The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Monday, September 28th to instruct the county attorney’s office to send a formal letter to the owner of a dog that has reportedly bitten four people — including a child — after a prolonged saga of failed attempts by neighbors, law enforcement, and county officials to address the situation.
The Background
According to the emails, the problem has been building for more than a year. Amy White, who lives on the west edge of Fairfield near the Fairfield ReStore, brought detailed documentation to the supervisors outlining a series of incidents involving a red dog owned by her neighbor.
In September 2025, the dog bit White’s daughter. White went to the dog’s owner following the incident and was told the dog had been vaccinated and obtained from the Oskaloosa Animal Shelter, and that the owner had not initially known it was aggressive and intended to work on training it. Despite that conversation, the problems continued. White contacted the Sheriff’s Office in October 2025 to report the ongoing situation, but said little changed.
By July 8th, 2026, White said the dog’s owner had personally acknowledged to her that the dog was aggressive and had bitten several people, including one of her own friends. According to an email White sent to the Board of Supervisors on September 22nd, the owner even expressed worry that someone was going to sue her. “She even has expressed that she’s afraid she’s going to get sued,” White told supervisors at Monday’s meeting. “But her only thing she tells us is to shoot her dog.” White told the owner during the July conversation that if the dog injured her children, animals, or livestock again, she would pursue legal action. The owner said the dog would be gone within a week — but more than five weeks later, the dog was still on the property.
By August 15th, 2026, the dog was once again on the White’s property. That same day, White and her husband Josh visited the property owner and landlord to discuss their concerns. The landlord admitted knowing the dog was aggressive and that it had bitten the tenant’s friend but said he was unaware it had bitten neighbors or was running at large. He agreed to try to address the situation. The dog’s owner subsequently attempted to put up a small fence, but White contacted the landlord again on August 19th to report that it was not working — the dog had already dug underneath it. On September 20th, White’s son was playing in the timber on their property when he came running back to the house to report the red dog was in the timber with him. “He came running back up to the house, which is what sparked this again,” White said at Monday’s meeting. “And like, no, I’m done, I’m done.”
Neighbors Affected
In her September 22nd email to the supervisors, White documented concerns from multiple neighbors, noting that she believed law enforcement should be made aware of each account even if they would need to be independently verified. The owner of Iowa Repair Shop next door told the Whites he had contacted law enforcement multiple times because the dog had acted aggressively toward customers and his family, and that before a recent grand opening celebration he had personally gone to the dog’s owner to ask her to keep the dog locked up. She told him to shoot the dog.
An elderly neighbor to the west told the Whites the dog had bitten her on the hip and that she now carries both a baseball bat and a pellet gun whenever she leaves her home out of fear she cannot outrun the dog. She said a passerby once spotted the dog sneaking up behind her while she was bent down working in her yard and began yelling to alert her. She told the Whites she had not reported her concerns to law enforcement because she is afraid of the dog’s owner. Neighbors to the east said they have had to spray the dog with pepper spray and have contacted law enforcement twice. They said delivery drivers have stopped consistently delivering packages to their home because of the dog. A FedEx driver was captured on video being chased and apparently bitten by the animal — visible in the footage kicking the dog to fend it off. Those neighbors also said that when their grandchildren visit, they go to the dog owner’s property first to ask her to chain the dog. She told them as well to shoot the dog. Neighbors in Suburban Heights within the city limits said the dog has come onto their property and acted aggressively near their grandchildren who live next door.
White summarized the situation in her email bluntly. “What concerns us the most is that the dog’s owner is aware of the dog’s aggressive behavior and history but has not taken effective action to prevent another person or animal from being injured. I also do not believe that telling multiple neighbors to ‘shoot the dog’ is an appropriate solution when the owner is aware that the dog is aggressive. Neighbors should not have to carry weapons or be placed in a position where they have to protect themselves from an animal that the owner has a responsibility to control.”
Beyond the dog itself, neighbors told supervisors that the dog’s owner also keeps two other dogs as well as a collection of chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and a rooster — many of which have been regularly spotted wandering onto neighboring properties and out onto the highway, creating traffic hazards. In the meeting, residents described the animals crossing the road and congregating at neighboring businesses on a regular basis.
Dealing with Law Enforcement
White and her neighbors said their repeated attempts to get law enforcement to act were consistently met with the same response — that there was little that could be done because the incidents were occurring in the county rather than within the city limits. In August, after a deputy forwarded the Whites’ concerns to the county attorney’s office, White received an email stating that if deputies were called while the dog was at large and acting aggressively, they would have the right to dispatch it — but that if they arrived and the dog was no longer present, their hands were tied. He also noted that property owners have the right to shoot the dog themselves if it is being aggressive toward them at that moment. The deputy acknowledged in an email to White that he could not confirm whether the dog was current on its rabies vaccination.
