City's Tactics Are Unfair, Dog Owners Say

BY MIKE AND CHARLENE GILL
SPECIAL TO THE POST

Recently you ran a story about our appeal at City Council regarding a pit bull named Lucky. The only way we can tell our story is through you. God knows, it seems the "officials" in this town could care less what is fair and just.

Ms. Frye, the city's animal control officer, contacted our landlord after we filed our appeal. She told him and testified before City Council that the dog had caused a child to be hurt in the neighborhood. She told the landlord that if the dog hurt anyone else, he would be liable. The dog never hurt the child, and we have a statement from the child's father stating that Lucky never hurt his child and that he has never seen Lucky hurt anyone. The incident Ms. Frye spoke of was before we even had Lucky. Legally, doesn't this disprove her accusation?

She also spoke with one of our witnesses. Before she spoke with him he was eager to help us defend Lucky. After she spoke with him he told me there was nothing he could do to help because Ms. Frye had told him that it wouldn't matter what we did, this dog was going to be declared a dangerous dog. Isn't tampering with a witness illegal in this town?

Ms. Frye stated other offenses on dates when we didn't even have Lucky. We didn't get Lucky until the end of November 1997. Doesn't this shed doubt on her credibility?

We rescued the poor animal from the middle of a field in which he was chained with no shelter, food or water. No one even lived in the house nearby. The vet said he was near death. What could this poor creature possibly have done to deserve such treatment? And where was Animal Control then? Is it OK with Animal Control to keep an animal as long as it's tortured?

Because he's a pit bull, we have had a very hard time placing Lucky in a good home. We have three older dogs that stay inside and because they are so old, they have no patience with a rambunctious puppy like Lucky. Therefore he has to stay outside and he has escaped a few times. When he does, he runs to play with the other dogs in the neighborhood. The other dogs come over and play with him also, when they escape. He has never hurt a soul. He is even afraid of the rabbits that feed in the back yard.

There are seven houses on our cul-de-sac. We have 11, and soon to get more, affidavits from our neighbors stating that Lucky is not a dangerous dog.

In her official notification to us, Ms. Frye referred to five incidents in which Lucky "ran loose and approached a person in a vicious and terrorizing manner." Of these five, she picked up Lucky only once, and at that time she stated that she used her noose and shock stick on him. That was in February 1998. If the dog was so terrorizing, then why was he not condemned before now? The last time she picked him up she said he was vicious toward her. But she had to order a neighbor to put Lucky in her truck because he ran from her. We also have a statement to this effect. Salisbury's Article IV, Sec 5-80, No. 4 and N.C. Article 1A, Sec. 67-4.1, 4 state that the term "dangerous" does not apply if the person had tormented or otherwise abused the animal. Well, what is using a shock stick?

We also contend that Ms. Frye did not see Lucky loose on all those other occasions. In fact, on the occasion that Lucky supposedly had people blocked in their car, Ms. Frye said she didn't actually see Lucky but that the people had described him to her. She stated in the council meeting that she was surprised how much Lucky had changed since the last time she saw him a year ago. Which of these statements are a lie?

Our alternative is to move out of this town with its Gestapo-like tactics, but even then we have to give a 30-day notice and Lucky does not have that kind of time. The law gives him three weeks from the day of the appeal, and we aren't even sure which appeal process is the correct one because Salisbury's Chapter 2, Article II, Sec 2-52 and N.C. Article 1A, Sec. 67-4.1 5, say we can appeal to the City Council on its own decision, but then Salisbury's Section IV, Article 5-l 16 also states that we have to appeal to Superior Court.

Salisbury's Article IV, Section 5-117 states that a pen must be built with chain link fencing, a concrete bottom and a secure top. This has been done, but now Ann Frye has determined that it must be a poured slab of concrete. Again, she seems to be able to change the law as it is written to suit her own agenda. No matter what we do, no matter what kind of pen we build, no matter what the law states, Lucky is damned if we do and damned if we don't. Nothing will suffice because the Animal Control offIcer has unchecked authority and she made it her personal project to ensure that if Lucky has a home then we don't.

The Salisbury City Council did not weigh the evidence. The council members relied mainly on hearsay. Our civil rights have been abused through one person's abuse of power, and we don't know of any recourse.

The worst part of this whole nightmare is that Lucky is waiting for his people to come and take him home. He has no idea that we are trying so hard and that if we fail, it will mean certain death for him. He has done nothing to be given a death sentence! Where is the justice in all this?

And, you know, he'll probably lick the hand of the one who kills him.

Mike and Charlene Gill live in Salisbury. This essay is only a portion of a longer letter they sent the Post.