Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dangerous Animal Declaration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declares Ruru a dangerous dog, orders containment, vet exam, microchip and other requirements
Summary
The Evansville Animal Control and Education Commission found that a white dog named Ruru met the code definition of a dangerous animal after testimony and past animal‑control contacts and ordered a package of restrictions including enclosure/leash rules, microchipping, spay/neuter and a veterinary exam; the owner may appeal within 10 days.
The Evansville Animal Control and Education Commission declared a dog known as Ruru dangerous after a hearing on a complaint that the animal attacked another dog in a driveway.
Complainant Terry Butram testified that on Aug. 18 her Labrador, Ellie, was attacked by a loose white dog that dragged and bit Ellie while she tried to load her into a car. "I was screaming," Butram said while describing how neighbors helped pull the dog away; she said vets later stitched two lacerations. Don Wheeler, a neighbor, corroborated hearing dogs fight and helping extract the attacking dog from the vehicle.
Owner Jimmy Culley told the commission his dog escaped after a garage door blew open and disputed that Ruru was aggressive toward people. "My dog is not dangerous," Culley said, adding he had taken steps to secure the door since the incident. Animal‑control staff told the panel they had received multiple prior calls to the same address, including reports in 2023 that a white dog had chased children and that the owner had not complied with prior quarantine instructions.
Assistant City Attorney Buddy explained the legal standard and reminded the panel the animal’s breed cannot be considered. "A dog's breed will not be considered in determining whether it is dangerous," he said.
After deliberation the commission voted to declare Ruru a dangerous animal under County Ordinance 6.05.090. The panel then discussed and adopted a package of restrictions intended to reduce risk and allow for monitoring: the dog must be confined in an enclosure that prevents escape when outdoors and attended by an adult 18 or older when outside the enclosure; when outside and unattended the animal must be kept within a locked fenced area; the owner must post warning signs at property entrances; the animal must be permanently identified (microchip or tattoo); the commission required veterinary examination to rule out treatable medical causes, and spaying or neutering unless medically contraindicated. The commission also noted the ordinance allows fines of up to $2,500 for noncompliance and authorizes further orders or, in cases of serious human injury, humane destruction.
The assistant city attorney told both parties they may appeal the commission's decision within 10 days to the Vanderburgh County Superior or Circuit Court by filing a verified complaint. Animal control staff will follow up on compliance complaints and, where practical, verify enclosures or other ordered measures before releasing an animal from custody.
The commission recorded that no human suffered serious bodily injury in the Ruru case; the finding and the ordered restrictions are administrative actions under local code, not criminal charges. The owner was given instructions on registration and reporting requirements under the ordinance.
