Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies appeal to return dog after dangerous-animal violation
Summary
After hearing testimony from animal-control officers and the owner, the Lafayette board voted to deny Tabitha Prader’s appeal to return a dog seized following a Feb. 16, 2026 incident that violated an existing dangerous-animal agreement; staff said prior incidents and prior removals supported denial.
The City of Lafayette denied an appeal seeking the return of a dog seized after a February 16, 2026 incident that animal-control staff said violated an existing dangerous-animal agreement.
Aaron Gravely, animal control officer, testified he responded to a disturbance at LTHC on Feb. 16 and recorded a dog bite that left the victim with two gashes to the left calf. Gravely said the dog was not wearing a muzzle at the time and that the household had previously been the subject of a dangerous-animal agreement stemming from a July 2025 incident. "This seizure should have happened when I brought Blue, but he was already cleared from the scene by the time I got there," Gravely said, adding he believed a return of the dog would likely lead to further violations.
Sarah Goens, chief animal control officer for Lafayette, told the board Tabitha Prader’s household has been repeatedly involved in dangerous-animal cases: "Tabitha herself has had four dogs issue dangerous animal agreements in the last four years," Goens said, adding that three of those dogs had been removed. Based on the history and the February incident, Goens recommended the board deny the appeal.
Appellant Tabitha Prader acknowledged prior incidents and said the dog is a family pet. She told the board she has a rural home where the dog could live and that the dog was in her boyfriend's care on the day of the incident. "He is a big puppy. He's a big baby. I can promise you it won't happen again," Prader said.
Board members asked whether the shelter could still evaluate the dog for rehoming if the board denied the return; staff replied the shelter would perform a temperament evaluation and determine whether rehoming was appropriate. A motion to deny the appeal was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.
The board did not order the dog euthanized on the record; staff said the shelter will determine disposition, including whether the animal can be rehomed after its evaluation.
