Vicious dog ordinance
'It's just a bad law': Six owners take their fight to court
SIOUX CITY -- Dennis Cloud didn't have any idea the puppy he got from a neighbor would grow up to be such an expensive dog.
In all fairness to Lucky, now 4, things didn't really start getting costly until July 14.
That's when the pit bull-German shepherd mix jumped over the fence and went on a jaunt that ended with accusations he'd bitten a postal worker in the butt and chased after neighborhood kids.
Lucky was declared vicious, taken to Animal Control and -- despite multiple hearings -- is still there, waiting to be euthanized. His owners have to pay for his $10 daily board, which adds up. That's not even counting how much money the Clouds have spent on attorneys.
"I think of him as a family member," Cloud said. "He can't defend himself, so I've got to do what's right."
Lucky and his owners are not alone.
The Clouds, along with at least five other dog owners, have recently filed civil suits in Woodbury County District Court against the City of Sioux City to overturn the vicious designations and spare their animals from being euthanized.
In March 2008, councilman unanimously approved an ordinance that essentially says dogs should be euthanized if they bite someone and are declared vicious. Dog owners are responsible for paying for the euthanasia and, unlike in the past, they do not have the option of moving their dogs to a home outside Sioux City.
The lawsuits claim city officials who upheld the dogs' vicious designations during hearings and earlier appeals acted arbitrarily, wrongfully believing they didn't have any discretion when making those decisions.
"I think the city does have to be concerned about it because animal control's having to provide shelter for these dogs and it's just something that's going to continue on until there's some kind of resolution to it," said Martha McMinn, attorney for owners of three dogs. "Everyone agrees you shouldn't have vicious dogs out there biting people but this is so arbitrary."
Deidre Fletcher, of Sioux City, filed a lawsuit because city officials, in her opinion, didn't consider all the facts in the case of Sunny, her Shar Pei. The 9-month-old dog was accused of biting a 3-year-old girl, who Fletcher says has changed her story multiple times.
"They make a decision within the same day and I think they need to look at both sides and look at it carefully," she said. "I don't think they even gave me a chance."
City officials standby the law, blaming the lawsuits on inspiration taken from the highly publicized dog-bite saga of Jake, Councilman Aaron Rochester's yellow Labrador retriever.
Several city officials, including Mayor Mike Hobart, say they don't want to address the issue until it has been processed through the court system.
Attorneys for both sides say they have no idea how long it will take for the case to see a judge, but say civil claims often can take six months to two years to move through the system. As of Friday, no court dates had been scheduled.
Pet owners say that leaves them hanging, waiting for a decision without knowing how long it will take, and animal control officials wonder how many kennels will be taken up by Sioux City's version of a canine death row.
Blame Jake?
Filing a lawsuit to save a family pet from the gallows is a new phenomenon in Sioux City.
In two years on the job, Sioux City Attorney Andrew Mai said these are the first lawsuits involving condemned dogs he can remember. He believes the suits were spurred by media coverage of Councilman Aaron Rochester's fight to save his yellow Labrador, Jake.
"My guess is the publicity brought it about," Mai said.
Rochester, who introduced the citywide pit bull ban, made headlines when his 3-year-old dog, Jake, bit a neighbor walking by his house on June 27. City officials deemed Jake vicious according to the new city ordinance. Rochester appealed, but the vicious determination was upheld.
The councilman said he wouldn't take the case to district court, but the story took another twist when Sioux City businessman Lew Weinberg bought Jake for $1 so he could file a lawsuit to save Jake. However, thieves broke into animal control on Aug. 2 and stole Jake from his kennel, presumably to spare him from being killed, before Weinberg could file an appeal in Woodbury County District Court.
The Sioux City Police Department is investigating the case, but Jake has never been found.
Cloud conceded Jake's plight was an inspiration, but said he thinks the problem begins and ends with the city ordinance.
"It's just a bad law and people are waking up to a lot of that," Cloud said.
The councilman's dog and city policy aside, it's clear the sudden appearance of the lawsuits isn't the result of an increased number of dog bites in Woodbury County.
Siouxland District Health recorded 102 dog bites in 2008, which is the lowest number reported to the county's health department in nine years.
The number of bites has declined steadily since 2000, when 150 were reported, with only two exceptions: the numbers spiked slightly in 2001, with 173 reported, and in 2005, with 118 reported.
As of Oct. 2, 84 dog bites have been reported in Woodbury County this year.
Lockup: Sioux City
Dogs affected by changes in city ordinance, including the ban on pit bulls that went into effect in September, occupy approximately a third of the 52 kennels at Sioux City Animal Control.
Currently, Sioux City Animal Control is holding nine dogs that have been declared vicious, including Lucky and Sunny. They also have another eight to 10 illegal pit bulls that were not registered by the final deadline earlier this year.
Only six owners whose dogs have been deemed vicious are involved in lawsuits, but other owners are in the second stage of appealing the city's ordinance.
A civil lawsuit is the next step for people who have failed to reverse the decision through the appeal system included in the vicious dog ordinance.
The pit bulls being held at animal control are not among the 559 registered and implanted with a microchip, required by another law passed last year by the Sioux City Council, so they cannot be owned by or adopted to Sioux City residents.
"We're running out of room," said Cindy Rarrat, owner of Sioux City Animal Control. Being cooped up that long is hard on the dogs, Rarrat said.
Almost three months penned up at Sioux City Animal control has certainly changed Sunny, his owner says.
"(It's difficult) to go down there and see how rough a time he's having there....it's like he knows me but, you know, but he's lost all his training," Fletcher said. "He doesn't listen to commands.
The entire ordeal has been difficult on the dog, her family and herself. Fletcher fought tears as she wondering if subjecting her dog for months in captivity in an attempt to save his life is the right thing to do.
"They say he's stir crazy, so it's hard because he's not here with us," she said. "And if it has to take a year I don't know if I could do it. It's not fair to him being down there if it has to be that long."
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/article_58826d31-423b-5620-a4ad-a0a85e85dfed.html