White received an earlier response from the county attorney’s office — prior to Assistant Attorney Michael Campbell joining the office — indicating that the dog essentially had to be actively attacking someone before any action could be taken. White brought that email to the Monday meeting. According to her September 22nd email, she also asked a deputy to review Iowa Code Chapter 351 with her, pointing out several provisions she believed had been violated, but was told those codes could not be enforced at the county level. The deputy told the Whites they needed to bring the matter to the Board of Supervisors and request a new ordinance. White also noted in her email that Jefferson County has no facility where dogs can be taken following a bite, after the local vet clinic discontinued that service.
At the Meeting
White came before the board with a clear and detailed presentation. “This is no longer a hypothetical concern,” she said at the meeting. “This dog has already bitten four people, including my child. What concerns me the most is that the situation has continued despite our repeated efforts to try to get it fixed.” She said the dog owner, the property owner, the sheriff’s department, and the county attorney’s office had all been engaged — and none of it had produced results. “We’ve provided documentation. We’ve provided video. We’ve provided pictures of dog bites. At this point, we’re asking the county to help create a preventative solution rather than waiting for the next attack.”
White argued that under Iowa Code Chapter 351.41, the county has the explicit authority to develop its own ordinances addressing dangerous dogs running at large, independent of and in addition to state law. “I’m not asking the county to create an ordinance simply because of one particular dog,” she said. “I’m asking for a countywide process so that residents, law enforcement, animal control, and dog owners all know what is expected before another person gets hurt. We should not have to wait for a fifth person to be bitten before the county has a process for dealing with a dog that has already demonstrated that it is dangerous.” She also requested that the county work with the city to identify a location where aggressive dogs can be impounded, noting that the lack of such a facility has been a persistent obstacle. “My greatest concern is that the next victim could be another child, elderly neighbor, delivery driver, or a community member simply walking or riding their bike on the loop trail. This is right next to the loop trail by Whitham Woods.”
Shanaz Kreider, who manages the Fairfield ReStore near the dog owner’s property, said she had heard from customers about the dog and had personally witnessed cars parked in a zigzag formation on the highway while motorists reacted to the dog crossing the road. “I’m managing a business, and if anything happens to my customers, then my company is liable for it,” Kreider said at the meeting. She also asked whether the county could put some kind of formal warning process in place for future incidents, noting that even with the current dog situation seemingly temporarily resolved, the broader problem remained. “What if another incident comes up? Can we have some sort of rules and regulations for somebody to respond and give a warning to the dog owner?”
Zephyr Nutting, who described herself as an informal animal control resource frequently called on by law enforcement for dog-related situations, told the board she had taken the dog from the owner’s property after learning what was going on. “I took the dog from her the other day when I heard what was going on. The dog is now secure. I’ve got a really tall fence,” Nutting said at the meeting. She said the dog is a fear biter rather than an innately aggressive animal and that she intends to rehabilitate it, keep it herself, or find it a very secure home — and if rehabilitation is not possible, she will have it put down. “She will either get rehabbed and stay with me or get rehabbed and go to a very secure home. Or I will put her down.” Nutting said she has 35 years of experience working with fearful dogs. She also said she was troubled that residents had been left without clear answers about the proper procedures when a dog bites someone, expressing concern that dispatch may not be adequately trained to handle such calls. “I’m concerned that nobody seems to know the rules and that these people were left without proper guidance — you don’t do that when there’s a dog bite. There is something in place for that.”
An Assistant County Attorney Weighs In
Jefferson County Assistant Attorney Michael Campbell addressed the meeting and pushed back firmly on the impression that nothing could be done under existing law. “The state of Iowa has a code, and it’s very explicit,” Campbell said at the meeting. “A dangerous dog can be destroyed by anyone. And the sheriff has the responsibility to kill the dog, period. That’s the end of the story. If they are not sure about their responsibilities or their rights, they need to talk to us, the county attorney’s office. . . I did the research on this and read the code over and over again. It’s clear. It’s really clear. Our peace officers have the responsibility to kill that dog.”
He said he needed to speak with deputies about their understanding of the law. Residents pointed out that deputies had been telling multiple people — including an elderly neighbor — simply to shoot the dog themselves, and Campbell said that while residents do legally have that right, it should not be left solely to them. “No, you don’t have to. But you may.” He said he intended to have a conversation with law enforcement to clarify responsibilities going forward. A resident noted that when they called dispatch, they were consistently told the rules in the county were different from the city and were directed to shoot the dog themselves. Campbell’s response was direct: “We need to talk to them.”
John Morrissey’s Perspective
Fairfield City Attorney John Morrissey, who was also present, offered perspective from his decades of experience representing small towns in Iowa. He noted that situations like this one are not uncommon and that communities have faced similar challenges before. “Most of the small towns that I’ve represented over the years have ordinances that give them about three or four options,” Morrissey said at the meeting. “One of them is to give the dog to Health and Science at the universities, Ames or Iowa City. Another one is to get them to the confinement shelter and then putting them down.”
Morrissey said he was aware of facilities in the region that can house dogs, including the Blue Star Shelter in Bloomfield, the Iowa Animal Rescue League in Des Moines, and a facility in Fort Madison. “There are two or three places where they’ll take a dog and they’ll keep the dog confined. It’s a dog that is deemed to be non-rehabilitatable.”
On the question of who should actually dispatch a dangerous dog when it comes to that, Morrissey was candid about his experience. “In the county attorney’s office for 20 years, we had situations two or three times where the dogs actually were shot by a peace officer,” he said at the meeting. “Basically, the idea of having a peace officer do it — I’m sure there’s a legislative intent behind it. Most towns have that also, that it can happen just like he describes. But your peace officer is also keeping the peace as far as keeping somebody else from doing the shooting. Because you end up, if there’s more than one party involved, you may have somebody trying to save the dog, too. You don’t want the person that’s doing the shooting of the dog, if that’s the case, because of the circumstances — you don’t want anybody else intervening that might get shot. So that’s the other risk, and that’s the reason that a peace officer is the best solution.”
Morrissey also noted that Jefferson County’s own local ordinance already provides multiple avenues for dealing with dangerous animals. “Our local ordinance here has five ways you can dispose of an animal,” he said. “So there are some things besides just outright shooting them on the spot.”
Supervisors Respond
Supervisor Joe Ledger was direct in his assessment. “If I was in your position, I would demand the dog be put down,” Ledger said at the meeting. “Already four times, the dog has bitten somebody. When a dog is like that, I don’t believe it can be rehabilitated.” He added that he had only learned about the situation the previous week when White called him. “I was shocked that I hadn’t heard anything about it before.”
Supervisor Lee Dimmitt said his original intention before learning Nutting had taken the dog was to authorize the county attorney to send a letter giving the dog’s owner 24 hours to have the dog put down, with the county taking action if she refused. “My position was simply going to be that we authorize the county attorney’s office to send a letter delivered by the sheriff’s department to give the owner 24 hours to put the dog down, and if the owner did not put the dog down at 24 hours, that we would put the dog down,” Dimmitt said at the meeting. On the broader challenge of holding dog owners financially accountable, he said it is a recurring problem. “So much of the time, it’s like a dog chasing its tail, trying to get somebody to fulfill their financial obligation. And from the legal perspective, we have to make sure that we do it in the context of the law.” He also noted that Iowa Code Section 351.28 is clear on owner liability. “It says that the owner of the dog shall be liable to an injured party for all damages. So that’s pretty straightforward.”
Supervisor Susie Drish raised the idea of implementing a mechanism that would allow the county to cover the cost of dealing with a dangerous animal and recoup that money through the owner’s property taxes, though the group noted that the dog’s owner does not own the property. “If we have a process where it’s done right, it’ll be worth the wait to get that done,” Drish said. She also noted the broader need for the county to think through its options. “Right now, the dog is safe. Everybody’s safe right now. So we need to learn from this. There are so many options, and we need to think about that.” Drish mentioned that her niece is a veterinarian in New London and suggested that a contractual arrangement with a local vet or shelter could be a potential avenue for the county to address the lack of a dog confinement facility going forward.
Ledger made a motion to have the assistant county attorney draft a letter to the dog’s owner explaining the applicable ordinances, have it delivered by the Sheriff’s Office to ensure receipt, and send a copy to the property owner and landlord. The motion passed unanimously with Dimmitt and Drish joining Ledger.
Public Health’s Role
Jefferson County Public Health Administrator Chris Estle joined the meeting via Zoom and spoke at the conclusion of the meeting about her department’s role following dog bite incidents. Under Iowa code, the board of health is responsible for responding to dog, cat, and ferret bites. When notified — whether by law enforcement or a health care provider — her office reviews the incident and contacts the animal’s veterinary practice directly to verify the rabies immunization record rather than relying on the owner’s word. “We don’t rely on the owner’s word, and it’s easy to forget your animal’s rabies vaccine is overdue,” Estle said at the meeting. “We then call the bite victim and do a follow-up on whether they received treatment.” Estle acknowledged a significant logistical gap — there is currently no facility in Jefferson County where dogs can be held in isolation for the required 10-day observation period following a bite, making containment after an incident difficult to coordinate.
Iowa Law
Iowa Code Chapter 351.27 allows any person to lawfully kill a dog caught in the act of chasing, maiming, or killing a domestic animal, or attacking or attempting to bite a person. Iowa Code Chapter 351.28 holds dog owners liable for all damages caused by their dog in those circumstances. Iowa Code Chapter 351.39 requires a dog owner to confine an animal after it has bitten someone if directed to do so by the local board of health, with the board authorized to impound and potentially destroy the animal after 10 days if the owner fails to comply. Iowa Code Chapter 351.41 specifically provides that state law does not limit the power of counties to prohibit dogs from running at large or to establish additional restrictions on animals for other purposes — the very provision White cited in her request for the county to develop a new ordinance.
