Caledonia Argus

Council wrestles with definition of ëdangerous dogí

Posted: 3/2/04

by Jane Palen
Managing Editor

The city council attempted to differentiate between a ìdangerous dogî and a ìpotentially dangerous dogî at its February 23 meeting.

The question was raised following complaints about a 100-lb. Pit Bull-Rottweiller cross owned by Brandon Ranzenberger, 607 So. Winnebago Street. Ranzenberger was issued a citation for a public nuisance after his dog apparently chased a woman into the back of a pick up truck. The woman reported to the police that the dog was displaying aggressive behavior and baring its teeth.

The council also reviewed other complaints in which passersby were intimidated by the dog. There were three calls on the dog in 2003 and two have been received so far this year.

According to the city ordinance, the animal control officer can order the destruction of a dangerous animal, and it is the council that decides whether an animal falls into that category.

Ranzenberger told the council that the dog, Lexi, has never injured anyone and has been raised around children. He described Lexi as a ìteddy bearî dog, and admitted that the dog is supposed to be in the house but has gotten loose on occasion. In regard to an incident in which Lexi injured another dog, Ranzenberger said that Lexi ìbowled overî the other dog, which was much smaller, but did not attack it.

Police Chief Duane St. Mary told the council that ìPeople have a right to walk on the street.î He added that the position of the police department is that Lexi is a dangerous dog.

ìI donít like to see dogs destroyed but this is a dangerous dog,î he said.

Councilman John Klug brought up the question of when a dogís behavior ìcrosses the line.î

ìIs it worth taking a chance?î he said.

Ranzeberger commented that ìEveryone thinks itís a mean dog because of the breed.î In regard to reports from the neighbors that it was running loose, he asked, ìHow do they know it was my dog?î.

ìThere should be some hard evidence,î he told the council.

The council reviewed the ordinance regarding dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. According to the ordinance, a dangerous dog is one that has caused bodily injury or disfigurement; engaged in an attack on any personí exhibited unusually aggressive behavior, such as an attack on another animal; and has been found to be potentially dangerous. A potentially dangerous animal is one that has bitten a human or domestic animal; has chased a person unprovoked on a city street or sidewalk; or has engaged in unprovoked attacks causing injury or threatening safety of other animals or humans.

A potentially dangerous animal, if allowed outdoors, must be kept in an enclosed area with sides at least five feet high with a cover over the top. Openings can be no larger than two inches. The kennel must be locked at all times when the animal is inside.

Mayor Burns made a motion to declare the dog a ìpotentially dangerous animal.î The motion passed 3-1, with Councilman Klug dissenting. In favor of the motion were Mayor Burns, Paul Fisch and Randi Vick. Councilman Mark Schiltz was not in attendance.

Mayor Burns told Ranzenberger that he would have to obtain liability insurance in the amount of $300,000 if he intended to keep the dog, in addition to building a suitable kennel. The dog must be muzzled when outside and if being walked, must be on a six-foot chain.

Burns warned Ranzenberger that the dog must not be allowed to run loose.

ìIf you canít control it, it will have to be picked up and destroyed,í he said.

Top of Page