MANSFIELD — The city is exploring the idea of creating an animal relations officer position in the Mansfield Police Department in response to recent animal complaints. 

“Over the past few months we’ve been hearing a lot about animal attacks in the City of Mansfield and I think the public demands a response from their city government,” Councilman-at-large Don Bryant said during a public safety committee meeting on Tuesday.

Mansfield council heard from Deputy Law Director Chris Brown, who gave a presentation on what this position might entail.

Brown pointed out that the city currently lacks a Mansfield police officer who is dedicated to animal control issues.

“Instead we rely on the Richland County dog warden, and it’s my understanding that that office is two people–the dog warden himself and then also a deputy,” he said.

He went onto note that Richland County is over 500 square miles, meaning drive times across the county can be lengthy.

“If you have a very large, aggressive dog that has a history of biting and it’s on the loose, 20 minutes begins to feel like a really long time while you’re waiting for an emergency response officer,” he said.

Mansfield resident Deborah Mount said she has called the dog warden’s office many times but sees a slow response, if at all.

“It seems to me like the citizens of Mansfield are getting as low of treatment as they possibly can get,” she said.

The animal relations officer would supplement, not replace, the dog warden, Brown noted.  

Law Director John Spon advocated for this position, saying it’s a matter of public safety.

“The only way that my office can determine whether or not we should amend our existing ordinance is to know if we have a dedicated animal relations officer,” he said.

Pit bills are currently banned within city limits according to the city’s ordinance.

“How can my office in good conscious say we would take away the ban and open the floodgates of pit bulls when we don’t even have an animal control officer?” Spon asked.

Linda Swisher, who serves on the Humane Society of Richland County’s Board of Directors, addressed her concerns about the ban, saying it appears to be basic discrimination.

“We are missing the message here by placing the blame on the breed and not the deed,” she said.

She argued that the responsibility lies with the owner, not the dog.  

“This must not be pointed towards the dogs, but rather to the owner’s neglect and disregard for another’s rights and freedoms,” she said. “Any pet owner should bear the full responsibility of that animal–licensing, spay and neuter, proper veterinary care, food and shelter.”

Swisher said the humane society can offer assistance in spaying and neutering of many of the pit bull breeds within city limits.

“The Humane Society of Richland County wants to participate in putting this disagreement to rest by education and assistance for the city and its residents,” she said. “The answer lies in cooperation and working hand-in-hand.”

Fourth Ward Councilman Butch Jefferson asked if the animal relations officer position was necessary, adding that he would like to see statistics of reported animal complaints.

Police Chief Ken Coontz didn’t argue that that there isn’t a need for the position, but it’s a “double-edged sword” with finances at the moment, he said.

Spon suggested that funding for the position come out of the city’s general fund.

Without making any decisions, council agreed that more discussion will need to take place.