A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Resident urges Black Hawk County to adopt dangerous-dog ordinance after repeated pet attacks

June 30, 2026 | Black Hawk County, Iowa


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Resident urges Black Hawk County to adopt dangerous-dog ordinance after repeated pet attacks
Dan Putri, who said he lives at 1443 North Raymond Road in Blackhawk County, told the Board of Supervisors on June 30 that his neighbor’s dog has repeatedly entered his property over more than a decade and repeatedly injured his pets, including an incident that required one dog’s tail to be amputated and another that required eight stitches.

"I started having issues with the neighbor's dog coming and what I'd refer to as buzzing my dog… then I saw all the bite marks," Putri said, describing multiple episodes he reported to the sheriff's office. He said deputies told him there is no county dangerous-animal ordinance and cited limitations in enforcement under Iowa Code chapter 351, which addresses animals running at large and rabies-tag requirements.

Putri said he has documented incidents with video and service calls to the sheriff but that the neighbor has at times denied responsibility and refused to pay veterinary bills. "I'm justified to use lethal force to protect my dog…but my hands are tied until there's a policy that deals with dangerous dogs in Blackhawk County, Iowa," he said.

Supervisors and staff asked follow-up questions about past incidents, evidence and whether the Humane Society—under the county contract—could assist. A member of the board noted that chapter 351 provides impoundment authority only when an animal is running at large without a rabies tag and said municipal dangerous-dog ordinances typically allow additional enforcement options, including fines and seizure for repeat or severe attacks.

Several supervisors expressed support for exploring an ordinance and for reviewing the county’s contract with the Humane Society to determine whether rural animal-control gaps can be addressed administratively. The board did not take immediate action on a county ordinance; a supervisor suggested a work session or staff review to draft options the board could consider.

The matter was raised during the public-comment portion of the meeting; staff said they would gather more information for the board and suggested sheriff's office records and the humane-society contract as starting points for any ordinance or enforcement changes.

Ending: Putri thanked the board for listening and offered to provide additional documentation; supervisors said staff would follow up and consider whether a work session or ordinance draft is appropriate.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee