Errant Dogs May Be Spared if Owners Meet Conditions

Two Rottweiler dogs that faced the death penalty for biting a man and terrifying other Newbury Park residents have been spared--at least for now.

Ruling in an unusual dangerous-dog hearing, Los Angeles County animal regulation officials said Tuesday that, although the owners were negligent for failing to control their pets, the animals can be released from the pound and reunited with their masters.

Officials from the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, however, set several conditions for the release of the dogs, named Heidi and Rommel.

The dogs’ owners, the Hale family, must buy $100,000 in liability insurance before regaining custody of the animals, which had escaped from the family’s yard, scaring neighbors and tripping a jogger.

If the Hales cannot find insurance in 15 days, the dogs may be destroyed.

In addition, the family must keep the dogs on a leash or in a secure enclosure and submit to unannounced inspections of their property on Adrian Street.

On Tuesday, the dogs were still in the pound because the biggest hurdle--the insurance requirement--is proving troublesome, Rocky Hale said. Because of the Northridge earthquake, renter’s insurance of the kind the Hales need is hard to find.

“I probably called 20 insurance agencies, and had not one bit of luck,” Hale said.

Hale also complained about being required to pay about $500 in boarding fees for the dogs. He said because his dogs were not found to be dangerous, he should not be forced to pay for their time at the Agoura Animal Shelter.

“It’s like a guy that’s arrested and found not guilty and has to pay the jail costs,” Hale said.

Joseph Mewshaw, a Woodland Hills lawyer who read a newspaper story about the dangerous-dog hearing, has offered to loan Hale the money for the boarding fees and to defend the dogs pro bono if the Hales are unable to find insurance and decide to appeal the ruling.

“They touched my heartstrings,” Mewshaw said of the dogs and their owners.

Hale said that, overall, he was pleased with the verdict, which came 12 days after an emotional hearing that lasted more than four hours and included testimony from his 6-year-old daughter and his two teen-age children.

“I think my dogs were found not guilty as far as being dangerous,” Hale said. “They’ve been vindicated.”

Hale and his family were judged guilty of “ownership negligence,” according to the three-page letter from the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, which handles animal control for the Ventura County city of Thousand Oaks under a two-year old contract.

Neighbors who had complained about the dogs said they would wait to see if the dogs escape again.

“All we wanted from the beginning was for the Hales to control their animals. They haven’t proved themselves responsible in the past,” said Rebecca Au.

Au and another nearby resident, Virginia Suggs, said it would be a shame to kill the animals because of their owners’ irresponsibility. But they said they had to consider the safety of their own families.

Suggs, who testified that her husband had been attacked but not harmed by the dogs, said she was not upset with the decision.

Said Suggs: “As long as they do their part in keeping the dogs in, that’s fine.”