A pit bull attack in the Oxford Meadows subdivision coupled with the victim’s request to ban this breed of dog in the township prompted officials last week to decide to revisit an ordinance concerning dangerous animals, breed-specific bans and leash laws.
‘These animals are highly unpredictable and extremely dangerous,? said Martha McDonald, a resident of Fox Ct. in Oxford Meadows, while addressing the township board last week. ‘In order to protect Oxford Township residents, a ban needs to be enacted.?
‘I agree with you whole-heartedly,? said Treasurer Joe Ferrari. ‘I think there should be a ban. I think there should be a leash law.?
McDonald filed a sworn statement that on Aug. 15 while walking on the sidewalk in front of a home on Yale Drive, the 4-year-old pit bull mix named Sampson, which resides there, ‘charged? and bit her on the left arm. The dog is owned by township residents Kim Pool and Herman Ridgell, Jr.
‘The bite I sustained broke the skin, resulting in bleeding, a broken blood vessel and bruising,? said McDonald reading her Sept. 5 sworn statement that included photos of her injury. ‘As of today, I still have internal tissue damage at the bite location.?
Speaking on behalf of the dog’s owners, Sterling Heights attorney Charles Langton said, ‘They feel very bad that this whole thing happened.?
Langton noted that the pit bull Sampson ‘has never had a history of biting anybody, ever.?
‘This dog has never bitten anybody. It’s never been aggressive to anybody,? the attorney noted. ‘It was a family pet.?
McDonald told township officials of three other ‘altercations? this same pitbull had been involved in with neighbors over the past year.
One of those incidents took place in April and involved McDonald’s neighbor Dayna Obry and her then 9-month-old son.
Obry was working in her garden with her infant son in a stroller near her when the pit bull came up from behind and appeared to be ‘stalking? her.
‘She moved closer to her son and the dog charged,? according to the information given to township attorney Hans Rentrop. ‘The owner of the dog called the dog off before Ms. Obry sustained any injuries.?
‘The dog was obedient to the initial command but when the baby started crying, the dog again became aggressive and had to be pulled away by Ms. Pool,? stated Rentrop’s opinion letter to the township board.
McDonald also relayed an incident from earlier this summer in which a man living on Yale Dr. went to his mailbox and was approached by the pit bull.
She said the gentleman tried to ‘shoo? Sampson away, but the dog would not leave and instead put its mouth around the man’s forearm, resulting in bruising.
‘With each incident this pit bull dog gets more and more aggressive, finally resulting in an actual bite,? McDonald told township officials. ‘When will this stop??
She noted the pit bull in question is not restrained by a fence, dog run or enclosed area and frequently runs loose. On ‘numerous occasions,? she said the dog has been in both her front and back yards, preventing her from retrieving groceries from her vehicle, getting the mail and bringing in her trash cans from the street.
McDonald’s 8-year-old daughter is now afraid to play in her own backyard. ‘My family, myself and my neighbors live in fear of this animal,? she said.
McDonald and Obry told Rentrop ‘it was common to see the dog running at large in the neighborhood.?
McDonald is concerned not only for herself and her family, but for the safety of the ‘at least 26 children? who live ‘within very close proximity to this pit bull dog’s residence.?
‘There are many children, and adults as well, that need to be protected from this animal,? she said.
After hearing McDonald’s story, township officials voted 6-0 to direct their attorney to file a complaint on her behalf in the Rochester Hills 52-3 District Court under the local Dangerous Animals Assistance Ordinance. ‘I am all for following through with this case,? said Trustee Pat Fitchena.
Enacted in 2002, the local ordinance provides an avenue whereby residents attacked by a dangerous animal can file a sworn complaint with township officials, who may, but are not required to, direct their attorney to file a legal complaint in district court on the resident’s behalf.
The ordinance was designed to help ordinary residents unfamiliar with the legal system navigate their way through the process. If the township decides not to file a legal complaint, the individual complainant may still pursue remedies available under state law.
If a district judge determines an animal to be dangerous as defined by state law, one of the options is to destroy it, but that’s up to the judge’s discretion.
