Put Bite Into Reining In Dogs

In the aftermath of the dog-mauling trial of Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel, we should take a hard look at what we can do to prevent more tragedies like the one that befell Diane Whipple.

Before her death, many of Whipple’s neighbors had complained about Noel and Knoller’s dogs. Now people wonder why the authorities did not act sooner. If San Francisco’s animal control department is anything like Los Angeles’, I can see how such a tragedy can happen.

In fall 1999, a couple rented the house next door. They had two fairly large dogs (pit bull/lab mixes) that they kept in their backyard all day and night, exposed to the elements. When it rained, the dogs would howl. When it was 105 degrees, the dogs would whimper. Soon the dogs were barking nonstop, banging against the fence, trying to break out. On two occasions, they did break out and chased people. I asked my neighbors to fortify their fence, but they responded with insults and threats.

I called the county animal control department but no officers came out. Soon, the dogs began breaking out with greater regularity. They mauled a tiny beagle being walked by its owner. They broke into a neighbor’s yard and had to be pepper-sprayed. Animal control’s response was to mail form letters to the owners, asking them to control their animals. The dogs broke into two other yards, killing one pet and attacking two others.

Animal control finally sent an officer out. It was then that I began to be educated in the baffling policies of the department.

When a dog is suspected of being vicious, animal control sends an officer to observe the dog, but only in its own home and only interacting with its owners. This is misleading. Most vicious dogs do not behave viciously with their owners. The dogs should be observed in a public place, interacting with strangers.

Animal control is not concerned with dogs that chase or lunge at people if the intended victims get away. Only if a human is bitten does animal control become interested.

After several more incidents involving their dogs attacking people and pets, my neighbors were evicted. I wrote to animal control, asking them to find out where these people were moving to, and, providing they were still in L.A., to make sure that their dogs were secure. Otherwise, I wrote, the dogs will break out again, and more people and pets will be injured or killed.

It is policy to end an investigation when subjects under investigation move, even if they remain in L.A. Animal control cases are filed by addresses, not names. If a subject moves, the old case is closed. The department puts millions of people and pets in jeopardy by allowing the owners of vicious dogs to get a clean slate every time they move. Any new victims have no way of knowing that there have been previous complaints.

Within the first three months at their new address, my former neighbors’ dogs severely mauled a dog, attacked a woman pushing her baby in a stroller, attacked a mail carrier and chased an elderly woman, sending her to the hospital.

A resident in the owners’ new neighborhood contacted animal control and was told that there were no previous complaints against the dogs. Had he not found and talked to me, he never would have known about the previous attacks.

Will it take a high-profile death to force Angelenos to examine how the animal control department investigates dangerous dogs?