After some residents of Grayson County have refused to control their aggressive, sometimes vicious dogs, Grayson County Fiscal Court is now considering an ordinance deeming it illegal to not take control of dogs that enter other people’s property or the roadway, thereby creating dangerous conditions.
“We have a problem in the county,” County Attorney Jeremy Logsdon said at Tuesday’s Fiscal Court meeting. “My goal here, working with (Judge-Executive) Kevin (Henderson) and other people, was to try and find a specific answer through an ordinance. What I’m talking about is a problem, that since I’ve been in office for almost two years, which I don’t think this is a new problem, is aggressive dogs on peoples’ property and out in the roadway.”
Logsdon, Henderson and several magistrates said they have received numerous complaints from residents about aggressive dogs, but with no ordinance to support legal action, Logsdon has no ready remedy.
“Listening to these calls and receiving these letters and meeting with people, there’s lots of complaints about dogs all over the county, whether these are loose on (someone’s) property, things like that,” Logsdon said. “The issue has to do with some of the more recent examples … where we’ve met with people and discussed … for example, Mike Adams … you can add him to a list of 20 others. Mike Adams has a neighbor, he lives out in the county, the dogs come out, they run over to his property and get in his yard. They start barking at him, snapping, you know, he’s afraid. He doesn’t want to kill the animals, he wants the neighbor to just keep the animals (put) up. In that situation, we don’t have much recourse. The usual answer is to send a letter saying, ‘These animals of yours, if you don’t keep them (put) up, you could be civilly liable, you could be sued if they bite someone, or they destroy some property.’”
The letters previously sent by the County Attorney’s Office to offenders, though, have not illicited the type of response one would reasonably expect from a responsible adult.
“These letters,” Logsdon said, “they fall on deaf ears because generally the people that receive these letters, they say, ‘Well, sue me.’ Or they say, ‘Well, they aren’t going to sue me, someone is not going to go to that effort.’ That is your pretty basic situation.”
Logsdon, further illustrating the dangers caused by aggressive dogs, recounted a story from a resident who nearly died after having a wreck, caused by a dog, as she rode a bicycle on a public roadway.
“Another situation that comes up concerning these aggressive dogs is when the cyclists, we have a pretty good community of cyclists that ride our county roads and highways here, and they are chased by dogs that are loose,” Logsdon stated. “They chase them down the road, they bark, they bite at their heels.”
“Me and (Magistrate) Kevin Fulkerson met with a lady from his area, and the judge as well, and she had been chased by the dogs … multiple times,” Logsdon continued. “These cyclists, they have to mace the dogs. We’ve sent letters to these people, and they said, ‘You don’t have an ordinance, you can’t do anything. It’s not a crime, (and) we’re not going to keep our dogs up.’”
“This lady had to bring … her life had to be brought back. These dogs chased her and they got underneath her bike and she flipped and she was unresponsive … Luckily one of the people out there was able to do CPR and save her life,” according to Logsdon. “There are other common situations, much like this, many, many more.”
In response, Logsdon, using other counties’ ordinances as a guideline, fashioned an ordinance “dealing with these aggressive dogs that harass people, just people.”
The heart of the ordinance read and distributed at Tuesday’s meeting reads as follows:
SECTION 3 — HARASSING DOGS
No owner of a dog shall fail to exercise proper care and control of his or her dog in such a manner which hereby allows the dog to enter onto a prohibited property and harass any person.
It is a violation of this ordinance for an owner of a dog to fail to exercise property care and control of his or her dog thus allowing said dog to enter onto a prohibited property and harass any person.
SECTION 3 — ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER POWERS/DUTIES UNDER THIS ORDINANCE
- Investigation
The animal control officer shall investigate any complaint of a violation or potential violation of his ordinance and further shall assist the County Attorney in reviewing and/or investigating any complaint brought directly to the County Attorney’s office.
The animal control officer, upon his or her investigation may 1) issue a verbal warning of violation; 2) issue a written warning of violation; 3) apply for a criminal complaint; 4) refer the matter to the County Attorney or 5) take no action. These rights given to the animal control officer are not exclusive and any combination may be utilized as necessary to address a violation of this ordinance.
- Seizure/Impoundment and Restitution
The animal control officer may enter upon the private land of the owner of a harassing dog and seize/impound such animal without the owner’s consent. This right does not grant the animal control officer the right to enter the owner’s private residence or any private buildings without a search warrant signed by a judge.
If the seized/impounded dog is adjudged a vicious dog by a court of law under KRS Chapter 258, said animal will be handled as the court directs. If the seized/impounded dog is not adjudged a vicious dog, the animal shall be returned to the owner upon payment of a reasonable cost determined by the animal shelter and the county based upon the right under KRS Chapter 258.
In the event that the dog is not returned to the owner due to a court determining it is a vicious dog or due to the owner forfeiting the animal or in accordance with any other Order of the District Court, the owner under this ordinance shall be liable for the reasonable costs associated with the shelter and/or county keeping and caring for the animal and any restitution due including any veterinary/treatment costs.
SECTION 4 — PENALTY
Any person in violation of his ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined no less than $100 but not more than $250 for each dog and each violation. A violation of this ordinance will require the payment of any and all restitution due as referenced in above Section 2 of this ordinance.
Following the reading of the ordinance, several magistrates asked that an additional section be added to the proposed ordinance dealing with dog-on-animal violence that results in injury or death.
Logsdon said he would add such a clause, with magistrates scheduled to hear the first reading of the amended proposed ordinance at the next Fiscal Court meeting in January.
By Ken Howlett, News Director
Contact Ken at ken@k105.com
