By Casey Jarmes | The News-Review
SIGOURNEY –On Sept. 10, a dog owned by Sigourney couple Larry and Shannon Stevens attacked and killed a dog owned by their neighbors, Steve and Staci Shettler. After a lengthy discussion during the Sept. 16 meeting of the Sigourney City Council, the council voted 4-2 to deem the dog dangerous and order the Stevenses to get rid of it.
Steve Shettler was the first person to talk to the council about the dog incident. He read off a letter he had sent into the city, recounting the incident. Steve explained that, at approximately 3:50 p.m., he was walking his two small older dogs on the west side of his property. The Shettler house is located on Spring Street, near the park. The Stevens family lives just to the west of them. Steve claimed that the Stevens’ dog, six-year-old labradoodle Burnt Chicken Nugget, came “charging” around the house and attacked the Shettler’s 13-year-old dog Stella. Steve claimed that Nugget bit Stella on the right side of her head, lifted her off the ground, and shook her. This left two visible puncture wounds. Shettler stated that Stella deteriorated over the next several hours and died as they were pulling into the Keota Veterinary Clinic. He stated that an autopsy determined that Stella had died from internal bleeding after being jostled around.
Steve claimed that this wasn’t the first time Nugget charged his dogs and that the dog had repeatedly went onto his property in the past. He stated that Nugget had attacked his other dog, in a similar fashion, previously, but that that attack hadn’t left lasting marks. He noted that the Stevenses do have a buried shock collar electric fence and stated that he didn’t know if the fence had been turned off or if the shock collar was broken. Steve stated that his wife was more forgiving and willing to let Nugget stay, if a fence or kennel was put up, but stated that he did not feel his dogs were safe with Nugget in the neighborhood. He noted that they lived on a busy street that leads to the park, pool and ballfields. Steve criticized Shannon for a now-deleted Facebook post, where she called Nugget “the sweetest dog,” saying it felt like a slap in the face. He stated that he had enjoyed the Stevenses as neighbors and stated he hoped this could continue, but that he wanted their dog removed.
“Having Stella for 14 years, she’s a family member to us. If you’re a dog person, you probably understand that more than if you’re not,” Steve stated.
Staci Shettler also read off a letter she had written, which was sent to the city after her husband’s letter, asking to rescind the request to remove the dog, if the Stevenses build a fence or kennel to keep Nugget contained. She stated that this was a heartbreaking situation and that the Stevenses were good neighbors, but that she was concerned for the safety of animals or, God forbid, a child. She stated that a scared dog was a reactive dog and that Nugget had barked as long as he lived there.
“It’s heartbreaking, because I can’t imagine if it was my dog being asked to be removed,” Staci said, beginning to cry halfway through the sentence.
The Stevenses spoke next, showing the council a PowerPoint labeled “Stevens v. City of Sigourney,” which contained photos of their dog. Larry Stevens stated that he was deeply sorry about what had happened and apologized for the Facebook post. Shannon Stevens stated that part of the contention was due to confusion about where the property line sits. The slideshow claimed that Steve Shettler frequently mows into the Stevens’ yard and frequently walks his dogs over the line.
Larry Stevens stated that he was working in front of the house when the incident occurred and doesn’t know exactly where it happened. He stated that Steve is the only one who was there and knows if the event happened over the property line. He stated that it’s possible that Nugget had crossed the line in the past when the battery in his collar was dead or removed, but that the Shettlers had never brought this to their attention. Larry stated that, as good neighbors, he thought they would have been told if their dog was in the Shettler’s yard. He stated that Nugget typically doesn’t cross the fence and that he’d never seen him go into the park.
Larry stated that, in regards to neighbors living in fear, other neighborhood children frequently come over and play with Nugget. He showed a video of the dog being petted by two neighbor girls, the day after the incident, with the dog acting gentle. The slideshow claimed that Nugget is typically not aggressive, is skittish around other dogs, and is scared of people he isn’t used to. It stated that Nugget will cower when yelled at and will NOT (capitalized by the PowerPoint) attack people. Shannon Stevens stated that Nugget does bark at neighbor dogs, which isn’t ideal, but is something most dogs do. She stated that anyone in town will say that they haven’t seen the dog act aggressive. She stated she believed this was a territory thing, that she didn’t know why this happened, and that this wasn’t in Nugget’s nature. Steve Shettler interjected, stating that anyone else could bring their dog up to the property line and see what happened.
The slideshow noted that the Shettler’s dog was old and sick and claimed that Larry hadn’t seen any injuries on her. It stated that the Shettlers were the only people who have issues with the dog. These points were not read out loud by the Stevenses.
