Dog determined by village to be a vicious animal

By Ginna Young

It was a hard decision that was brought before the Cadott Village Board June 7, as a dog owned by residents Mike and Kris Jahr, was under scrutiny as potentially being a vicious dog. Last year, the Jahrs’ dog bit a village employee who entered the couple’s yard, then bit a member of the police department later that day, who followed up on the incident.

“Our dog is not a vicious dog,” said Mike.

Mike said the dog is not just a pet, but is also an emotional support animal for the couple’s daughter. The male dog, Duke, is licensed and vaccinated, and plays with their neighbor’s children and gets along well with the adjoining neighbor’s dog. Duke also goes to a campground with the family for camping on weekends.

“There are multiple families that come and go, and we’ve never had an issue with the dog,” said Mike.

Mike says he apologizes for the biting incident to both parties and had been bitten by a dog when he was young.

“So, I know what it’s like, it’s traumatic,” said Mike. “I have a good working relationship with the Cadott Police Department, I would like to keep that, but I think some things could have been handled a little bit better.”

At the time, the Jahrs informed the police department they would see if their daughter in Cornell could take the dog, as ordinance states a dog who attacks twice within a year’s time, is vicious and cannot reside within the village. However, that plan fell through and Kris said the police did say they would follow up with the matter, but never did.

Flash forward to this year, when Kris registered the dog with the village and a letter arrived, telling the Jahrs they need to get rid of the animal. Kris questioned why it took so long to get a letter, when she believes the police knew the dog never left the village.

Les Liptak, village trustee, said whether the department discovered the dog was back or had never left the village, the time frame did not matter, because they had ordered the dog could not reside in the village Mike, for one, does not believe the village ordinance is correct, as it states that an off-premises “attack” by a dog twice in one year, is grounds for revocation of license and removal of the animal from the village.

“Both times were on our premises,” said Mike.

“Are you suggesting that as long as the dog is on your premises, it can bite people with impunity,” asked Liptak.

Mike said he is not saying that, that he just doesn’t believe how the ordinance is written, applies to the situation the family is facing. Mike said he doesn’t want to have retain a lawyer to fight to keep their dog.

“I believe there has to be some type of common ground here,” he said.

Mike said he would have liked a response from the department about the matter, other than a letter from a lawyer. The village’s attorney said he believes the proper enforcement of the ordinance was taken and that the department took the proper steps in notifying the family.

Mike says if they had been notified the officer was coming that day after the village worker was bitten, they could have put the dog in the house and the second bite would not have occurred.

Anson Albarado, village president, questioned how Mike can prevent the dog from not biting anyone else. Mike says that is why he is asking the board to work with him.

Mike said the dog had been cleared by the vet and is greeted every day, by postal workers and other delivery services, without incident.

“Did he bite somebody?” said Mike. “Yes, I’m not going to deny that.”

Albarado mentioned another incident, which involved what was believed to be a dog walking on the Jahrs’ street, where Duke felt threatened and had an altercation with the other dog. It was determined that the animal in question was on the opposite side of the street and was leashed, with Duke allegedly “biting” the dog on the back of the neck.

The bite did not break the skin of the other dog. Kris says Duke does have anxiety and is given medication to treat that.

Before the board made their decision, Mike implored the members to consider that his daughter has recurring health problems and having the dog by her side helps keep her balanced.

“Duke is her buddy,” he said. “We want to make sure Duke is there for her.”

After deliberation, and consultation with the police chief and village attorney, with all members in agreement, the board voted to rescind the license that was issued to the Jahrs’ dog, giving the family 72 hours to remove the dog from the village.

“We feel your situation and [are] sorry it had to go that way,” said village trustee Randy Kuehni.

Bart Chapek, village trustee, agreed, and said he feels bad for the couple’s daughter.

“But the problem is, if something happens, the whole village is liable,” said Chapek.