Evansville commission stands by restrictions in 'Axel' dangerous-dog appeal after preliminary hearing

The Evansville City Animal Control and Education Commission on Aug. 16 said it will stand by the restrictions it placed earlier on “Axel,” a 4‑year‑old hunting dog involved in attacks on other animals, after a preliminary court hearing in the appeal.

The decision followed a verbal update that Judge Massey had questioned the commission—s prior prohibition on 14‑ and 16‑year‑olds walking the dog and had indicated a willingness to consider judicial revision. Greg Freiberger, the owner—s attorney, informed the commission of the hearing and that a final hearing is set for Oct. 2 at 8:30 a.m. if further evidence is required.

The commission reviewed a veterinarian—s letter from Village East Animal Hospital signed by Dr. Melchers (dated May 14, 2024) submitted on the owner—s behalf. The letter says neutering would harm the dog—s field‑trial performance and that the dog has not shown aggression in clinic settings. Commission members countered that the record presented at the original dangerous‑dog hearing included testimony that the dog attacked and killed at least one dog and assaulted another animal, and that lapses in containment contributed to repeat incidents.

Speaker 6, a representative speaking for the Vanderburgh Humane Society at the meeting, summarized the commission—s position: "But, you know, I feel that we stand by what we put forth to begin with." The commission—s counsel (Speaker 3) advised that the judge will consider the hearing record when reviewing agency action and recommended that staff ensure the attorney has the commission—s factual basis for those restrictions.

Commission members discussed practical reasons for the prior stipulations, including two incidents where a fence or containment failed and where a child left a gate open. The restrictions the commission approved earlier included neutering or spaying, microchipping, possible fines up to $2,500 for noncompliance, and other conditions tied to the animal—s classification as dangerous; destruction of the animal was noted as an option only if a future incident caused serious injury to a person.

Rather than take a new formal vote, staff said they would notify Freiberger that the commission did not change its earlier ruling and would provide the reasons in writing. The commission noted that at least two members who participated in the original dangerous‑dog hearing may need to testify if called during later proceedings.

A final hearing, if needed, is scheduled for Oct. 2 at 8:30 a.m., when the court will accept further testimony and evidence.

What happens next: staff will provide the commission—s reasoning to the owner—s attorney; the commission may be called to testify at a later court date.