When can a person kill a dog in self-defense was a primary sticking point in city council discussions to its animal control laws.

The Riverton City Council voted 3-2 in April to streamline its animal code ordinances. While two changes regarding search warrants and e-collars were unanimous in council approval, one aspect of the code received pushback from two residents at the council meeting and two council members, who were the dissenting votes. 

The issue was wording in the code that stated a person who is “worried” can kill a dog if that dog is to “harass by tearing, biting or shaking with the teeth, repeated barking or baring of teeth, growling, or approaching in an apparent attitude of attack or aggressive behavior which would cause a reasonable person to feel they were in danger of immediate physical attack.”

Residents and council members felt “repeated barking or growling” did not constitute a reason to kill a dog and felt it left a lot to interpretation. 

“I’m not comfortable saying, writ large, every circumstance of barking or growling is sufficient grounds to justify killing an animal,” Councilmember Andy Pierucci said, while Councilmember Tawnee McCay felt “it goes too far.” 

Jill Walker told the council she felt the scope of the ordinance didn’t differentiate enough whether someone could kill her dog in her backyard if they were growling or barking too much. Especially, she said, when the dog could be provoked by kids or passersby. 

“A lot of extra things to consider,” she said. 

Shauna Walker, a former educator, was even more passionate. 

“We’re saying if you worry about this dog, feel free to kill it. That really worries me,” she told the council prior to the vote. “The person standing there becomes judge, jury and executioner. Riverton City is willing to give them that right? I just think it goes too far.” 

She understood the intent, but not the language chosen by city staff.

“If a dog is going after someone, yeah that’s totally defensible, but just because a dog growls?” she said. 

Pierucci felt the code could be cleaned up, narrowing the scope to be about protecting life. 

“I’m OK with (barking, growling) being part of the nuisance language…a dog barking from behind a fence is an issue, but not worthy of killing,” he said 

City officials and the other council members clarified the code doesn’t allow a free pass on harming dogs. City Attorney Ryan Carter said it focuses on situations “that would cause a person to reasonably fear for their life.” 

“There is never going to be a circumstance where a dog barking on the other side of a fence in relation to where somebody is standing would be reasonably in fear of their imminent danger,” Carter said. “There would never be a justification for killing an animal through a fence under those circumstances.” 

Carter gave an example of a dog barking at a father with two dogs on leashes and young daughter, where the barking dog covers any escape route not allowing the family to leave. That being a scenario that would cause a reasonable person to feel in immediate danger.

Carter and the other council members emphasized the part of the code that refers to a “reasonable person” as striking the right balance, noting it’s challenging to draft the perfect ordinance.

Councilmember Troy McDougal said this wasn’t a “get out of jail free card” nor should a person be required to wait to be attacked before they can act. He felt the code says “if a dog comes at me barking, then I can defend myself.”

“No one should have to wait to then defend themselves,” he said. “Courts are the ones that will decide what reasonable is.”

McDougal preferred to err on the side of the justice system playing out the process. “I would rather the ordinance be written this way and let the courts determine what was reasonable or not.”

Councilmember Tish Buroker has been bitten by a dog and said she knows “how scary” that can be. The focus, she said, should be on “ordinances that protect our residents when they walk on our sidewalks, walk on our trails.” 

“If this ordinance does that, then I’m in favor.”

Councilmember Spencer Haymond said the ordinance strikes a balance, noting most people are reasonable and don’t walk around with the intent to kill dogs. 

“It’s written in a way that allows people to defend themselves and their life,” he said, anything else like people doing cruel things to animals, the laws already exist to address that. 

McCay worried about situations where someone could feel encouraged by this law. “Not everyone is a reasonable person and could consider a barking dog a threat to their life and bring it back to this ordinance and say, ‘no, the city protected me against this.’”

Carter, who said this aspect of self-defense exists under common law anyway, didn’t feel this code would empower that behavior. 

“I don’t think this code would mislead or if someone alleged they were misled by it, that wouldn’t stop us from charging under those circumstances,” he told the council. “What we’re here to do is help people understand that under imminent attack, they can have self-defense.”

These code changes came about when Carter was directed to “afford added protections to victims in dog bite cases” after recent court decisions left city officials miffed. 

Besides the dog bites, city code now specified that radio or electric collars officially do not qualify as a leash, it must be a physical restraint. 

New code also now allows animal control officers to obtain search warrants to seize animals and impound them until the end of a trial. 

“There was just, in our view, way too much consideration given, or too many opportunities given to the owner of an animal who has attacked someone else to get the thing back pending trial,” Carter said. “No need for that. Especially when you’re trying to protect the public from further problems. That was the main reason why we made this change.” λ