The Anderson City Council unanimously agreed last week to insert some additional teeth into the city's existing dangerous dog ordinance.

Recommended by City Attorney Mike Fitzpatrick following a citizen's complaint, the revised ordinance requires a property owner to have adequate liability insurance once a dog residing on that property is determined to be potentially dangerous.

The ordinance, as revised by the council's action on Tuesday, Sept. 2, specifies the minimum amount of liability insurance at $300,000 "against injuries or damages arising out of actions of such a dog."

Property owners, not their tenants who might actually own the potentially vicious animals, are the one's required to obtain the insurance, Fitzpatrick noted while briefing the council members prior to their vote on the clean-up legislation.

"A dog doesn't have to actually bite someone or another animal to be determined potentially dangerous" under the ordinance, Fitzpatrick explained.

Instead, a potentially dangerous determination could arise if "someone reasonably feels threatened by the dog" or "a dog . . . causes someone to have to defend themselves."

These conditions could prompt a potentially dangerous or vicious dog hearing. If the animal is found to be potentially dangerous or vicious, then the dog owner would have a list of conditions imposed on how to maintain control of the animal, where and how the animal is to be housed, and so forth.

Fitzpatrick said that he has personally been involved "in several dangerous dog administrative hearings on the city's behalf." In every case he has handled, the dog in question was deemed potentially dangerous and the animals' owners were told to "keep their dog within a secure area, post the area with signs, spay or neuter the dog, tattoo the dog to identify it as potentially dangerous and take other steps designed to protect the public.