health director determines if a dog is a dangerous animal. An owner can appeal that ruling to the Dare County Dangerous Animal Appeal Board. Further relief could be sought in Superior Court.

Outten said that state law provides some middle ground in dealing with dangerous animals.

The state statute calls for misdemeanor penalties and says that civil liability rests with the owner, according to the Web site of the Animal Legal & Historical Center at the Michigan State University School of Law. It also defines precautions owners of dangerous dogs must take, including leashing, muzzling and confinement. There is no specific provision for euthanizing dangerous dogs.

Much of the language in the county ordinance is similar to or the same as the state law, including the appeals process.

Monday’s discussion led to another debate about the merits of a leash law. Commissioner Virginia Tillett first asked to put a proposal on the next agenda, but was persuaded to wait after other commissioners said county leash laws for unincorporated areas in the past have met with wide opposition.

Two speakers had asked the commissioners to consider a leash law. Outten later said that citizens or community groups could petition for a leash law in a specific area or neighborhood of the county. Incorporated towns have their own leash laws.