Pit bull owner cited; boy recovering

WEST VALLEY CITY — As a 5-year-old boy who was attacked by a pit bull continued to recover in the hospital, the investigation over what happened was nearly complete Monday.

Andrew Vanderwerff remained at Primary Children's Medical Center, recovering from being severely bitten on the face and head by Tang, the pit bull that lives across the street from him.

Vanderwerff was on the sidewalk near 4200 West and 3000 South on Friday when Tang came up to him, knocked him over and bit off a large chunk of his cheek, according to witnesses.

Tang lives at a house with a fenced front yard. His owner, Nate Petersen, has said he kept the dog in a fenced pen as well as on a leash inside that pen. He said the only way his dog could have gotten out was if someone let him out. He also claimed that Andrew often wandered into his yard and would poke Tang with a broom handle through the dog run.

Other neighbors, however, said they believed Tang broke out of his pen.

West Valley City Animal Services Director Kelly Davis said Monday that his investigators had talked to nearly everyone on the block and expected to do final interviews by this week. What they found so far, however, were at least four violations. Tang's owner was cited for an attacking dog, having a dog running at large, no dog license and no proof of rabies shots, Davis said.

In the dog's favor, however, was that Davis said his office had no previous history with the pet. Animal control will quarantine Tang for 10 days and observe him for aggressive tendencies and signs of rabies. After that time, officers will decide whether the dog will be returned to the owner or euthanized.

How Tang got out of his yard remained unknown Monday.

"We have not been able to determine how the animal got out," Davis said. "We looked at the kennel. We can see there are ways the animal could get out on his own."

As for the allegations of the boy poking the dog with a broom handle, Davis said his investigators cannot say one way or the other on that issue.

"But that wouldn't make a big difference to us," Davis said. "The circumstances are such that the animal was not on his own property. There is no evidence, we can determine, that provocation was involved. Even if there was, it does not excuse the actions of the animal off its property."