Larry stated that, to his knowledge, Nugget had never been loose around town and that, if he does cross the line, he always comes back quickly. He stated he was willing to put up a fence. Stevens stated that he and his wife would be moving, to another neighborhood in Sigourney if the council let them keep their dog, and to another town if the council ordered them to get rid of him.
“That’s how much we love our dog, and we aren’t giving it up that easily,” Larry said.
“If we truly thought he was a menace or harm, we would do the right thing, but we honestly do not, at all,” Shannon added.
The Stevenses stated that they did want to remain active members in the community. Councilman Ed Conrad asked if they disagreed with the claim that their dog bit the Shettler’s dog. Shannon stated that she didn’t see it happen and didn’t know. Councilman Adam Clark stated that they weren’t calling Steve a liar and that it wasn’t in question that their dog killed the Shettlers’ dog. Conrad stated they should stick with saying that Nugget bit Stella and not worry about the potential connection to the dog’s death. Clark pointed out the autopsy results.
Clark stated that the public safety committee had discussed the incident the previous night and that, based on the city’s ordinances, Nugget clearly classified as an animal nuisance. He said the question was if the dog classifies as a dangerous animal. City ordinances define an animal as a nuisance if it “causes a disturbance by excessive barking or other noise making or chases vehicles, or molests, attacks or interferes with persons or other domestic animals.” The penalty for having a nuisance animal is a $50 fee for the first offense, $75 for the second offense, and $100 for each subsequent offense. To contrast, an animal is defined as dangerous if it is “declared to be dangerous by the City Council.” Animals declared to be dangerous are prohibited from being kept within city limits.
Clark stated that the ordinances say nothing about the location where an incident occurs. He stated that this was a tough situation. Conrad stated that it was between neighbors, who might move out of town depending on the council’s decision. Clark stated that, in his mind, that decision isn’t on the council, and that they shouldn’t make their decision about the dog based on the potential of the Stevenses moving. Conrad stated he agreed, but that their decision would be perceived as either siding with the Shettlers or the Stevenses. Conrad stated he wouldn’t argue the dog was tame or gentle, and that he was concerned what control the Stevenses had when the collar batteries were worn down, or when they were in the front yard while the dog was in the back, or if the collar didn’t go off.
Councilwoman Stephanie Lentz asked if they should discuss requiring a fence. Clark stated that requiring fences wasn’t in the ordinances and that they couldn’t make a decision contingent on a fence being put up. Conrad stated that, if the dog is found to be dangerous, the Stevenses could argue against this decision in court and would be given time to move the dog out of town.
Clark noted that they had changed the city’s vicious animal ordinances last year, due to multiple incidents where dogs attacked people, to make the ordinances clearly say what consequences would occur in different situations. However, these ordinances did not mention attacks on domestic animals. Clark stated that they could change the ordinances in the future to include clear consequences for attacks on domestic animals. Councilman Gary Iosbaker agreed they could, but noted that, the way it was written, the vicious animal ordinace only applied to bites on people.
Councilman Randy Schultz stated that the Shettlers couldn’t rescind a written request after it had been sent to the city. Clark asked if the city would be liable if another incident happened, given that they knew about the problem. Iosbaker stated he wasn’t a lawyer, but believed the city would be liable. Councilwoman Connie McLaughlin stated she’d hate for her grandchildren’s dog to be attacked while she was walking it, and that this would be traumatic for her grandchildren.
Iosbaker stated that this was a really difficult situation that he didn’t like, but that they were obligated to enforce the ordinances as written. Schultz stated that he didn’t favor rewriting the ordinances last year, because of situations outside of the ordinance’s outline like this. Schultz stated that there was nothing more awkward than this decision, and that it was going to make someone unhappy, but that it boiled down to safety. He stated that everybody who had ever come to a council meeting over a dog problem said the same thing, that their dog was well-behaved 99.9% of the time. He stated that this was about the other 0.1% of the time.
Mayor Jimmy Morlan stated that, every time this kind of thing had happened in the time he’d been with the city, the decision had been to do what was written. He stated that, if they make an exception for one person, then they wouldn’t be able to make a decision the next time. Morlan stated they had to be consistent. He stated his heart went out to the Stevenses, because he has two dogs, but that he “certainly wouldn’t walk them past (the Stevens’) house at this point.”
Conrad stated that, even if they didn’t find the dog dangerous, they could still cite the Stevenses for having a nuisance dog. McLaughlin stated they had to be consistent. Clark motioned to declare the dog dangerous and give the Stevenses 14 days to remove it from town. McLaughlin seconded. McLaughlin, Clark and Schultz voted to remove the dog. Lentz voted against removing the dog. Conrad hesitated for ten seconds, before voting No. Iosbaker hesitated for ten seconds, before voting Yes.
“I’m sorry,” Morlan said. “I’m with you, our dogs are like kids.”
