INDIANA -- The garden around her South Ninth Street home has always been Sarah Rawlings’ sanctuary.
On June 25, that changed.
Two dogs escaped the yard at their home four blocks away and wound up clawing and snapping at Rawlings as she fought them off in a bid to protect her three small dogs and her 3-year-old granddaughter.
Now Rawlings, a master gardener, won’t venture into her garden without a canister of pepper spray.
“I can’t go outside without fear,” she said.
One month removed from the encounter, Rawlings is hoping to persuade Lafayette City Council members to put more teeth behind the city codes dealing with dangerous animals.
Those same city codes returned the two dogs to their owner after the attack with only a verbal warning and animal shelter fees totaling $200, or $100 per dog.
“I’m still having nightmares,” Rawlings said. “Things go through my mind all the time about what could have happened. It could have been a lot worse.”
At a neighborhood meeting, Rawlings approached her councilwoman, Lauren Ahlersmeyer, about the attack. Ahlersmeyer showed Rawlings the current ordinances pertaining to violent animals and encouraged Rawlings to share any ideas she had to make improvements.
“I asked if it were just her, what would she like to see changed,” Ahlersmeyer said.
“Anytime you have citizens concerned about what is best for the community, it’s important to take a look at it. That’s what we’re here for.”
Just before 11 a.m. on June 25, Rawlings was seated at her kitchen table while her dogs slept at her feet. Suddenly the dogs — two beagles and a terrier — awoke and bolted together out the doggy door and into the backyard, barking.
Rawlings followed them to find two pit bulls ramming her back gate, snarling at her dogs. The bottom of the wooden gate bowed as it threatened to give way.
“I ran to the gate and pushed my body against it to keep them from pushing the gate in and entering the yard,” Rawlings said.
“They were barking, jumping, growling, slobbering and everything trying to get through the gate. My dogs were in defense mode.”
Rawlings put her shoe against the bottom of the gate. Through the gate’s wooden slats, one of the dogs tried to chew on her shoe.
“He had his mouth on my shoe, but he couldn’t bite down,” Rawlings said. “The female was trying to come over the top. I was hitting her in the face with my right hand to keep her from coming over the top of the gate.”
Rawlings began screaming, shouting for help. Rawlings’ granddaughter, hearing the noise, poked her head out the doggy door and asked if her grandmother was all right. Rawlings screamed at her to go back inside.
At the home next door, a neighbor stuck her head out the window. Rawlings shouted for her to call the police.
That neighbor declined to comment for this story, fearing possible reprisal from the owner of the two dogs.
Waiting for police
Lafayette police received the first call about the incident at 10:53 a.m., according to the police report for the incident.
Dispatchers advised Rawlings, via her neighbor, to go back inside with her dogs.
“I’m thinking, if I leave this gate and take off running for the house, if I even made it to the house, to the door, by that time those dogs were going to be over that gate after me,” Rawlings said. “If they didn’t catch me, they’d be right behind me, and I’d lead them into the house where my granddaughter was.”
The first officer on the scene grabbed the dogs by the backs of their necks and hauled them into the back of a patrol car.
An animal control officer arrived and took them to Almost Home Humane Society.
Damage to Rawlings’ property was minimal, with some ruined flowers worth about $20 and $50 in damage done to the gate, according the police report filed afterward.
But a doctor told Rawlings she had developed an infection to her vocal cords from screaming.
“My concern is not so much about the damages,” Rawlings said.
“My concern now is that I can’t feel safe in my own yard. Is my granddaughter safe if she goes out and plays in the sandbox in my yard?”
Attempts to reach that owner for comment were unsuccessful, but according to the animal control incident report, the dogs had no history of problems. A verbal warning was issued to the dog owner, who was charged $200 in shelter fees to retrieve the dogs.
Since the attack, Rawlings has been researching Lafayette city code and how it compares with that of other cities.
Rawlings’ biggest concern with Lafayette’s current city code is that although it contains a definition for “dangerous animals,” it does not legally define “potentially dangerous animals.”
Some communities enforce additional restrictions on animals that are more inclined to violence against people or animals, based on their history.
Although such restrictions might not have prevented the dogs from escaping and confronting Rawlings, they would make it harder for a repeat occurrence, which Rawlings fears.
Not anti-pit bull
Bloomington city code, for example, says a potentially dangerous animal is one that on two separate occasions within 36 months engages in aggressive behavior or causes nonsevere injury to a person or domestic animal when unprovoked.
In that city, after receiving a complaint from the public regarding a specific animal, the animal control commission holds a hearing in which it determines whether the animal is potentially dangerous. Under Bloomington’s ordinance, the owner of a potentially dangerous animal must:
• Keep the animal indoors or in a secured enclosure while on their property. The animal may be off the property only if restrained by a substantial leash and if under the control of an adult.
• Display warning signs on all entry points to their property that a potentially dangerous animal is on the property.
• Notify the city if the animal dies, is sold or transferred from the owner.
• Neuter or spay the animal within 30 days of its classification as a potentially dangerous animal.
Failure to adhere to those restrictions results in an array of monetary fines.
Changes to Lafayette’s code could look similar. No specific proposed changes have been brought before the city council.
Rawlings has yet to receive feedback on her suggestions from Ahlersmeyer or city officials. It would take several months to solicit input from citizens, city officials and police agencies needed to move Rawlings’ ideas forward.
“It’s just in the very beginning stages,” she said. “There’s nothing going on in the books. I’d just encourage people who want to be involved in the discussion to treat one another with respect and educate yourself on the issue. ... That’s how most effective change comes about.”
Mayor Tony Roswarski said the city will look at Rawlings’ information when she presents it.
“It is up to the council,” he said, “but we are always open to people bringing forth ideas or information that may be helpful.”
Both Rawlings and Ahlersmeyer are clear that this is not an attempt to target pit bulls specifically.
“It’s not a pit bull issue,” Ahlersmeyer said.
“I think it’s an animal aggression issue. Specifically, we have people who have dogs known to be aggressive. If you know your animal is aggressive, you need to take precautions.”
(JConline - Jul. 31, 2013)
