After some residents of Grayson County have refused to control their aggressive, sometimes vicious dogs, Grayson County Fiscal Court approved the first readings of two ordinances deeming it illegal to not take control of dogs that enter other people’s property or the roadway, or attacks other, domesticated animals and livestock.
“We have a problem in the county,” County Attorney Jeremy Logsdon previously said. “My goal here, working with (Judge-Executive) Kevin (Henderson) and other people, was to try and find a specific answer through an ordinance. What I’m talking about is a problem, that since I’ve been in office for almost two years, which I don’t think this is a new problem, is aggressive dogs on peoples’ property and out in the roadway.”
Logsdon, Henderson and several magistrates said they have received numerous complaints from residents about aggressive dogs, but with no ordinance to support legal action, Logsdon has no ready remedy.
“Listening to these calls and receiving these letters and meeting with people, there’s lots of complaints about dogs all over the county, whether these are loose on (someone’s) property, things like that,” Logsdon said. “The issue has to do with some of the more recent examples … where we’ve met with people and discussed … for example, Mike Adams … you can add him to a list of 20 others. Mike Adams has a neighbor, he lives out in the county, the dogs come out, they run over to his property and get in his yard. They start barking at him, snapping, you know, he’s afraid. He doesn’t want to kill the animals, he wants the neighbor to just keep the animals (put) up. In that situation, we don’t have much recourse. The usual answer is to send a letter saying, ‘These animals of yours, if you don’t keep them (put) up, you could be civilly liable, you could be sued if they bite someone, or (if) they destroy some property.’”
The letters previously sent by the County Attorney’s Office to offenders, though, have not elicited the type of response one would reasonably expect from a responsible adult, Logsdon noted.
“These letters,” Logsdon said, “they fall on deaf ears because generally the people that receive these letters, they say, ‘Well, sue me.’ Or they say, ‘Well, they aren’t going to sue me, someone is not going to go to that effort.’ That is your pretty basic situation.”
In response, Logsdon has fashioned two ordinances detailing what constitutes a “harassing” and/or “injurious” dog, what role the county and law enforcement have in enforcing the ordinances, along with financial penalties if a dog owner is convicted of violating an ordinance.
The heart of the first ordinance, entitled “An Ordinance Relating to Aggressive Dogs,” reads as follows:
Section 2 – Harassing Dogs
No owner of a dog shall fail to exercise proper care and control of his or her dog in such a manner which thereby allows the dog to enter onto a prohibited property and harass any person. It is a violation of this Ordinance for an owner of a dog to fail to exercise proper care and control of his or her dog thus allowing said dog to enter onto a prohibited property and harass any person.
Section 3 – Animal Control Officer
- Discretion of Animal Control Officer
The animal control officer shall investigate any complaint of a violation of this Ordinance and shall assist the County Attorney in the prosecution of such a charge[s] if issued. The animal control officer, upon completion of his investigation, may in his discretion issue a verbal or written warning to the violator, seek a criminal complaint, or take no action.
- Procurement Protocol for Prohibited Property
The animal control officer may procure and hold any aggressive dog if that dog is found to be on a prohibited property except when the dog is on the right of way of the owner’s property.
- Procurement Protocol – Search Warrant Required
In the event, upon consultation with the County Attorney, if it is deemed necessary for the animal control officer to procure and hold an aggressive dog that has reentered its owner’s outdoor private property, a search warrant based upon probable cause must be sought with assistance of the Sheriff or his deputies from the sitting District Judge.
- Procurement Protocol – Harboring a Vicious Animal Complaint
In the event the aggressive dog is being kept inside the owner’s residence, the animal control officer shall consult with the County Attorney concerning filing a civil complaint under KRS 258.235 for harboring a vicious dog to be heard by a judge of the District Court.
Section 4 – Penalties
Any person in violation of Section 2 of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined no less than $100 nor more than $250 for each violation. The cost of care of any dog held pursuant to this ordinance, and any medical bills generated due to injuries to a person injured by a harassing dog, shall be the sole responsibility of the offender upon conviction of an offense under this Ordinance, and repayment will be established by any plea agreement or by the Court after holding a hearing.
The heart of the second ordinance, entitled “An Ordinance Relating to Dogs Injuring Livestock and Other Domestic Animals,” reads as follows:
Section 2 – Injurious Dogs
No owner of a dog shall fail to exercise proper care and control of his or her dog in such a manner which hereby allows the dog to enter onto another’s private property and attack and physically injure that owner’s or his or her guest’s livestock, domestic dog or domestic cat. It is a violation of this Ordinance for an owner of a dog to fail to exercise proper care and control of his or her dog thus allowing said dog to enter onto another’s private property, attack and physically injure that owner’s or his or her guest’s domestic dog, domestic cat or livestock.
Section 3 – Animal Control Officer
The animal control officer shall investigate any complaint of a violation of this Ordinance and shall assist the County Attorney in prosecution of such a charge if issued. The animal control officer shall not attempt to procure and hold any dog under this Ordinance, but shall consult with the County Attorney concerning the filing of a civil complaint under KRS 258.235 for harboring a vicious dog to be heard by a judge of the District Court.
Section 4 – Penalties
Any person in violation of Section 2 or Section 3 of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined no less than $100 nor more than $250 for each violation. The cost of care of any animal held pursuant to a related action for harboring a vicious animal shall be the sole responsibility of the offender upon conviction of this Ordinance. The cost of care of the injured livestock, dog or cat shall also be the sole responsibility of the offender upon conviction of this Ordinance. However, any replacement damages concerning the death of livestock, dog or cat cannot be recouped under this Ordinance and must be sought from the owner by private civil suit under KRS 285.235.
(KRS 285.235, which is cited multiple times in the above ordinances, can be read by clicking here.)
Grayson County Fiscal Court will hold the second reading of the proposed ordinances at the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 4.
By Ken Howlett, News Director
Contact Ken at ken@k105.com
