Mitchell resident Robert Hoffman is on a mission to reform the city’s vicious animal ordinance following the euthanization of his dog, Benny. Hoffman argues that the ordinance is not only unfair but also conflicts with state law, denying pet owners their due process rights.
Key Takeaways
- Robert Hoffman is challenging Mitchell's vicious animal ordinance after his dog was euthanized.
- The incident involved Benny biting a Yorkie, which Hoffman claims was trespassing on his property.
- Hoffman argues the ordinance lacks due process and conflicts with South Dakota's "one-bite rule."
- He is advocating for a more transparent legal process regarding animal control decisions.
Background Of The Incident
In August, Hoffman addressed the city council, raising concerns about the fairness and legality of the animal control policies. The incident that triggered his advocacy occurred last October when Benny bit a Yorkie that was allegedly trespassing on Hoffman's property. Hoffman asserts that the Yorkie's owner had repeatedly allowed the dog to defecate on his lawn, leading to Benny's defensive reaction.
Hoffman claims that the police department ordered Benny's euthanization without a thorough investigation. He believes that if the officers had recognized the Yorkie's owner was trespassing, the attack would have been justified.
The Vicious Animal Ordinance
Mitchell's current ordinance grants the animal control officer the authority to classify an animal as vicious and mandate its removal or euthanization. City Attorney Justin Johnson clarified that any officer designated by the chief of police can make these determinations.
Hoffman argues that the ordinance does not align with South Dakota's "one-bite rule," which states that a dog owner is only liable for injuries if they knew or should have known the dog posed a danger. He believes the ordinance imposes immediate consequences without considering this principle.
Due Process Concerns
A significant issue for Hoffman is the ordinance's lack of provisions for hearings before a pet is euthanized. He emphasizes that dogs are property and deserve due process. Hoffman stated, "I appealed it, but that's not the same thing as due process."
Criticism Of The Dunbar Scale
Hoffman also criticizes the city's use of the Dunbar Scale, which ranks aggressive animal behavior. He contends that the scale is intended for dog-human interactions, not dog-to-dog incidents. This classification played a role in Benny's designation as a level 5 on the scale, leading to the decision for euthanization.
Hoffman advocates for a more comprehensive legal process, arguing that decisions regarding animal euthanization should involve an unbiased third party, such as a judge, rather than solely relying on animal control officers.
City Attorney's Defense
City Attorney Johnson defended the ordinance, stating that it aims to apply equally to all cases and minimize subjectivity in decision-making. He acknowledged Hoffman's concerns but emphasized that the city is open to suggestions for improving the ordinance.
Continuing The Fight
Despite the loss of Benny, Hoffman remains committed to advocating for changes in the ordinance. He hopes that his efforts will lead to a reevaluation of how the city handles vicious animal cases, ensuring that pet owners receive fair treatment and due process.
"If I can do anything to keep a family from going through this, that's what my whole thing is," Hoffman expressed, highlighting his determination to prevent similar situations in the future.
