DANVILLE — Adam Decker vividly recalled the evening two pit bulls kept him and his family prisoners in their own home. The neighbor’s dogs were loose and trying to get into Decker’s home and backyard.

He called an animal control officer, who spent 45 minutes trying to catch the animals. The owner returned and caught the dogs, and the case is in court.

“I don’t care what kind of dog it is, I want to see something done to ensure I don’t have to defend my kids when they’re playing in the yard,” he said. “If my kids were outside, those dogs would have mauled them.”

Decker shared his experience — and his frustrations — during the first meeting of the Danville City Council’s dangerous dog subcommittee Tuesday.

The seven-member panel is charged with looking at the city code regarding dangerous and vicious dogs, and deciding whether the code should be stronger or broader.

City attorney Dave Wesner, chairman of the group, handed out copies of the city code and the state statutes so the members could compare them.

The first step, he said, is to look at the definitions of dangerous and vicious dogs, and decide whether the wording should be changed.

In Decker’s case, the dogs didn’t bite anyone, so they are considered dangerous. If they had bitten a person, they would be deemed vicious, which carries stronger penalties.

According to the city code, a vicious dog attacks and injures a human or animal without being provoked. A dangerous dog ap-proaches a person in an apparent attitude of attack, but does not bite.

Decker, a member of the panel, is grateful no one was hurt that evening. But he’s frustrated with the current law, saying, “You shouldn’t have to get bitten for a dog to be (considered) vicious.”

Panel member Carolyn Wands also recounted a time a couple of years ago when a neighbor’s pit bull got loose and, she said, “took a hunk out of the back of my leg. He clamped down and would not let go.”

That dog, which was destroyed, belonged to a family that apparently treated it with love.

“I love dogs, but we have to do something to make an owner more responsible,” she said. “Once a dog has done a vicious attack, something has to be done.”

Wesner told the members they had free rein and were not limited by the city and state statutes. The only restriction, he said, is that a law cannot be breed-specific.

The state law says municipalities are not limited in how they control animals, “provided that no regulation or ordinance is specific to breed.”

Also, he said, a law has to be reasonable and within the realm of enforcement.

Member Glenn Michaelson made the point early in the meeting that in almost all cases, the owners can be blamed for a dog’s aggressiveness. A dog that’s beaten will become vicious, he said.

“It all goes back to the owner,” he said.

Wesner agreed, saying, “The dog creates the incident, but the burden is on the owner.”

Diana Bryant, another panel member, brought up the idea of passing a law to make spaying and neutering of dogs and cats mandatory, except for licensed breeders. Hamilton County in Indiana has such a law, she said.

“That would take care of a lot of issues,” she added.

Other members of the subcommittee are Lois Cooper, Ward 2 alderwoman, and JoAnn Adams, director of the Humane Society of Danville. Adams explained some of the shelter’s procedures when an officer is called to a dangerous or vicious dog case.

Wesner asked the members to think about the definitions of dangerous and vicious dogs, and to consider what action should be taken in both cases. He also asked the panel to research other cities’ laws.

The subcommittee will meet again next month, but a date was not set.