Last year, and not a bit too soon, the Robeson County Board of Commissioners got down to the difficult task of establishing local rukes that would provide a greater level of protection for people from dangerous dogs. The rules were crafted and approved by the commissioners in December, almost a year to the day after a deadly attack in Marietta, during which an elderly woman was killed and two children horribly maimed.

There was, to our surprise, very little protest from the community, which we still don’t understand. Our best guess is that owners of dogs that might pose a threat to the general public, and we all know the breeds that are most likely to be guilty, were not paying attention — or doubted that the rules would be enforced.

The rules took effect Feb. 1, just three weeks ago, and the numbers don’t necessary reflect a step up in enforcement. According to Bill Smith, director of the county Health Department, which oversees Animal Control, there have been 130 dogs seized this month, actually 20 less than the same period last year.

So what gives? Well, according to Smith, the county has three Animal Control positions, but one is vacant, so there have been just two officers roaming the state’s largest county looking for stray dogs that may pose a threat.

We want to add here that those 130 aren’t necessarily going to be euthanized. Their owners, if they step forward, are likely to face some fees in order to get them back, but even if that doesn’t happen, there is a chance they can be adopted out.

Smith, in a page 1A article today by staff writer Scott Bigelow, leaves little doubt about this intent, that the dog ordinance is more than just words, and that enforcement will give it a strong bite. As part of that, he says that he will ask for a fourth Animal Control officer be included in the county budget that takes effect July 1. That is the same day that dog owners will be required to pay a $10 annual fee for the privilege of owning the animal, generating a revenue source to help support Animal Control.

The newspaper has written often about the problems caused by stray animals in the county, primarily dogs, who end up on death row at the pound. It is a stain on all of us that we lead the state in putting down such animals, though we do see incremental progress.

The sharpest tool in the box that the dog ordinance provides Animal Control, we believe, is the ability to act proactively and not only re-actively when a dog is deemed a threat. In the past, Animal Control had to wait until there was actually a bite, but now an animal can be deemed a threat after displaying behavior that is short of an attack.

Once an animal is seized by the county, it will become expensive for the owner to regain possession, and doing so will also require: liability insurance be obtained; a pen with a cement floor; the animal be spayed of neutered; and that the dog always is under control when outside the pen.

So owners of dogs who are potentially dangerous would be wise to keep them under control, and give the county no reason for seizure. Smith is clear that Animal Control will be out looking, and probably has a backlog of complaints on threatening dogs that will serve as a pretty good map.

For dog owners, the sign is up: Beware of Animal Control.