Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Vicious Dog topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors dispute animal-control finding after alleged attacks; county requires insurance and leash
Summary
At a Dearborn County commissioners meeting, animal-control staff and a neighbor disputed the number and circumstances of incidents used to support a 'vicious dog' determination; commissioners said the county will require insurance and leash restrictions while avoiding onerous measures.
Steve Hoster, the county animal-control director, told the Dearborn County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 17 that staff had reevaluated a previously tabled vicious-dog determination and recommended conditional measures rather than the most severe remedies.
Hoster said the owner may keep the dog on the property but must maintain homeowners insurance covering the animal, post a visible placard, and keep the dog leashed outside the residence. He described limitations on other remedies — for example, planning staff indicated a fence solution may not be permissible on the property in question.
The matter drew a lengthy response from a neighbor, Wayne Chambers, who said the written determination incorrectly listed five incidents and that he and other neighbors had reported fewer problems. "I can tell you 3," Chambers said, disputing the higher count and arguing that provocation by neighbors explained some encounters.
County staff and commissioners noted that the ordinance establishes a low threshold for a 'vicious dog' finding: testimony showed at least one attack that occurred when the dog was off the owner's property, which the animal-control official said can meet the ordinance standard. A county official summarized the board's practical request: "All we've asked... is the insurance and also to have the dog on a leash when he's outside," and commissioners reiterated they did not intend to impose an undue burden but would expect compliance.
Commissioners also encouraged reporting any threats or suspected cruelty to law enforcement after testimony that the dog's owner had received threats. The board did not impose the most restrictive measures (such as a mandated 'super kennel') at the Feb. 17 meeting, instead directing staff to verify insurance and compliance with leash and placard requirements and to follow up as needed.
The dog-determination matter remains subject to administrative follow-up; the county asked staff to confirm required documents and to continue oversight at a future point if compliance is not met.
