Gone to the dogs

People are always walking up and down Ann Haden’s West Homewood street. In the last month, however, she noticed that several of them have been carrying golf clubs and baseball bats.

It didn’t make sense until Haden heard that her friend, Homewood animal control officer Robbie Bagby Hurst, had responded to several recent dog attacks, one of them nearby. She realized her neighbors who walked by were scared of loose dogs.

“That really kind of horrified me,” said Haden, who had never previously felt unsafe in her neighborhood. “You don’t normally see people walking through West Homewood with weapons. You just don’t see it.”

The city of Homewood has begun considering ways to strengthen its current ordinances in response to eight attacks that have happened since October 2014. These incidents included five attacks on humans and three on pets. In one case on July 6, a pair of loose pit bulls attacked multiple people, including the responding police officer, and one of the dogs was shot and later euthanized.

The public safety committee, which has been considering new ordinances, and many residents agree that change needs to be made to protect the public and punish irresponsible dog owners. 

No one can agree, however, on the best route to achieve that.

Pit bull problems

Early committee discussion in July included the possibility of specific regulations around certain breeds such as pit bulls. Some area cities, including Gadsden and Irondale, have limitations on the way pit bulls can be kept and require registration to keep track of the animals in the city. In four of the recent dog attacks in Homewood, responding officers described the dogs as pit bulls or pit bull mixes.

Residents responded negatively to the idea of breed-specific legislation (BSL), creating a Facebook page and filling the council room during the Aug. 3 committee meeting. They argued that pit bulls are not more dangerous than other breeds and regulating them will not solve the vicious dog problem.

Joshua Gough, the resident who started the Fight BSL in Homewood Facebook page, said he opposes these ordinances because they lump well-behaved dogs in with bad ones if they happen to be a certain breed. Gough has worked in dog training and with an area mastiff rescue.

“Breed-specific legislation is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it does not address the real cause of the issue — irresponsible ownership,” Gough said.

Gough was joined by hundreds of residents and business owners in opposing the idea, including Whole Dog Market owner William Finney and Homewood Animal Hospital veterinarian Michael Kilgore. They all supported considering breed-neutral ordinance changes.

“I think there’s a lot of communities that have made a mistake by banning pit bulls,” Kilgore said. “It’s a sweeping generalization that doesn’t need to be made.”

At the Aug. 3 meeting, the public safety committee and listening council members agreed that they did not want to pursue BSL and would look at other alternatives.

“I think that’s the proper way to go. Let’s strengthen [the ordinance] and let’s see if that is a sufficient deterrent to address the increased occurrences that are taking place with dog bites and go from there,” Ward 5 Representative Peter Wright said. “I don’t think we have to do a knee-jerk, breed-specific ordinance.”

Looking at the options

Enforcing current ordinances is a challenge. Homewood ordinances allow Hurst to give a $50 fine for loose animals, which she said is not a deterrent for many owners. A dog attack is a misdemeanor with a $500 fine, and the judge can choose to remove the dog from the city or have it euthanized. Being the sole animal control officer, Hurst said she doesn’t have the time or ability to be everywhere she needs to be.

There’s no shortage of possibilities for changing Homewood’s dog ordinances. Hurst and the committee members have looked at a number of other cities’ ordinances and other measures. These have included stricter leash and tethering laws, spay/neuter requirements, microchipping, registering pets and increasing penalties for loose or dangerous dogs.

Each of these options comes with challenges. Microchipping and pet registration requirements have been generally unpopular, as many residents see it as a government intrusion. Many of the dog owners who opposed BSL do encourage spay/neuter programs as responsible ownership, but don’t want to see the city penalize owners who do not do so.

“[Microchipping] doesn’t seem to link to the behavior of the dog,” Ward 4 Representative Alex Wyatt said. “But it may nevertheless serve a purpose in terms of identifying a dog that’s misbehaving.”

Increasing penalties has received support across the board, including the idea of possible jail time for repeat offenders. Gough and several council members have supported a tiered penalty system as a possible deterrent for vicious dogs, but city attorney Mike Kendrick warned that giving a dog multiple chances could endanger the public.

“Dogs don’t need to have more than one bite,” Kendrick said.

Gough, Haden and Kilgore all pointed to Huntsville as a possible model for new legislation. Huntsville’s penalties are no higher than Homewood’s, capping at $100 for a third offense of keeping a dangerous or nuisance animal and $500 for a third offense of letting a known dangerous animal loose. However, Huntsville has detailed definitions of what constitutes dangerous or nuisance animals.

“If they don’t feel safe in our neighborhood, then we need to do something to change their feelings,” Haden said. “We need to change the ordinances so they have the bite they need.”

James McLeod, who was bitten by a loose Labrador retriever in October, said he felt the police handled his case well. He doesn’t support more leash laws, as his dogs enjoy playing off-leash in the park, but he does think the city should be stricter in euthanizing or removing dogs with a known aggressive history.

“The dog came for my throat,” McLeod said. “There’s no question about that. I wouldn’t want that dog around my nieces and nephews, my wife. That would be the end of that.”

John Lee said he is still “traumatized” after a neighbor’s dog attacked and severely injured his pet Chihuahua in May. His dog survived, but Lee feels he should have been warned about the neighbor’s dog so he could have protected his pet. 

Additionally, he said animal control is not doing enough to enforce the laws currently on the books. Lee recommended that animal control immediately pick up an animal that has attacked another person or pet. If a vet or witness can corroborate the severity of the attack, he said euthanasia should be an option on the table.

“You might as well not have [an animal control officer],” Lee said of the current situation.

Taking action

With so many opinions and options to consider, the council is deliberately taking its time with the process.

So far, only one concrete ordinance change has been proposed. The public safety committee approved an amendment limiting outdoor dog tethering to a maximum of one hour. Tethering has been connected with aggressive and anti-social behaviors in dogs. The time limit would allow owners to let their pets outside for brief periods, while still allowing the police to respond to all-day tethering or inhumane conditions.

The amendment was sent to the full council for approval on Aug. 24. Ward 2 Representative Fred Hawkins said discussion of further changes would likely be sent back to the public safety committee.

Piece by piece, both council members and residents hope to create regulations to protect both pets and humans.

“We need to do something so that neighbors feel safe,” Haden said.