It all began March 30 when Tallassee resident Deborah Lowery’s Chihuahua was attacked and killed right before her eyes, on her own property. The culprit? A neighbor’s pit bull, one that frequently ran free and displayed aggression.
Lowery had taken Hoss, one of her three Chihuahuas, outside to relieve himself. The pair had been outside maybe two minutes when the pit bull came up from behind Lowery’s car, snatched up Hoss and ran off.
Another neighbor was able to retrieve the Chihuahua from the much larger dog’s mouth, but it was too late. What he described to Lowery was a violent death for her 4-year-old companion.
“What he worded to me was that (the pit bull) had my dog whipping him up against the tree,” Lowery told The Daily Times after the incident. “It was very violent.”
A Blount County Animal Control officer responded and seized the dog, since it was running at large and was standing in the middle of the road.
The problem
Initially there was some confusion over whether the animal would be deemed a “vicious” animal or not. The way Blount County ordinance is currently worded, it takes more than one attack on a domesticated animal for a dog or cat to be deemed vicious.
But, as Blount County Animal Center Director Charles Rafford explained at the time, there is some leeway in that rule, particularly when an animal dies.
“In this case, there’s been one attack where he attacked and killed the victim’s Chihuahua,” Rafford said following the incident. “The animal will be deemed vicious in this case.”
But county ordinance still allowed the owner five business days to reclaim the dog. That didn’t happen, and the dog was eventually euthanized. But having the opportunity at all is something Lowery found incredulous.
The Tallassee resident said she’s been involved in animal rescue work for nearly three decades. And she had no idea an animal could be reclaimed after killing someone’s pet.
The county ordinance currently in place deems a dog vicious for euthanization purposes after a single attack on a human being. But it generally takes at least two attacks on domesticated animals to do so.
Changes proposed
Lowery has since worked with Rafford and others to propose an updated policy, one that’s much more comprehensive and stringent. It now better addresses situations like the one Lowery found herself in.
“It’s more comprehensive than what’s on the books, than what we’re operating under now,” Rafford told The Daily Times during an Aug. 3 meeting at the Blount County Animal Center.
The ordinance in effect now is over 17 years old. It’s three pages long. The one proposed now spans 12 pages.
“That probably has something to do with it,” Rafford said of the need to adopt more thorough policies. “It hasn’t been changed since” being passed by the Blount County Commission on March 18, 1999.
Rafford said he was already pondering updates to the ordinance before the attack on Lowery’s pet. The March 30 attack just jumpstarted the process.
Rafford met with Blount County Mayor Ed Mitchell, who gave the go-ahead on drafting a new set of policies.
“We discussed the need for a new animal control ordinance which would be a little more encompassing and do a better job, be a better tool for my animal control officers to use,” Rafford said. “So the mayor decided and asked me to go ahead and update it, rewrite it and we would present it to the (County) Commission once it was reviewed and approved by the Blount County Animal Center Advisory Board.”
The Advisory Board has since approved the changes, which are currently pending review from Blount County government attorney Craig Garrett.
Garrett’s job is to ensure a legally viable and sound document is sent to the County Commission.
“I’m just going to look at it and make sure there’s nothing in it that doesn’t conflict with state law, basically,” Garrett told The Daily Times Thursday.
He said he had not yet had an opportunity to review the document but expects to in the coming weeks. He said the resolution should be ready before the County Commission’s September meeting.
What could change
There are numerous changes and updates in the proposed ordinance as compared to the one currently on the books. Rafford said the idea was to give the animal control officers the ability to better carry out their day-to-day duties.
“We’ve upgraded the vicious animal rules that we would operate under, and how we classify a vicious animal and what our procedures on dealing with them in the future would be,” Rafford said. “This more clearly delineates between a simple dog bite that’s unprovoked and a dog attack that causes serious physical injury or death.”
While under the current ordinance a dog can be deemed vicious if it kills another pet, like in Lowery’s case, it falls far short when it’s the dog’s first attack, Rafford said.
“If a dog killed another dog, then the dog would be deemed vicious, but there would be no other step,” Rafford said. “Euthanasia was not an option, and the seriousness of the attack was not really considered.”
Rafford said the proposed ordinance would have given animal control more options in a recent incident very similar to Lowery’s.
Walland resident Jody McKee and her 17-year-old Yorkshire terrier, Ollie, were walking to McKee’s car on July 27 when a neighbor’s pit bull ran up and attacked Ollie. McKee’s 5-pound companion did not survive.
By the time Blount County Animal Control Officer Jeff Campbell arrived, McKee’s neighbor had locked the pit bull inside his house. It prevented Campbell from seizing the animal, even though it had been running unrestrained when the fatal mauling occurred.
New ordinance ‘necessary’
“One of the biggest frustrations for people involved in instances like this is they want us to immediately seize the animal — that animal that killed their animal — and we just can’t do that at this time,” Rafford said. “Essentially, that’s what it is, and it’s very frustrating for people, and I understand that ... we are powerless.”
That will change if the proposed ordinance goes into effect. Rafford noted, however, this will only be so when dealing with unprovoked attacks.
“This new ordinance would give us the opportunity to go seize that animal at that moment and impound it until a decision could be made” on whether or not it should be deemed vicious,” Rafford said.
The newly proposed ordinance is something that took quite a bit of time, Rafford said. Part of that involved looking at other cites and counties in the state to see how their ordinances read. It has been consistently tweaked throughout the process, Rafford said.
Not only is a new ordinance a good idea, he said, it’s essential for a safe and healthy Blount County.
“We’ve put things in there the old ordinance didn’t have that are necessary, and are really necessary to ensure the public safety and also the humane treatment of animals,” Rafford said.
In addition to other changes, the section covering stray animals and animals at large, as well as the section on impounding procedures, have been revamped. Guidelines on how to tether an animal in an outside environment have also been added.
Lowery — who also reached out to County Commissioner and Animal Center Advisory Board Chairman Rick Carver for help with a new ordinance — said communication with everyone involved has been great. She’s happy with the restructured policies. Getting them approved, however, is another matter.
“I’ve been hard at this since April,” Lowery told The Daily Times earlier this month. “Until they pass these laws, the people who own the pets, that are taking care of their pets, are the ones who are losing everything.”
(The Daily Times - Aug 15, 2016)
