Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dangerous Dog Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies appeal of dangerous-dog designation after resident testimony
Summary
The Green Bay Common Council denied an appeal from resident Carl Grossy seeking to reverse a dangerous-dog designation for his American bulldog. Council members cited prior incidents documented by animal-control testimony and reported veterinary/medical expenses when voting to deny the appeal.
The Green Bay Common Council voted to deny an appeal of a dangerous-dog designation after hearing testimony from the dog’s owner and reviewing prior incident reports.
Carl Grossy of 1283 Crooks (stated address) told the council his American bulldog is not a threat to people or other animals and urged reconsideration. "My dog's not dangerous to people. It's not a threat to society," Grossy said in public comment, adding that he felt animal-control officers had unfairly labeled his dog.
Council members then recounted prior officer testimony and reported incidents involving the dog. Alder Stevens summarized material from Officer Mavis’s file, saying the dog was involved in an incident on May 17, 2025 that nearly tore a Great Dane’s ear and left the owner with about $2,842 in medical and veterinary costs, and a February 5, 2026 incident that left about $900 in damages and puncture wounds. Alder Stevens also noted past difficulty getting cooperation from the dog’s owner during the investigatory process.
A motion to deny the appeal was made by Alder Profett and seconded by Alder Ritterbush; the council approved the motion by voice vote and the appeal was denied. The meeting record shows the council proceeded with the denial after discussion; an explicit roll-call tally for this motion was not recorded in the public transcript excerpt.
The council closed public comment on the item and moved on to other agenda business. The animal-control record and the appeals process were cited repeatedly during discussion; council members relied on officer testimony and the two prior incidents when reaching their decision.
