Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell council county official left ‘vicious’ dog at owner’s home after attack
Summary
During public comment at the March 10 Pinckneyville council meeting, Dr. Wayne Hawkins and Scott and Dana Carney praised the city's response to a recent dog attack but said Perry County Commissioner Jennifer Martin left the dog at the owner's residence and did not obtain a vet exam; the council discussed options including seeking an agreement with Perry County or using city authority to cite noncompliance.
Dr. Wayne Hawkins and Scott and Dana Carney spoke during the public-comment period at the Pinckneyville City Council meeting on March 10 about a recent vicious-dog incident and expressed concern about how Perry County handled the case.
Dr. Wayne Hawkins said several people from their group attended a Perry County Board meeting and asserted that "the City ordinance states that a vicious dog should not be kept in a residence," adding that Perry County Commissioner Jennifer Martin "took it upon herself to leave the dog confined at the owner’s residence, and she did not have the dog examined by a vet within 24 hours after the attack," which Dr. Hawkins said she was supposed to do. He asked whether the city ordinance could be amended to prohibit keeping a dog that had attacked a person in a residence, particularly near places frequented by children.
City Attorney Don Bigham responded that Perry County Animal Control can decline to take an animal if it is full, and because the city does not operate a dog pound, the city would need to find a facility to accept the animal. Bigham said the city "could probably ask for an agreement with the County that if a dog injures or bites a person that they agree to take the dog," but if the county refuses, the city is authorized to pick it up and then would have to determine what to do with it. Scott Carney said he felt satisfied that the city had done what it could under its ordinance and state law but noted the county's approach differed.
No formal city action on the matter was recorded at the meeting. The speakers called for clarity about the interplay between city ordinance and county animal-control procedures and urged better reporting of repeated loose-dog incidents to county Animal Control.
