Evansville commission declares two dogs dangerous, imposes containment and sterilization requirements

The Evansville Animal Control and Education Commission on Jan. 14, 2025, declared two dogs — identified by their owners as Apollo and Princess — dangerous after testimony that a group of dogs had attacked and killed neighborhood cats and scratched a resident.

The commission's action requires the animals' owner to register the dogs with animal control, arrange spaying or neutering at the owner's expense, implant permanent identification (microchips), and keep the animals contained and attended; further incidents would allow the commission to impose additional measures, including fines or other restrictions. The commission also ordered that the dogs remain at animal control until a secure fence is completed at the owner’s property and gave the owner seven days to report progress to animal control.

Why it matters: Commission members cited repeated reports from neighbors, video described as low quality but corroborated by multiple witnesses, and a pattern of dogs leaving their yard and killing cats as justification for declaring the two animals dangerous under the Evansville Code (Section 6.05). The decision imposes conditions aimed at reducing the risk of future attacks on pets and people in the neighborhood.

The hearing began after the complainant, Colette Purcell of 1307 Pollock Avenue, described two incidents. In a sworn statement, Purcell said her cat Brutus was attacked on Dec. 29, 2024, around 2:30 p.m., and that she “scooped up my cat to end his suffering” after neighbors’ video evidence showed dogs attacking. Purcell and other witnesses told the commission they had seen groups of three to five large dogs running the neighborhood and that a separate cat had been killed on Dec. 19, 2024.

Witnesses who submitted statements and testified said neighbors detained two dogs until animal control arrived; Purcell and others said a third dog escaped. Animal control staff reported the two dogs presently in custody were not aggressive toward staff in the shelter but sat on the kennel walls and showed evidence consistent with having been involved in the reported incidents. Staff also said video Purcell provided was too jumbled to be clearly legible.

The respondent, represented in Spanish through a family member who translated during testimony, acknowledged multiple dogs at the home, said some animals had gotten out through an older chain-link fence and an entry gate, and described steps the family was taking to improve containment. The owner’s representative said the household has about six dogs, that two of the animals currently in shelter custody are named Apollo (white and brown) and Princess (black), and that family members are building a wood fence and will pursue spay/neuter and other measures.

Commission members deliberated publicly under the terms of Evansville Code Section 6.05 and considered a separate statutory definition of “serious bodily injury.” The board voted that the human injuries reported (described in the complaint as scratches and teeth scrapes to a neighbor) did not amount to serious bodily injury under the Code.

After deliberation, the commission voted to declare Apollo and Princess dangerous and to impose the following baseline requirements for each animal: that the owner register the animals with animal control and notify animal control of any change in ownership or health status; keep the animals attended and contained in a fenced area that the animals cannot escape; require spay/neuter at the owner’s expense; require implantation of a permanent identification microchip; authorize fines if ordered conditions are not met; and require veterinary examination when directed. Commissioners also reserved the right to reimpose or augment restrictions if further incidents occur.

The commission instructed animal control to provide the owner with a written list of the orders and to confirm that the new fence is complete before the dogs are released. Commissioners set a seven-day deadline for the owner to communicate progress to animal control and warned that failure to comply could prompt additional enforcement, up to the remedial steps allowed under the local code.

Buddy, identified in the hearing as an assistant city attorney moderating the proceeding, told attendees: “This is not a court hearing. This is not about money damages or medical bills or anything of that nature.” The commission reminded both parties of the right to appeal the decision to Vanderburgh County Superior or Circuit Court within 10 days.

The commission encouraged the owner to seek community resources for fence construction and spay/neuter support and noted animal control would work with the family and neighbors on compliance questions. The commission emphasized that future incidents would trigger further sanctions under Code Section 6.05.

The record of witness statements, the complaint (which listed the incident on 12/29/2024 at approximately 2:30 p.m.), and the commission’s orders will be available through animal control and are subject to appeal within the statutory period.