Fairbanks North Star Borough commission reverses dangerous-animal finding for sled dog "Bearing" after 3-2 vote

The Fairbanks North Star Borough Animal Control Commission on Jan. 6 reversed an animal-control determination that the sled dog Bearing was "dangerous," voting 3-2 to add a finding that the injury to a 6-year-old skier was not intentionally inflicted. Commissioner Rudy moved to reverse the determination and Commissioner Sherman seconded; the motion carried with Miss Olnes, Sherman and Rudy voting "yes" and Rosenberg and Chair Gardner voting "no."

The panel heard testimony from animal-control Officer Foster and Officer Ross, the victim's guardian, Josh Smith, and the dog's owners, Christie and Holden Fleming. Officer Foster described the department's review of an incident reported Nov. 1, 2025, confirmed the animal's rabies vaccination and microchip and said staff classified the dog as "dangerous, with conditions," listing standard conditions including proof of neuter, secure confinement and requirements for muzzling and restraint in public. Officer Foster also cited prior at-large reports and attached photos and a video as part of the record. Officer Ross told commissioners that the dog "approached the victim without invitation, jumping up toward the victim with the dog's head, face and mouth," and that the child suffered multiple lacerations to the lip and chin.

The victim's guardian, Josh Smith, described the incident on High Sierra Drive and said the lead dog lunged at his daughter's throat, knocked out a tooth and left a lasting scar: "Their lead dog lunged at my daughter's throat and bit her, knocked her down, knocked her tooth out," he said. Smith provided photos and described ongoing fear in his daughter.

The Flemings disputed that Bearing intentionally bit the child and challenged linkage of several earlier at-large reports to their dog. Christie Fleming said the dog had long experience around children in commercial tour and nonprofit settings, submitted statements from a veterinarian and nonprofit partners, and produced a one-page statement from a board-certified plastic surgeon who wrote that the wounds could be more consistent with a fall than a deliberate dog bite. "I'm certain he did not bite," Fleming said. The owners told the commission they had taken steps since April 2025 to keep the dogs contained (leashed walks while building a fence, and now a fenced yard) and said they will avoid mushing on roads going forward.

Commissioners debated the weight of evidence and the burden of proof. Commissioner Rudy said she did "not believe that an intentional bite occurred" and cited the surgeon's statement and inconsistencies in medical reporting. Commissioner Sherman agreed that the surgeon's description raised questions and that animal-control's "at-large" material might not bear directly on the bite finding. Several commissioners, including Rosenberg and Chair Gardner, said an injury did occur and expressed reluctance about reversing the department's determination absent clearer evidence of error.

On the motion to reverse, the clerk recorded the roll call: Miss Olnes (yes), Miss Rosenberg (no), Miss Sherman (yes), Miss Rudy (yes), Miss Gardner (no). The commission announced the decision to reverse the dangerous-animal determination and to add one finding of fact that the bite was not intentional. The commission noted that the borough's dangerous-animal designation and its conditions apply only inside the Fairbanks North Star Borough and that a dangerous designation may be petitioned for removal after one year if no further incidents occur.

The meeting record identifies the dog by microchip number 981020037339556 and lists the matter as incident B25-003559 with an incident date given in the record as Nov. 2, 2025 (the parties discussed reporting dates and a clerical timeline discrepancy). The Flemings submitted supplemental evidence that was not exchanged earlier but admitted into the record after the commission briefly recessed to review it. The staff report references multiple appendices (including the bite incident report and photographs); full medical records were not in the file and staff explained those are not routinely provided to animal control without a patient request under HIPAA.

The commission adjourned the reconvened hearing at 7:27 p.m. The reversal means the animal-control determination will not remain in effect as written; the owners and animal control may follow up administratively or by petition per borough code.