opinions on this issue

[ArchersMomma]

Not sure if this has been a topic here or not. It's regarding a dog that is to be put to death because her owner was somewhat irresponsible. Seems extreme to me but I wondered what you all thought. She is fighting the city of Halifax to stop her dog being killed. Here is a link to her blogspot (sorry if this isn't the appropriate way to post a link).

 

http://freebrindi.blogspot.com/search?upda...;max-results=10

[RuthBelle]

I looked through the blog, and tried to google "Brindi, the dog", but still can't come up with exactly why this dog was seized and the owner is going through hell to try to get her back. What started all this?

 

I'll wait until I find out, then I'll voice my opinion. Thanks!

[ArchersMomma]

This is what was on that page posted by her owner (sorry, that link seems to take you to the most recent post...not sure why):

 

What went wrong?

While I generally am able to keep Brindi under my control, on certain occasions, resulting from unfortunate coincidences, she suddenly went after other dogs. She grabbed them by the scruff of the neck and just held. I was able to separate them quickly, and none of the dogs required extensive medical treatments. The first was apparently reported not because of the other dog’s condition – the owner declined my offer to pay for a vet - but out of concern that “it might have been a child”. The police issued me a warning and a further one for not having a municipal licence, which I made sure to obtain immediately. The second incident, reported last April, resulted in a minor injury and would have normally resulted in a fine, possibly an order to build a fence . Instead, they issued Brindi, who rarely ever licks anybody, let alone threatens them, with a permanent muzzle order, requiring strict compliance, even on my own property.

 

Why was this done?

Records show that the animal control officer on the case brought the muzzle order into play when the other owner expressed concern for my costs, since I had already offered to pay for her $150 visit to the vet (the cost of a general exam for a new patient, and precautionary antibiotics for small puncture wounds). I do not know if she was cognizant that a muzzle order would effectively hold a death warrant over my dog's head. Once in place, rigid local by-laws dictate euthanization after any further violation, regardless of mitigating or extenuating circumstances - even if she was seen without the muzzle on for a moment.

 

 

When the same officer issued me the muzzle order, he claimed it was his boss's response to a number of phone calls demanding Brindi be put down, suggesting that this may be because of my outsider status. He swore he had nothing to do with it. When I begged him to let me pay a fine and build a fence instead, he said the muzzle order was permanent and could not be appealed. Suddenly, Brindi was no longer a dog with a challenging dominance problem: she was a threat to public safety.

 

In a community where a wide range of dog behavior is tolerated, this heavyhanded action was baffling. To avoid another incident, I began agility training with Brindi in April, to improve her recall, and I planned to build a fence as soon as it was physically possible. This summer, I began work on my heritage home, a major renovation to add a new foundation for a basement and garage. The contractor failed to meet a completion date of August 1 - not even close - and until I can get things going again, the house remains lifted on steel beams, surrounded by rocky piles of dirt.

 

On July 20, Brindi slipped out my patio door before I could finish muzzling and leashing her. With me close behind, calling her, she ran through the huge piles of rocks and dirt to the street where a man was walking two dogs, I saw her circle them with the man kicking at her. She then ran across the street, and with assistance from a passing driver, I got her home within a minute. To my knowledge, the dogs were not injured. After simply scolding me briefly, the man, whom I did not know, left the scene. He later said that he hadn't thought to call Animal Control until he heard about earlier incidents. And I can’t help wondering if these included a false rumour or two. In any event, without contacting me, he did make a report, and the seizure order was issued within four days.

 

 

Brindi is now in the SPCA-run city pound. Instead of hour-long strolls in the park, she is only walked for five minutes, three times a day. I am not permitted to see her. Unless I can manage to win an expensive court case against the city, I will never see Brindi again!

 

[RuthBelle]

I did find the beginning of the blog with the info on what started all this. What a stomach churning situation for all involved.

[ArchersMomma]

at the top of the page on the left there is a picture of the owner and Brindi. If you click on the picture it takes you to the page that describes where the ordeal began.

[bsms99]

With dogs, I've read pit owners defend their dog after it killed a child. I also know of towns that have gone bonkers with anti-dog legislation. Without more facts, comment isn't possible.

