Dangerous dog ordinance raises concerns for Albany Commission

ALBANY — A Tuesday request from a woman seeking to retrieve a dog involved in an attack could lead the Albany City Commission to re-examine its dangerous dog ordinance.

Charlee James-Dailey appeared at Tuesday’s commission meeting to request a change to a city ordinance that would allow her to bring home a rottweiler involved in an attack of a person. Specifically, she asked that the current ordinance, which requires liability insurance coverage for a dangerous dog, be altered so that a surety bond in an equal amount can be substituted for insurance.

However, the meeting’s conversation shifted to details of the dog bite case and to other topics related to canines. The discussion came during a work session held online due to restrictions on live meetings because of the novel coronavirus.

In the attack in which James-Dailey’s dog was involved, the victim was severely injured, suffered permanent leg damage and lost a significant amount of time at work, Commissioner Chad Warbington said.

“I spoke with the victim,” he said. “I spoke with people in the neighborhood. My question is why we are not euthanizing this dog. It almost killed this man.

“I believe we should not reduce the requirements on a dangerous dog.”

Under current interpretation of the city’s ordinance, a $50,000 liability insurance policy is required for a person whose dog has been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous. The ordinance defines a dangerous dog as one that has severely injured a person or other animal without provocation or aggressively bites or attacks a person or another animal after being previously deemed potentially dangerous.

A potentially dangerous dog is defined as one that, without provocation, causes injury to or endangers people or other animals. It also includes dogs that have been permanently chained.

A review board determines whether an owner can retrieve a dog after an incident. The dangerous ordinance also includes other stipulations such as confinement requirements for dogs deemed dangerous.

James-Dailey said that insurance companies she spoke with do not issue liability insurance for dogs, and she is seeking to instead substitute a surety bond in an equal amount. However, Commissioner Bob Langstaff said that the current ordinance may not be sufficient and also may be out of date based on his research into a change made in state law since the ordinance passed.

One city he referenced has an amount of $1 million in coverage required for owners of dangerous dogs.

“Is $50,000 the right amount?” he said. “(It’s) not a lot for the amount of damage a dog can do. Fifty thousand seems low to keep a dangerous dog. My suggestion would be going up on the insurance amount rather than (looking) at the state minimum.”

Mayor Bo Dorough suggested that some dog breeds are inherently dangerous, including rottweilers, Doberman pinschers and pit bull-type breeds. He also said that, based on his observations, a number of dogs in the city would be in the potentially dangerous category.

“We can go all over town and there are going to be, say, pit bull-types chained to pipes,” the mayor said. “I don’t think those people have insurance.”

On the issue raised by James-Dailey, Dorough said he does not understand why a bond offering an equal amount of coverage would not be an option.

Many pet owners are responsible, and a dog’s breed doesn’t necessarily make it dangerous, Commissioner Demetrius Young said. Instead, aggressiveness often is tied to how it is trained and handled.

“I don’t think we should be stigmatizing certain dog breeds,” he said.

Commissioners requested that City Attorney Nathan Davis research the issue for further discussion.

Staff Photo: Alan Mauldin
File Photo