Opinion: Commission failure to approve dangerous dog law a failure to keep public safe
- Roger Sims, Publisher
- 12 hours ago
- 2 min read
By Roger Sims, Journal publisher
With the Linn County Commission down to just two commissioners for many of the recent meetings, that means that each commissioner holds plenty of sway in what is approved and what is shoved into the dustbin of local history.
Take the recent issue of the dog control resolution. One commissioner, Alison Hamilton, was willing to pass a modified version (apparently the limit of number of dogs per household exceeded her personal inventory) but the other commissioner, Jim Johnson, was flatly against it.
His reasoning: The county already has too much going on and the county’s sole codes inspector would be responsible for handling complaints about dogs that were vicious or a nuisance.
The proposed resolution was written by Jennifer Cummings, planning and zoning director, and Sheriff James Akes. It is a document that has been drafted with fairness and good intentions, and it would update the way the county handles vicious dogs.
With the resolution passed by the county commission in 1995 on hold because it forbids ownership of a certain breed of dog (pitbulls), the county has no way to deal with animals that are aggressive and dangerous. Nor does it have a way to deal with residents who feed more than a few animals.
The issue came to light after the vicious attack on a 13-year-old boy who was killed by a pack of dogs during the Christmas 2025 holiday. If the fatal attack wasn’t bad enough, unfortunate post-attack decisions by the dogs’ owner to hide the unthinkable evidence will likely lead to years in prison.
An unwritten code of conduct for dogs in rural areas is, “If it’s chasin’ cattle or killin’ your chickens, just shoot it.” But that places the responsibility on the affected neighbor and not on the owner of the dogs.
That approach is unwise in the unincorporated areas of the county, such as Centerville, Trading Post and lake developments like Tanglewood, Sugar Valley, Lake Chapparel, or in the case of the dead child, Holiday Lakes.
The ordinances in incorporated cities in the county have dog ordinances and can capture and dispense with the dangerous animals. In the unincorporated areas that have a higher density population, just shooting an animal is not a good option. Besides that, killing a neighbor’s animal, whether on the farm or the lake development, only fosters poor neighborly relations.
A few years ago, a woman who lived in Trading Post appeared before the county commission to complain about her neighbor’s pack of dogs that were terrorizing the neighborhood. Commissioners essentially shrugged their shoulders and told the woman that a deputy could be sent out to talk to the neighbor, but beyond that they had no control over the situation.
One of the duties of elected officials is to insure the safety of residents within their jurisdiction. That particular commission proved that they weren’t capable of doing that.
We’re really not sure how many tragedies, like the one of the boy who died at Holiday Lakes, it would take before the commission is compelled to put its stamp of approval on a dog-control resolution. For the commissioners to continue to postpone its adoption is beyond unthinkable. It’s a dereliction of their duty as public officials.