Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > Dog News and Articles


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-08-2006, 08:17 AM
Barb04's Avatar
Barb04 Barb04 is offline
Love my pets
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 27,014
Default

I just read the posting about the chihauhaus attacking the police officer.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/30/ank....ap/index.html

I wonder why Florida doesn't look into the chihauhaus background also.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-08-2006, 10:42 AM
doberkim doberkim is offline
Naturally Natural
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,380
Default

does the chihuahuas background really matter in this case? just because chihuahuas attacked in another situation, doesnt mean that applies to this case.

its a shame, but in fact the owner has been granted pretty lenient repercussions for the situation - declaring the dog dangerous is NOT asking for it to be euthanized. she is the one making that decision.

for once, i actually think the law got it right! they are not demanding the dog be euthanized, they are not blowing out of proportion some innocent thing the dogs did...

(all this being said, i cant access the original link)
__________________

ARCHX Bowie's Semper Fidelis v DRU, VC CDX ASCA-CDX CDX-H RE RL1X RL2X RL3 ATT WAC TT CGC FFX-OG

Beja's Bombs Away v Bowie, CD ASCA-CD CD-H BN RN NA RL1 WAC ATT YTT PTT CGC

Bowie's Here Comes the Boom!


http://otchrah.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-28-2006, 05:48 PM
Saje Saje is offline
Island dweller
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 23,932
Default

Have you heard anything new barb?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-28-2006, 06:54 PM
oriondw oriondw is offline
user not active
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,039
Default

I think its idiotic to put down a dog because it killed another dog...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-29-2006, 10:34 AM
doberkim doberkim is offline
Naturally Natural
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,380
Default

why? thats the OWNERS decision, not the law. the OWNER wants to euthanize this dog - why shouldnt she be able to if she wants?
__________________

ARCHX Bowie's Semper Fidelis v DRU, VC CDX ASCA-CDX CDX-H RE RL1X RL2X RL3 ATT WAC TT CGC FFX-OG

Beja's Bombs Away v Bowie, CD ASCA-CD CD-H BN RN NA RL1 WAC ATT YTT PTT CGC

Bowie's Here Comes the Boom!


http://otchrah.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-29-2006, 11:36 AM
MelissaCato's Avatar
MelissaCato MelissaCato is offline
ĜȫƝ ₩īĿ
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Under a Rock in the USA!
Posts: 1,461
Smile Hummmm ....

I think this was a simple case of dogs being dogs in a pack at large, and wanting to play rough. Not realizing thier strength the chi was killed.
I don't think the dogs intended to "kill" the little one. I think it was more lets all play rough... kinda thing. Given the size of the chi thing went wrong. If it was another "big" dog things might have been different.

Who or what is to blame? I would have to say the "owner". Because we are all responsible for our pets actions. Regardless. It comes with the territory.

Once a dog is deemed "dangerous" doesn't matter where or who houses the dog ... he still has the same title with the law. Neutered, adopted what have you.

If she is so into not paying the insurance or the "bad" rep. as the breeder, I think the best would be to take the flack for the publicity neuter the dog and adopt him to someone who will be responsible for the "dangerous" dog.

Just my thoughts.
__________________
"Never miss a Good Chance to Wake Up"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-29-2006, 02:38 PM
Saje Saje is offline
Island dweller
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 23,932
Default

I do not think that this dog should be put down. There are plenty of dog aggressive dogs that are happy and loving animals with responsible owners. It should be neutered and adopted to someone responsible.

We don't even know that this dog is the one that killed the little one. It seems likely but we don't know that. That's not good enough to judge a person. Why is it good enough to judge a dog?

And I think it's very relevant whether or not the little dog was aggressive or not. If it was, then they were both just being dogs. Sad as it is.

Anyway, Barb, have you heard anything new?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-29-2006, 03:34 PM
Barb04's Avatar
Barb04 Barb04 is offline
Love my pets
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 27,014
Default

Here's the latest article from the Ocala paper regarding the proceedings:

Article published Jan 19, 2006

"Some of that is irreversible."
Richard Jones
Grunnah's attorney on sterilizing the dogs and enforcing restrictions



Appeals process begins in dog case

CATHERINE DOLINSKI
THE STAR-BANNER

OCALA - The owner of three prized, purebred dogs "declared dangerous" by Marion County officials, asked a Marion County court judge Wednesday to delay enforcing the decision to sterilize the dogs until she can appeal it in court.