[beachdogz]

i agree - this is just one side of the story. I'd like to hear the other.

[lrayburn]

Yeah there are always two sides to the story but I think the owner's side says enough. She hasn't accepted any responsibility and isn't realistic about the situation. Based on her past performance, she doesn't sound capable of continuing to own the dog without someone else's dog being at risk again in the future. The dog has been involved in two incidents and is required to wear a muzzle in public and yet the dog manages to make it out the door without a muzzle or apparently a leash?!?

 

Its not fair that the dog will lose her life because of her owner isn't capable of managing her but unless the owner steps up to the plate and takes some real responsibility and actually changes her behavior, it would probably be safer for the public at large for the dog to be euthanized. Animal control is only doing its job.

 

Lisa

[afrancis]

While I generally am able to keep Brindi under my control, on certain occasions, resulting from unfortunate coincidences, she suddenly went after other dogs. She grabbed them by the scruff of the neck and just held. I was able to separate them quickly, and none of the dogs required extensive medical treatments.

 

Well I think this is what happens when galaxies collide, so to speak. I agree with Lisa in as far as this owner has not stepped up to the plate and seems to be playing a semantics game, but yet not taking ultimate responsibility for her dog and its very frightening actions.

 

The combination of a new person in town, a home that seems to be 'under construction' (perhaps appearing somewhat derelict to those who don't care to know this woman's situation), a pit bull-type dog (I believe this is the case), several incidents of biting requiring vet care and medication, lack of recall, escaping the house without a muzzle or a leash, multiple warnings, lack of fence (although there seems money enough to continue renovations) and an owner who does not seem to understand why this behaviour is taking place and believes agility training will help her correct it -- all of these things are going against her.

 

Too bad for the dog

Ailsa

 

P.S. When I was a child, my family had a dog that was part dachsund part beagle who routinely ran out the front door and one day, chased two children down the street and nipped at their rain boots, puncturing the rubber. The police showed up and apart from the guy's obvious surprise at the type of beast responsible for this vile behaviour and the dog's very docile demeanor (he wasn't usually like this with strangers, so I'm sure he knew who this guy and what his business was), he left and told us to control the dog. I'm quite sure that if our dog had been large, a so-called 'bully breed' and in any way threatening, the outcome would have been different. I will be the first to say that my parents and their young children (us!) had no business owning a dog since we didn't take the time to train ourselves or him.

[theshine]

Am I reading correctly, that the dog "slipped out" three different times and went after other dogs? Sad situation for all, but there never should have been a second time, much less a third. There is a woman in my neighborhood with a dog that "slips out" and has attacked my leashed dogs twice, once requiring a trip to the vet, and other dogs as well. The lady is nice as pie, as I'm sure this owner is, but they both need to get a clue. If they want to own dog aggressive dogs, they need to be properly contained and under control at all times.

[ArchersMomma]

K..I guess my point is this...while the owner may be irresponsible (and from what I read she is), how is it fair that the dog is to be euthanized? The dog did not attack a person.

 

It seems to me, this tells me that no ones dog is safe from euthinasia for getting lose from their owners. I agree that the aggressive behaviour should be dealt with and perhaps the dog should not be returned to the owner, but to kill it because the owner has no idea how to train it?? Seems a tad extreme to me.

 

Two separate animal behaviourist/dog trainers were brought in and all said the dog could be rehabilitated without question. Does the dog not have a right to her life? I mean from the dogs point of view, she was only protecting her territory no? Mind you I suppose I would feel angry if it was my dog she'd attacked but I honestly wouldn't advocate having the dog euthanized for protecting what she feels is her turf. The dog was adopted at the age of five and as far as I could ascertain there was no information on her prior "life". Who knows what abuses she suffered at the hands of other dogs?

 

So what I'm asking, is it fair that she is to be put to death because of an irresponsible owner?

[Laurae]

So what I'm asking, is it fair that she is to be put to death because of an irresponsible owner?

 

No less fair than the thousands of dogs PTS daily for simply existing where nobody wants them...

