Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Two West Point residents spoke to the city council about their reports of “vicious dogs” in their neighborhood during the Monday work session meeting. According to Malinda Powers and her son Charlie, they have had to call animal control several times in the past about their neighbor’s dogs.

Powers and her son live on West 13th Street. They said that their neighbor has had several dogs that have gotten out of their yard and roaming dogs have also been an issue.

“I love West Point but in the past year, we’ve had a continuing situation to arise with vicious breeds of dogs, to the point where we’re afraid to even walk on parts of our own property,” Powers said. 

In a statement to the VT-N later, West Point Police Chief Kevin Carter said that the situation has already been addressed. He considered both incidents mentioned by Powers and her son as “isolated incidents.” 

Charlie said that he witnessed a dog attack by one of the neighbor’s dogs which he called “extremely aggressive.” He said he sent a video to the city officials. Carter said the dog did not attack the woman but barked at her and chased her to a part of the property where she was cornered. 

That day, Carter said, the owner was asked to provide documentation for the dog in accordance with a city ordinance on what are deemed “potentially vicious or vicious animals.” Carter said most people don’t know about the ordinance. The owner was given the appropriate time to comply with it, which she did.

According to Article 4, Sec. 4-80, of the city ordinances, “no potentially vicious or vicious animal shall be kept, harbored or maintained in the city unless such animal has been registered by the owner with the city clerk.” Owners are also responsible for providing proof of liability insurance or adequate surety bond for the animal. 

A “potentially vicious animal,” according to the ordinance, is defined as any dog that has been reported to have behaved in a threatening manner without provocation or in a public space toward a human. This can mean snapping, growling, snarling, jumping on or otherwise threatening.

Another definition listed in the ordinance is any animal, regardless of their behavior, that has the appearance and characteristics of or a mix of any of the following breeds: Pit bull dog, Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, or a Presa Canario; Rottweiler; Chow Chow; Doberman Pinscher; German Shepherd; or Wolf-hybrid.

On the other hand, a “vicious animal” is defined in the article as any animal that attacks a human or other domestic animal without provocation with the following caveats: if the person attacked was trespassing on the owner’s territory, was attempting to commit a crime or was teasing, tormenting or abusing the animal that attacked. 

Dogs being harbored for dog fighting or trained in dog fighting are also automatically classified as “vicious.” 

For a potentially vicious animal, the owner is required to take out a $100,000 liability insurance policy as opposed to a vicious animal’s $1 million policy. 

Though the dog in question is considered a potentially vicious animal, Carter said he is not considered a nuisance because there was only one offense. If the dog is reported a certain number of times, then Carter would have to deem him a nuisance and get a judge to sign off on taking the dog away. 

Charlie also mentioned a “pack of vicious dogs” roaming at large in West Point. 

“Another neighbor Dr. Zack Everhart, a professor at Point [University], has experienced similar problems with these dogs. His wife barely escaped imminent attack by a large group of dogs yesterday,” Powers said.

According to Carter, the dogs were not vicious. They got out of their enclosure by accident and were returned to their owner without incident.

The owner was held responsible for the dogs being “at large,” which is also outlined in the ordinance. 

Carter said the instances that Powers and her son mentioned were isolated events that were handled promptly. At this point, he said there is no other action to be taken on the side of the law. 

“We can only handle the situations we know about,” he said.