Saturday, July 13, 2013

Rottweiler labeled dangerous following attack

NEBRASKA -- A Rottweiler that was quarantined for 10 days after attacking a 68-year-old Columbus woman June 20 was released to its owner Monday.

The dog’s owner, Dustin Rohloff, 27, was cited for offensive animal activity, destruction of property by a dog and no city license in the wake of the attack in a housing subdivision along East 23rd Street.

The more than 100-pound Rottweiler has been declared a dangerous dog and Rohloff already has begun complying with the provisions of the state’s dangerous dogs law, said Donna Winig, lead officer for Columbus Animal Control.

The dog already has been microchipped and neutered, Winig said.

The woman, whose name is being withheld to preserve her privacy, suffered multiple puncture wounds to her abdomen and right arm in the attack.

State law gives owners of dangerous dogs 30 days from the dangerous declaration to spay or neuter the animals and have them implanted with a microchip identification number by a licensed veterinarian. The owners are liable for the costs.

Other provisions of the state law place limitations on the dogs’ travel, relocation, confinement and the posting of warning signs for the animals.

Not following any of the provisions of the law could be a criminal violation.

“The owner has been very cooperative with animal control,’’ Winig said. “We’ll be monitoring the situation, but we don’t foresee any problems.”

Animal Control responded to the June 20 report of an animal bite when the victim was being treated for her injuries at Columbus Community Hospital. She had driven herself to the hospital following the attack.

Animal Control’s investigation of the 8 a.m. biting incident revealed Rohloff was out in his yard with the dog on a leash when the victim was out for an early-morning walk on the opposite side of the street.

The dog crossed the street, approached the victim and suddenly lunged at her, Winig said. The dog owner pulled the animal off the victim, she said.

“The owner had the dog on a leash, but he was not in control of the animal,’’ Winig said.

(Columbus Telegram-Jul 2, 2013)