HARTLAND — The Selectboard voted Monday to adopt a new ordinance that would require a public hearing in the event of a dog attack.
But this isn’t the first time the town approved an ordinance of that nature.
Two years back, Hartland reconsidered its dog ordinance from 2010, which defined a vicious dog as one that attacks any person or causes a person to reasonably fear attack. It also applies to an animal that attacks another domestic pet.
Deciding the fate of a vicious dog falls under the jurisdiction of a police, animal control or humane officer in the Town of Hartland, per the 2010 ordinance. Jim Armbruster currently serves as the animal control officer, and there is no police department or humane officer in town.
Armbruster has the authority to fine an owner, order a dog be muzzled, order a dog be physically confined to its property by some means, order a dog be removed or order a dog be euthanized.
In 2024, the Selectboard approved a new ordinance that would still require the animal control officer to investigate vicious dog cases and recommend action, but tasked the Selectboard with deciding what happens next.
While the Selectboard adopted this ordinance years ago, it wasn’t properly posted in five places in town, per Vermont statute. Therefore, town officials removed it from the website this summer following a dog attack off Shute Road, town manager John Broker-Campbell said last month by phone.
As a result, they had to revert to the 2010 ordinance in responding to what happened to Daisy Murphy’s 7-lb. toy Aussiedoodle.
On Aug. 20, Murphy, 76, stepped out her front door to shoo away a neighbor’s large German Shepherd-Husky that was loose and jumping on her car when her small dog, Phyllis, came out from between her legs, she said in an Aug. 27 interview at her home.
In the recording of the incident shared with the Valley News, the neighbor’s dog, Dani, can be seen running up to the house, biting Phyllis and carrying her off. Murphy used a broom to hit the large dog, which dropped Phyllis, but only momentarily.
“I’m screaming and hollering, as I reached down to pick her up, the dog came back and grabbed her and went off over to there where there was a puddle of blood,” said Murphy.
Armbruster opted to issue two municipal tickets and deemed Dani “vicious,” he said in an email last month.
“The owner was advised to keep the dog on the property and that if it was caught running at large again it would be impounded,” Armbruster said.
Worried for her safety and that of her other dogs and grandchildren with Dani nearby, Murphy said she felt the dog needed to be removed from the owner, Chayse Wood.
Outside her home last month, Wood told the Valley News that Dani had slipped her collar while tied to a leash outside, but she had since purchased a harness.
In the new ordinance approved Monday, there’s a definition for “potentially vicious dog,” which applies to dogs that inflict minor injuries on a person, threaten to attack or attack another domestic animal, damage property, chase a person or cause them to reasonably fear attack.
There is no longer a definition for “vicious dog,” which was in the 2010 ordinance.
As for the penalties associated with owning a potentially vicious dog, the first offense may warrant a warning or impoundment and a $50 fine, the second offense may warrant impoundment and a $100 fine and the third may warrant impoundment and a $250 fine, as written in the new ordinance.
An owner who violates any part of the ordinance twice, warranting more than a warning within a six-month period, must participate in a behavior modification program through a humane society approved by the Selectboard.
The new ordinance is enforced by the animal control officer and Hartland Selectboard, it states.
“They can make all the ordinances they want, but the problem is that they didn’t follow through with the ordinances they already had,” Terri Dunham, Daisy Murphy’s daughter, told the Valley News in an email Tuesday.
A person filing a written complaint regarding a potentially vicious dog, per the ordinance, shall include the time, date and place of the alleged behavior, and other facts of the case. The animal control officer will provide the Selectboard with a recommendation within 14 days and a hearing can be scheduled.
The ordinance is expected to go into effect in about two months. Those wishing to rescind the ordinance must file a petition signed by at least 5% of the town’s voters within 44 days following the date of adoption, which, in this case, was Sept. 21.
