Laserfiche WebLink
,/DISCUSSION RE ATTACK ON SEEING EYE DOG ERIC GASKELL <br />Eric Gaskell, who is legally blind, came before the Board to <br />present his complaint that the leash laws are inadequate in <br />respect to the recent attack on his seeing -eye guide dog, which <br />occurred in front of the Patio Restaurant. He stated that the <br />Animal Control Officer did require the owner to sign a letter <br />indicating that his dog was a "dangerous animal," but Officer <br />Campbell advised him that someone has to be attacked three times <br />before more specific action can be taken, which Mr. Gaskell felt <br />is outrageous, especially in his case where a $15,000 seeing -eye <br />dog is involved. He noted that fortunately he has enough sight <br />to enable him to identify the attacking animal, but what about <br />'those who are totally blind? Mr. Gaskell felt that not only are <br />the present laws inadequate, but they are not being properly <br />enforced. He further felt that all the agencies he has been <br />going through - the City Police, Animal Control, and the County <br />Attorney's office - have been giving him the runaround. <br />Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull informed the Board <br />that Animal Officer Campbell personally undertook an investiga- <br />tion, located the owner of the dog, and cited him per the <br />ordinance, which requires a three step procedure. Attorney Paull <br />explained that the first step is to cite the owner; upon a second <br />incident, the owner would be advised and required to take certain <br />additional precautions; and on a third incident, the dog would be <br />forfeited to the county. Attorney Paull continued that he has <br />advised Mr. Gaskell of other violations of the ordinance which <br />could be prosecuted through the State Attorney's office, such as <br />failure to have the animal under restraint, but as of this <br />morning it does not appear that Mr. Gaskell has made an appoint- <br />ment with the State's Attorney to pursue this. <br />Commissioner Bird asked what restraint the dog is under at <br />this time, and Attorney Paull stated that the owner has received <br />the first warning that upon a subsequent offense, the dog would <br />be declared a vicious animal and would be subject to additional <br />71 <br />JAN 2 1985 BOOK 59 F'GE _�� <br />