2014-06-16Blair Police Committee
Dangerous Dog Hearing
June 16, 2014
Present: Police Committee — Kevin Hall, Marty Shepard and Hal Kephart
Staff — Chief Lager, Assistant City Administrator Green and City Attorney
Tripp
Absent: None.
Motion by Hall, second by Shepard to approve the minutes from the August 29, 2013 hearing.
All members present voted Aye. Chairman Kephart declared the motion carried.
Chairman Kephart called the hearing to order at 5:00 p.m. of the Blair Police Committee to
consider an appeal process as requested by Melanie Musick, 938 N. 26th Ave, Blair, to appeal the
"Dangerous Dog Declaration" for "Huck/Bloodhound Mix" issued May 29, 2014.
Assistant City Administrator reported for Staff presenting a finding of facts from the Blair Police
Department reports and the process taken by Staff to notify Melanie Musick of the requirements
enforced by the Dangerous Dog Ordinance. A letter was sent to her with all the required
information on May 29, 2014 outlining the steps she would need to take to comply with the
Dangerous Dog Ordinance. After reviewing the information sent to her, Ms. Musick decided to
appeal the "Dangerous Dog Declaration" by requesting this hearing. The Committee needs to
consider the findings of fact as outlined in the letter from Chief Lager supported by the police
facts regarding Huck attacking another dog. The code regarding dangerous dogs requires that if
an animal dies due to an attack by another animal, the declaration goes straight to a dangerous
dog declaration as opposed to a potentially dangerous dog declaration. He noted Ms. Musick
would like to present facts and offer evidence to dispute her dog being declared dangerous.
Melanie Musick appeared before the Committee bringing Huck for the Committee to observe
along with numerous pictures showing Huck playing with other dogs and children. She also has
an English Setter at home and Huck has never been aggressive with him or any other dog. Ms.
Musick stated she was walking both dogs on the city's trail in Deerfield when she observed the
small dog approaching with their owner. Both dogs were very excited so she stepped off the
trail. Huck is approximately 135 lbs and when he got excited she lost control of him and he was
soon on top of the small dog. She tried to separate him from the small dog. The small dog
appeared fine after the attack but had internal damage and died later that evening. Ms. Musick
stated Huck has never shown aggression before and she has never had this type of experience
with Huck and/or another dog. She did not feel Huck attacked the dog but did not know what it
was. She requested the Committee to reconsider the Dangerous Dog Declaration because she did
not think he should be punished for life. Council member Kephart stated it is hard for him to
believe that Huck should not be declared dangerous when he killed another dog. The
responsibility ultimately lies on the owner and the owner should have control at all times.
Kephart asked City Attorney Tripp what options the Committee had in this case. Attorney Tripp
stated they could leave the dangerous dog declaration or they could amend it to a potentially
dangerous dog declaration. The main difference between the two declarations is the confinement
clause and requirement for posting a dangerous dog sign on the property. Council member
Kephart stated the dangerous dog ordinance is also for the protection of the owner as well as the
public. Ms. Musick stated she would never walk both dogs again at the same time. She also
noted that Huck has attended training classes in the past. Council member Hall stated Huck
should have some type of declaration but not dangerous dog. Assistant City Administrator
Green stated that if you issued a reckless owner declaration, Ms. Musick could request an appeal
after (48) months. Motion by Hall, second by Shepard to amend the "Dangerous Dog
Declaration" to "Potentially Dangerous Dog Declaration" and Ms. Musick is required to comply
with all requirements of that declaration. All members present voting Aye. Chairman Kephart
declared the motion carried. The Committee charged Ms. Musick to be a responsible dog owner
and take the necessary measures to insure that Huck is not a nuisance or a threat to any citizen or
pet within the community. If Huck should receive a second "Dangerous Dog Declaration" or
"Potentially Dangerous Dog Declaration", it would be extremely difficult to obtain a second
hearing to amend an declaration.
Motion by Kephart, second by Hall to adjourn the meeting at 5:23 p.m. All Committee members
present voted Aye. Chairman Kephart declared the hearing adjourned.
Brenda Wheeler, City Clerk