Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council grants owner’s appeal; dog’s dangerous-dog designation overturned
Summary
After testimony, evidence and questioning, the council heard an appeal of a police department 'dangerous dog' designation and, following testimony and legal explanation of the ordinance, voted to grant the owner’s appeal; the council recorded that the dog is not dangerous and discussed signage, containment and training as remaining considerations.
The City Council convened as the Holdridge animal control authority to hear an appeal of a police department designation that labeled a dog "dangerous" after a child was bitten.
City attorney Corey O'Brien presented the city’s evidence packet, including the initial police report, citation, vaccination records and a photograph of the child’s injury, and explained the ordinance definition that a dog that inflicts injury requiring medical attention can meet the "dangerous dog" threshold. Sergeant Caleb Erickson described the department’s contact with the child’s family and reported the hospital notified police after the bite.
Family members and the dog owner’s relatives testified that the dog (named Brutus) had not previously acted aggressively, that the bite occurred after loud banging and rough play outside the trailer and that the owner promptly registered the animal and ensured vaccinations. One family member said the incident was a single bite and stopped immediately when shouted at.
O'Brien told council the ordinance creates a public-safety concern when a dog inflicts injuries that require medical treatment and noted that declaring a dog "dangerous" triggers certain signage and containment rules; he also said the owner could present evidence of provocation or past behavior to rebut the designation.
After questions about fence height, kennel restrictions at the trailer park, the child’s medical treatment and whether the owner had complied with registration and vaccinations, the council moved and voted on the appeal. The motion to grant the appeal carried; on the record the council stated the dog "is not dangerous."
Council discussed options available if a future incident occurs (including re-opening the matter or court appeal) and suggested the owner consider training and additional security measures to prevent future incidents. The attorney noted the family might appeal again with additional evidence or seek court review if desired.
The council’s action overturned the earlier administrative dangerous-dog designation for this animal in this recorded hearing.
