Commission again delays action on vicious dog resolution, one member voices opposition law
- Charlene Sims, Journal staff
- 15 hours ago
- 8 min read
By Charlene Sims, Journal staff
MOUND CITY – Since Jan. 12 when Linn County Sheriff James Akes first brought up the current vicious dog law on record before the Linn County Commission, the discussion about the vicious dog law has been postponed or tabled at least seven times.
It was tabled again on Monday, July 20.
“I’m good with where we’re at right now,” Commissioner Jim Johnson said. “I tell you what, I think we have a lot of other issues in this county that’s bigger. That’s creating us more trouble than this right here. That’s where I’m at.”
When Akes had first presented the current ordinance to the commissioners in January, in response to the killing of 13-year-old Airen Andula by dogs at Holiday Lakes, Commissioner Jason Hightower had asked County Counselor Jacklyn Paletta to get a resolution together and bring it back the next week. At the Jan. 20, meeting, Paletta mentions the codes/process of the Vicious Dog Law and how the process comes into play and may need some review. It was then tabled until Feb. 9.
After discussing the issue at several meetings, on May 4, Planning and Zoning Director Jennifer Cummings presented a written vicious dog ordinance. Johnson and Commissioner Jason Hightower shared a concern about violations for dogs barking in the ordinance. Paletta pointed out that the current resolution (No. 1995-24 passed more than 30 years ago) states the affiliation with a specific breed, due to constitution at this time one can no longer provide a resolution that is breed specific.
Paletta said that if other crimes regarding dogs take place, citizens would need to
contact the police.
Commission Chair Alison Hamilton recommended rescinding the current resolution.
On May 4, Johnson motioned to put a moratorium on the vicious dog resolution until
commissioners can reevaluate it. Hamilton seconded the motion and it was approved, 3-0.
But on Monday, Aug. 20, Cummings and Akes approached commissioners Hamilton and Johnson with a changed and condensed version of the resolution. Hightower did not attend the meeting.
Hamilton read aloud portions of the resolution for the public. Here are some of the important points:
A dog may be declared vicious when a complaint is received and investigated.
Evidence supports the determination. The owner receives written notice and the owner may appeal to the board of county commissioners within 10 days.
Requirements for vicious dogs include confinement, keeping the dog in a secure enclosure or fenced area that prevents escape and public contact.
Outside the closure, the dog must be on a leash or under the control of an adult.
The dog must wear a collar and tag identifying the owner.
The owner must notify code enforcement within 24 hours if the dog escapes, bites, injures a person or animal is relocated or transferred or dies.
It is unlawful to allow a vicious dog to run at large. Failure to comply with this resolution, interfere with code enforcement.
A vicious dog may be seized if its running at large or the owner fails to comply with this resolution.
The owner is responsible for all impoundment costs.
Fines for general violations up to $500 per violation.
Vicious dog running at large up to $1,000 per violation, bite or attack. If a declared vicious dog injures a person or domestic animal, the dog may be seized pending review by the board of county commissioners.
Maximum number of dogs without a conditional use permit: No more than four dogs over six months of age may be kept on a property without a conditional use permit (CUP). A CUP is required for five dogs or more. Any kennel breeding operation or similar activity. Exemptions, working farm dogs and lawful hunting dogs are exempt from the dog limit requirement.
All dog owners must prevent excessive barking, unsanitary accumulation of waste, odors or conditions affecting the neighboring properties.
Hamilton asked who declares a dog vicious.
Cummings said it was her role as codes enforcement officer.
Johnson asks, “And it will be you or who will go out? So you’re going to have to go out?”
That is correct, Cummings said. She said other agencies that are willing to help including Dirt Road Rescue and the city of La Cygne.
“We would assist,” Akes said. “We would be the assisting agency. It would be her, and we would only go with her if she requested us.”
More discussion was held with Hamilton saying she did not like the section about limiting dogs and also about having to get a CUP if you have more than four dogs.
“I’m not interested,” Johnson said. “I’ll tell you what. I think this is going to create a lot more work for you. I’m not sure you have the time for it all. When you start getting the complaints.”
Both Cummings and Akes tried to make the point that several dogs that are not cared for properly or fed can become a vicious pack of dogs.
“I’ll tell you, for instance, we had an individual, I believe that there were like six dogs, that did not have any way to take care of them,” Akes said. “They surrendered them and then come to find out they got six more and still don’t have the means to take care of these animals.