‘I want to make it very clear to everyone I take no pleasure in having to go through these steps to have a dog destroyed,? said McDonald, who described herself as an ‘avid animal lover? with eight pets.
Rentrop said the pit bull’s owners were served Friday with a court order requiring the animal’s immediate confinement. The owners complied with the order on Monday and the dog is currently being lodged at Rexpointe Kennels, Inc. in Troy.
The dog will remain there until a hearing set for Thursday, Sept. 28 at the 52-3 District Court.
Referring to the bite McDonald sustained, Langton said, ‘The issue is whether or not there is a serious injury.?
‘The statute defines serious injury as a permanent serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function of a person,? the attorney explained. ‘That’s the test to destroy the dog.?
Based on her sworn statement, Langton said the bite McDonald sustained, ‘It doesn’t seem to me to meet that standard.?
‘It’s a little bit ambiguous and we don’t know,? he said.
Langton said he’s currently in the ‘talking stages? of trying to work out a settlement with the township, whereby the pit bull leaves the township.
‘Is there some middle ground? That’s what we’re working toward right now,? he explained. ‘These people have a daughter that is willing to take the dog and we’ve already made the arrangements, assuming we can actually resolve this. The daughter lives out of the county. She lives in Detroit.?
Langton said moving the dog out of Oxford ‘seems to be a win-win for everybody.?
‘I think that would solve everybody’s concerns here, especially the neighbors,? he said. ‘My (clients) have lived there a long time. They don’t want to cause trouble. They certainly don’t want everybody up in arms. They want to do the right thing.?
‘I would hate to see a dog with really no previous history of any kind ? longtime pet, healthy dog ? be put to sleep,? Langton noted. ‘I just don’t think that’s right.?
Ban pit bulls in Oxford Township?
Beyond her own case, McDonald asked the board to enact a pit bull ban like the one initiated by a group of citizens in Waterford Township. The ban there has been in effect since June 1993.
McDonald noted she’s ‘literally surrounded by this breed of dog? as there are two other pit bulls next door to her house. The two dogs visit on a ‘very regular basis? from Clarkston and Lapeer County.
She said one of the visiting pit bulls has ‘charged? her daughter twice.
Ferrari indicated he favors a pit bull ban.
‘If your neighbors can’t control their pit bulls and they’re making you live in fear in your neighborhood, then it’s up to government to help protect you,? he said.
Although officials discussed the issue in 2002 and decided against it, Fitchena indicated the township board should look into breed-specific bans again to see if anything’s changed.
Although he’s not in favor of a breed-specific ban, Supervisor Bill Dunn said he’s willing to revisit the issue at the Wednesday, Oct. 11 meeting. He believes the township’s current dangerous animals ordinance ‘covers things adequately? without a ban.
Fitchena also said the board should look into the state leash law and enforcing it in the township.
‘We definitely need a leash law,? Fitchena said.
A Sept. 18 opinion letter from attorney Rentrop stated the ‘prinicipal difficulty? the township would have in adopting a pit bull ban like Waterford is it does not have an animal control officer to enforce such an ordinance.
Waterford does have an animal control officer to enforce its ban.
Referring to Oxford’s situation, Rentrop wrote, ‘The services of an animal control officer (are) not included within the scope of services for the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department and, to date, are not part of the services for the (township’s) Ordinance Enforcement Officer.?
Hence, the cost of enforcing a pit bull ban would be borne by the township. Although cost recovery from pit bull owners would be possible, it could not be counted on in all cases because the amount assessed would be up to a court’s discretion.
Rentrop stated it would be possible to ban new ? not previously licensed (i.e. existing) pit bulls ? without having an animal control officer.
This approach would rely on citizens, sheriff’s deputies and the ordinance enforcement officer to observe a pit bull, then check it against the township dog tag records to determine if the canine is ‘grandfathered.?
If not, someone with ‘sufficient training? would need to identify the dog as a pit bull to confirm the observation, then the township could proceed to prosecute under its ordinance banning them, according to Rentrop.