Attorneys for Debi Grunnah, a professional dog and horse breeder in Ocala, filed motions in county court Wednesday to stay enforcement of the Marion County Code Enforcement Board's Jan. 4 decision to sterilize and closely confine Grunnah's three Anatolian shepherds for killing a couple's Chihuahua.

The case has elicited cries of protest from dog breeders around the country because one of the shepherds, Rocky, is a veritable celebrity on the dog show circuit and was ranked nationally last year as top in his breed. Grunnah, who did not return phone calls this week, maintained immediately following the hearing that at least two of the dogs were innocent and vowed to appeal the ruling.

In her motions, Grunnah declared her intent to appeal the ruling, requested a court hearing and requested that the court delay the county from enforcing the county board's ruling, despite an apparent requirement to the contrary outlined in the county's "dangerous dog" ordinance. The ordinance states that "in the event of an appeal . . . the owner of the dog must obtain a certificate of registration for the dog from the animal control authority."

Grunnah's attorney, Richard Jones, said that would render an appeal virtually meaningless, from a practical standpoint. "That entails doing everything," he said, explaining that obtaining the "certificate of registration" also means sterilizing the dogs and enforcing the rest of the restrictions listed in the county code. "Some of that is irreversible."

Jones said he believes that part of the code was written in error, since it otherwise follows the example of state statute. In the case of an appeal, the state statute enforces a ruling against a dog only if and after a county court judge upholds the county's "dangerous dog" classification.

As written, the county code would require Grunnah to obtain the certificate of registration within 14 days of the code enforcement board's Jan. 4 decision - which would mean Wednesday, counting weekends and holidays, or Jan. 25 counting only business days - or in the event of an appeal. Not obtaining the certificate is illegal, according to the ordinance.

Attempts to reach code enforcement officials or Assistant County Attorney Tom McNamara, who was sent notice of Grunnah's appeal Wednesday, were unsuccessful.

After the hearing on Jan. 4, Grunnah said the county's dog ordinance was unduly harsh and unfair to dog owners. Jones would not say whether Grunnah intended to appeal the ruling based on the facts of the case, or if she would challenge the law itself. The case is currently assigned to Judge Frances King, according to the online records of the Marion County Clerk of Court.

Grunnah said on Jan. 4 that the county's ruling against the dogs amounted to a death sentence for them. She will have them destroyed unless she wins an appeal, she said, because their "dangerous" classification would cost her the insurance she needs to run her breeding business.

Attendants at the veterinary practice of Holly Vance in Ocala confirmed that, as of Wednesday, all three "dangerous dogs" remained in custody there.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-29-2006, 05:36 PM
doberkim doberkim is offline
Naturally Natural
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,380
Default

you've got to be kidding me - people here are arguing about whether or not to keep the dog alive, and this "breeder" is the most concerned about keeping him INTACT?

sorry, the law is perfectly fine in this instance - you guys seem to be missing the fact that the LAW is not asking to euthanize this dog - the OWNER is making that decision because she doesn't WANT to take the responsibility. her actions, besides screaming of irresponsibility, are her own.

there are INNOCENT dogs being blacklisted and EUTHANIZED all over the country, and we are going to make a big deal out of this dog because hes a SHOW dog, when its his own OWNER who wants it to be euthanized?

sorry, there are dogs out there being wrongfully accussed of actions, who need help and support. owners whose only action is simply OWNING a dog and their dogs are confiscated and euthanized. ill focus on them, thanks very much.
__________________

ARCHX Bowie's Semper Fidelis v DRU, VC CDX ASCA-CDX CDX-H RE RL1X RL2X RL3 ATT WAC TT CGC FFX-OG

Beja's Bombs Away v Bowie, CD ASCA-CD CD-H BN RN NA RL1 WAC ATT YTT PTT CGC

Bowie's Here Comes the Boom!


http://otchrah.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-29-2006, 06:10 PM
Saje Saje is offline
Island dweller
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 23,932
Default

Ok you do that. Most of us are concerned about this because it's something close to Barb who we care about. And I don't like to see ANY animal put down just because of sloppy ownership regardless of whether it's purebred or not.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site