“That’s what we’re running into in these lake communities, and things like that, that people are getting dogs after dogs after dogs and have no way to take care of them. They’re breeding but they’re not registered breeders are not breeding them to sell them.
“These dogs are just, you know, established out there. And that’s one of the problems if somebody wants to legitimately say I want to have five Labradors. You can limit it without them coming to the commission and you can evaluate it on a case basis of,is this person legitimate and they’re housing these dogs and they’re well taken care of.
“I’ve recently had a couple of really close calls,” Cummings said, “because you get out there to inspect something and next thing you know when one starts barking, then they all join in.”
Johnson asked, “If they can’t afford to take care of the dogs, how are they going to pay their fines?”
Cummings said it was not like they were going to everybody’s house and counting dogs. This would be people that we’re having issues with or somebody has reported.
Hamilton said, “I’m good with everything except Section 9 so far.” As she commented she was trying to count how many dogs she has.
Akes continued, “Well, not all of Section 9 is just the number of dogs. We’d still want the conditional use permit for kennel breeding operations.”
Hamilton asked, “You want a conditional use for that?”
Cummings said that kennel regulation was a state issue also.
Linn County already has a zoning regulation (Section 5-301h) requiring a CUP if a resident has more than four dogs. This is the regulation that governs kennels in the county. Kennels in the county have had to apply for a permit for years in Linn County. It is the regulation that kept Regina’s Rescue coming back to the planning commission for nearly a year and was never approved because the kennel did not meet state regulations.
“I just think it is going to be really difficult to get a CUP in front of the planning and zoning board or us,” Hamilton said. “Is that what you are thinking, planning and zoning and then us?”
For several years county zoning regulations have required dog breeders apply for and receive a CUP for their operations. Those applications are acted on by both the planning and zoning commission as well as the county commissioners.
Johnson commented, “As far as working farm dogs and hunting dogs, who’s going to determine that? I mean, whose gonna, you come to my place and I say, I use them to work my livestock. I mean there’s just things in this that I think it’s going to be hard to prove.”
Cummings, also apparently unaware of the current regulation, suggested that the county could call it a special use permit that would be issued by the codes officer and not involve the planning and zoning commission.
Hamilton asked Johnson if he was willing to pass the resolution. He answered, “I’m not right now, not today, I’m not going to.”
Hamilton told Cummings, “I feel like what you put together is good enough for me to make a decision.”
Akes suggested, “You can put it on the agenda for next week, we can make the modifications that way.”
Johnson said, “It’s just like I say, if we go down to these fines, all we’re doing is creating codes for somebody that can’t afford to pay the fine. I mean, if they can’t afford to take care of the dogs, were going to put fines.”
Akes explained, “It’s the same thing, Jim. If they can’t afford to get their septic tank pumped and we go and put them in court.”
Johnson answered, “I mean pretty soon we’re just costing the taxpayer money more and more and there’s no way of recouping our funds. We’re just creating more government work.”
Cummings asked, “So are you saying no dog ordinance?”
“As of right now, I don’t want one,” Johnson answered. “Just continue the way we’ve been doing, myself, because until we work I believe there’s a lot of issues in this.”
Akes explained, “But Jim, what we’re attempting to do is remove the old resolution that is there, so if we need to, we just need to remove the old resolution because its not what ….”
Paletta interjected, “I’m sure that the earlier one was already ….”
Johnson said, “The resolution’s been removed we did remove that already weeks ago.”
Akes said, “I wasn’t sure.”
The recording of the action in the May 4 commission minutes was not clear as to what action was taken about the previous resolution. Here is what is recorded:
“P & Z: Jenny Cummings: Vicious dog ordinance was presented. Discussion of a contract with LaCygne Police Chief on a monthly basis. Jim and Jason shared their concern regarding the violations of policing barking. Counselor Paletta shared the current resolution (1995-24) states the affiliation with a specific breed, due to constitution at this time one can no longer provide a resolution that is breed specific.
“Paletta shared that if other crimes regarding dogs take place, citizens would need to contact the police. Alison recommended rescinding the current resolution.
“Jim Johnson motioned to put a moratorium on the vicious dog resolution until commissioners can reevaluate it. Alison Hamilton seconded the motion, motion carried, 3-0.”
“I think its important to have something revised,” Hamilton said. “Personally, I like this, maybe minus section 9. But I don’t know, wait a couple of weeks. I’m happy with what you’ve given me. It may not be in the couple of weeks, but I would make a motion to table it,
and we’ll keep this in our file and move forward at a later date and they don’t have to do any more work on it.”
Johnson seconded the motion and it passed.