GREENVILLE — With a walking trail around its entire perimeter, a summer highlight for many in the community can be as simple as taking a morning or evening stroll to watch the glowing sun reflect off the surface of Baldwin Lake.

But recently, a situation has developed around the lake that has replaced that enjoyment with fear — the threat of dog attacks.

“Our first responsibility is to protect the people. I love my dog, I love all dogs, but I really feel it falls upon us to protect the people,” said Greenville Councilwoman Fran Schuleit, who lives along Baldwin Lake, during the Aug. 21 City Council meeting last week. “Someday it will be nice to walk around that lake again … because we don’t do it right now.”

Members of the council spent the better part of an hour Aug. 21 discussing a proposed replacement ordinance, following a public hearing, regarding dogs in the city.

According to City Manager George Bosanic, over the summer there have been multiple instances involving three dog owners which have required the attention of local law enforcement, and despite multiple warnings and tickets, nothing has improved.

“We’ve had this ordinance on the books as it is for many many years, and it has served us, but as of late, we have found some shortcomings in the ordinance,” Bosanic said. “We have a few people who just, absolutely, do not want to comply with it. There’s a split second there, where if a dog is coming at you, you just don’t know whether you are going to get bit or not. You’re afraid to even go by the residence because you don’t know how that dog is going to react. People shouldn’t be afraid to walk down the street, especially if it’s part of a trail system of the city, in fear of their own well being. That’s the purpose of this ordinance.”

Bosanic said things reached a boiling point after alleged dog attacks on Baldwin Lake resulted in several 911 calls.

Baldwin Lake resident Chad Arntz submitted a letter to the council, which was read aloud at the meeting, in which he alleged that dogs belonging to 85-year-old resident Janice Kase at 521 E. Baldwin Lake Drive, had attacked Arntz, as well as others.

“I’ve told Jan countless times to control her dogs as we walk by and it continues to fall on deaf ears,” Arntz wrote. “She either can’t control them or simply doesn’t care, and in my opinion, it’s a little of both.”

Arntz said he and his own dogs were attacked on July 24, stating his ear had been bitten, resulting in a call to 911.

“If I hadn’t been quick on my feet to protect myself and my dogs, it would’ve been a very serious situation,” he said. “Her dogs were out for blood and I had to physically kick them off us to avoid being hurt.”

Arntz filed a citation against Kase following the alleged attack, and on Aug. 12, Arntz said he witnessed another attack, observing from his boat while on the lake.

“I was on my boat with the dogs and I watched Jan open her door and let her dogs out. Her gate wasn’t completely shut and the dogs got past the gate and attacked a jogger,” he wrote. “There are multiple residents of the lake and surrounding areas that have been repeatedly attacked and it has to stop. It’s sad when residents feel they need to walk through the cemetery to avoid her house or have to walk the lake with a gun, bat or club in order to protect themselves from her vicious animals.”

The city of Greenville filed a case against Kase which was heard Monday in Montcalm County’s 64B District Court. The motion alleges that one of Kase’s dogs, Bengal, a boxer pitbull mix, is a dangerous animal, and requested that the animal be destroyed.

Monday’s hearing was adjourned by Judge Donald Hemingsen as Kase requested an attorney be present. She also reached a seven-day-rule agreement with city attorney Thomas Siver.

According to the agreement, the city is asking that Kase abide by five stipulations, which include that Bengal is always leashed if outside; that he is always muzzled if outside; that he will always be under the care of Kase if outside; that he be added to Kase’s homeowners insurance; and if Kase moves from her residence prior to the upcoming hearing, then the city will dismiss the case without prejudice.

Siver said if Kase does not abide by the agreement or if anyone else is injured, when the hearing resumes, the city will continue to pursue its motion.

Kase told the Daily News she was unaware anyone had been injured by her dogs, although she acknowledged her dogs are not always leashed and have left the property when her gate isn’t latched.

“Bengal has never, ever curled a lip or growled at me,” she said. “I’ve learned to train with positive reinforcement. He’s a very gentle, remarkable dog, and I’ll stand behind him until the end of my life.”

Kase said her home on Baldwin Lake has been in her family since 1902, but she is putting the home up for sale and plans to move to Florida.

“I’m giving up my cottage that I’ve loved my whole life to save Bengal and get out of this community that is so resistant, in my opinion, to dogs,” she said. “It’s heartbreaking to leave a summer cottage that I’ve loved my whole life. It could have gone the other way, we could have put in a new dog park or allowed the dogs to swim at the lake, but it’s time to leave, because my lifestyle doesn’t fit with the attitude here.”

Siver said citations have been issued against three dog owners in the city, and together with Bosanic and Greenville Department of Public Safety Director Dennis Magirl, they worked together to amend the city’s ordinance regarding animals in the city.

The ordinance now clearly defines what a “dangerous or vicious or fierce or ferocious dog” is: A dog or other animal who bites or attacks a person or a dog who bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog or animal while the other dog or other animal is on the property or under the control of its owner.

There are exceptions, which include when an animal who bites or attacks a person who is knowingly trespassing on the property of the animal’s owner, when an animal who bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments the animal, or when an animal who is responding in a manner an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude was designed to protect a person if the person is engaged in a lawful activity or is the subject of an assault or in self-defense or in the defense of another.

The ordinance now prohibits the harboring and keeping of such animals. If an animal has a dangerous disposition or shows vicious habits upon any public street or place, it is the duty of the owner to deliver the animal to animal control.

As Bosanic said there are those currently violating the ordinance who have shown no intent to follow through, the penalties in the ordnance have been increased as well. A violation of any portion of the ordinance shall result in:

• First violation, civil infraction and $100 fine.

• Second violation, civil infraction and $200 fine.

• Third violation, civil infraction and $300 fine.

• Fourth violation, misdemeanor, up to 93 days of jail and a $500 fine.

A point of contention that came forward was how many animals an owner could keep in their household, which is defined in the city’s zoning ordinance: “Any land, building, or structure where five or more cats and/or dogs 6 months of age or older are boarded, housed, or bred for commercial purposes shall be considered a kennel,” meaning without a kennel license, no more than four pets are allowed per household in the city.

After reviewing the proposed ordinance, the council passed a measure to approve it unanimously.