Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews animal-control findings after neighbor shot a dog; staff told to work with owner and review ordinance
Summary
Animal-control officials described repeated neighbor complaints about odors, loose dogs and an incident in which a neighbor shot a puppy at the Steven Hunsberry property; staff said some dogs meet the city’s breed-based definition of 'dangerous' and told council they would work with the owner and bring any ordinance-revision or enforcement recommendation back to the council.
Animal-control staff briefed the Abbeville City Council on Dec. 16 about a multi-week investigation into complaints at the property of Steven Hunsberry, including odors, unregistered and unvaccinated animals, reports of dogs escaping under a fence, and a Nov. 21 incident in which a neighbor shot and killed a puppy.
"When Mr. White said one of Steven’s dogs got under the fence and he killed him," an animal-control representative said, describing the neighbor’s report and the department’s recognition of the animal. Staff said officers who visited the property earlier did not find dogs to be aggressive toward them, though neighbors reported barking and jumpy behavior at the fence.
Debbie Garo, who said she has worked in animal control for nearly 12 years, told the council that while breed alone typically does not prompt seizure absent an incident, Abbeville’s ordinance defines certain breeds (and partial-pitbull mixes) as dangerous by definition and requires containment, muzzling, and liability insurance for owners of such dogs. Staff reported some animals on the Hunsberry property may fall under that definitional standard and that they were not properly registered or inoculated as required by local code.
Neighbor testimony described safety concerns. "Those dogs are vicious," said resident Far McDummache, who lives across the street, and said she prevents nieces and nephews from visiting the area because she fears an attack. The council also heard that three dogs were removed from the property after the incident and that animal-control personnel had fed and checked animals while the owner was hospitalized.
The city attorney and council debated legal authority for unilateral seizure. The attorney advised the council that they could enter an order declaring an individual dog dangerous after an incident and require compliance with conditions, but she cautioned against taking property without a clear legal basis. The council directed animal-control staff to keep working with the owner, pursue enforcement steps allowed under current code (including notices and potential dangerous-dog declarations where the ordinance and facts permit), and bring suggested ordinance clarifications or a formal recommendation back to the council.
No seizure order or council vote to remove the remaining dogs occurred that night; council members emphasized residents’ safety concerns and asked staff to return with a legal pathway for enforcement.
