Largest Judgment Ever Given In Iowa For A Facial Dog Bite

American Dog Owners Association, Feb 09, 2005

After sitting through over two hours of testimony at your "study session" yesterday afternoon and hearing the presentation of your Director of Public Health, I'm even more confused than before. Mr. Dierks was attempting to give you a rationale for banning or severely restricting American Pit Bulls, but what he really demonstrated was the incompetent manner in which his department is operating.

The most telling such admission came in response to a question from one of you about the difficulties of enforcement in a time of shrinking budgets. Mr. Dierks stated that people have become aware there are no animal control officers on the streets after 7:00 p.m., so they've learned when they can let their dogs run loose. How ignorant.

Mr. Dierks has publicly admitted you have a serious animal control problem not just with American Pit Bulls but with every dog allowed to wander at large due to his ineptitude. Since he apparently does not have budget for 24-hour enforcement, has he never thought of split-shift selective enforcement to correct this problem?

Mr. Dierks' admission that his department is unable to enforce the laws already on the books is compounded by his ignorance of the new laws he is proposing. He could not accurately define the differences between what the United Kennel Club and American Kennel Club respectively recognize and register, much less how one would deal with mixed breed dogs which don't really conform to any of the published standards, all of which reinforces the validity of the Omaha World Herald's observation that "you can't properly regulate what you can't properly define."

One of you made the observation that his proposed $100,000 in liability insurance might not be adequate since the largest judgment ever given in Iowa for a facial dog bite was $126,000, but he failed to indicate if that bite was inflicted by a Pit Bull. To the best of my knowledge, the latest serious facial dog bite in the State of Iowa occurred a little over a month ago at a rest area north of Des Moines and was inflicted by a St. Bernard.

Mr. Dierks gave you almost fifteen pages of supposed statistics in support of his view, but he failed to make this information available to the large number of citizens in attendance. I have heard a number of them question the validity of his statistics, but this is a little hard to do, isn't it, when they aren't even provided to the Public?

All of which leads to how Mr. Dierks refused to comply with your reasonable request that the Department of Public Health should hold a public hearing on this matter for additional input. He complained his agenda was too full and he didn't really have the capability to do so. If I understood things correctly, what he's proposing is some type of meeting at which the Public can come but no elected officials will be required to attend. What a wonderfully anti-democratic suggestion. Please table all his proposals until such time as you can establish a proper procedure for a more thorough investigation.