Springdale animal-control officials on July 31 ordered installation of a professionally built, inspected fence after neighbors presented months of testimony about a dog identified as Emery and repeated property incursions and damage.
The complainant said Emery repeatedly breached her yard and repeatedly damaged fencing, sometimes while children were present. She described multiple calls to police, ongoing fence repairs, and one attack that led her to seek veterinary care overnight, saying "I spent $1,400... I was at the ER with my dog, like, 02:00 in the morning." The complainant told the panel she has attempted repeated fixes and asked for a durable, inspected fence to stop recurring incidents.
The respondent disputed some allegations, said she has camera systems that record activity and asked the panel to review footage, and criticized the complainant's characterizations. Both parties described a history: the case traces to a prior hearing on July 18, 2024, when the panel required fencing work; staff said that while panels had observed new panels installed, prior orders did not clearly require removal of older panels and the question of whether the fence met functional standards remained.
Animal-control staff reviewed options and recommended three escalating remedies: (1) a professionally installed, inspected fence; (2) installation of a partial barrier that restricts the dog's access to the whole yard; or (3) more intensive physical restraint measures for outdoor time. Staff emphasized that the simplest fix is a properly constructed, inspected fence.
The panel voted to require that the owner secure a fence installed by a fence company and inspected by the city or a qualified inspector; the owner must provide an estimate to animal-control within 30 days and demonstrate completion within 60 days, or supply documentation showing an alternative timeline from a licensed contractor. Staff said proof of estimates or a contract would be acceptable to show good-faith compliance and would be reviewed at a follow-up.
The hearing record shows opposing claims about video timestamps and police responses; staff said some videos were provided without visible timestamps and some officers declined further repeated calls because of prior activity. The panel explicitly declined to order removal or euthanasia of the animal at this hearing; instead it imposed the fenced-enclosure requirement and documentation timelines and warned that failure to comply could lead to additional enforcement including civil referral to municipal court.
The panel instructed staff to accept a contractor estimate within 30 days and proof of fence completion within 60 days, and to report back to the hearing officer if the owner fails to meet those conditions.