This dog sounds like a menace to me. I have a lot of dogs that "get out" in my neighborhood, some of which are aggressive. I often must pack up my dogs and drive down the block to the trailhead (it would take about 2 minutes to walk) to avoid a confrontation on the street with my leashed dogs. People deserve the right to walk down their own streets without their dogs being attacked (and I'd flip out if a dog had my dog's neck in its jaws--I don't care if it "hasn't seriously hurt another dog before"; it has hurt other dogs in the past and in that moment it has the potential to kill my dog instantly). In a perfect world this dog shouldn't be put down, but to use up resources rehabbing an aggressive dog when in the imperfect world we live in, many, many shelter dogs who have done nothing wrong are put down daily--well, I'm not rallying to this particular dog's defense.

[Lenajo]

how is it fair that the dog is to be euthanized?

 

How would you feel if it was your puppy the dog had by the neck, and it was the *THIRD* time the owner had allowed the dog to attack other dogs?

 

A dog like that can ruin your dog for life. It doesn't matter if the owner pays the vet bills.

 

Once was an accident.

Twice was a fixable problem and animal control gave clear options

Three times is a public hazard.

[momtotwo]

I feel for this person as I'm sure she loves this dog but it seems like she is unable to care/handle this dog. No it has not bitten a human but it would seem that it could be a possiblity if the dog is allowed to continue on in this behaviour. I didn't see anywhere that she had sought help in the dogs training?

 

Placing the dog with a responsible rescue/trainer would be ideal. I have to think though that I would be heart broken to lose my dog but would almost rather have him put to sleep than have to spend all this time in a shelter with this label. I think it would be a hard decisian but the most humane and caring!

[juliepoudrier]

I agree with Laura and Lisa on this one. No, the poor dog probably shouldn't have pay the price for its owner's ignorance and blatant lack of ability to accept responsibility for the previous incidents. And, no, a human wasn't bitten, but how long would it be before one was (while trying to pry this woman's dog off their own dog)? A muzzle was not a hardship for this woman. It was a fair compromise to let her keep a dog she is apparently unable to control properly and at the same time keep other dogs (and possibly people) protected. The fact that she thinks she has no culpability here--and is full of excuses as to why she couldn't build a fence or couldn't control her dog--is pretty staggering. I mean if you (the owner in this case) knew that your dog was required to wear a muzzle out in public at all times with the consequence of not complying being the dog's loss of life, wouldn't you be super careful to make sure the dog never got out without a muzzle on? And when you screw up (yet again) and allowed to dog to escape sans muzzle, why should you expect to be given another chance? Hasn't the dog already had three chances?

 

ETA: Wendy said it better and much more succinctly (no surprise there!).

 

J.

[Pippin's person]

People deserve the right to walk down their own streets without their dogs being attacked (and I'd flip out if a dog had my dog's neck in its jaws--I don't care if it "hasn't seriously hurt another dog before"; in that moment it has the potential to kill my dog instantly).

 

This was actually my thought as well. I think there's no question that this dog got a raw deal and that's massively unfair. But until more people learn to take seriously the responsibility they accept when they bring a dog (or any animal dependent on them for their life and livelihood) into their home, this is the kind of thing that will just keep happening.

[Lenajo]

Placing the dog with a responsible rescue/trainer would be ideal.

 

I'm sorry to vent in your direction, but I've just about sick of hearing this option. There are millions of good dogs out there with no dangerous issues. Why do we expect those of us who have bothered to learn to train to take this dog? Why should a rescue take on a dog with an attack history and a muzzle order (think he'll be easy to place?, or just a life residence taking up space another placeable dog needs)? Should trainers be an automatic clearinghouse to take on, and likely keep, a dog with issues just because they've got skills?

 

If somebody *wants* to, and offers, that's great and happy life too them both. If that's you, speak up. If it's not you, then well...you get my point.

 

Again this is an impersonal vent regarding pet peeve of mine. I can't tell you how many calls I've gotten in the Holiday Spirit of the last 2 weeks from people who think that beacuse I "wuv" dogs and no how to train them that I should be greatful to take their <insert your serious issues caused by humans here> and turn it loose on my sheep. Also, since I live on a farm I am apparently the place of choice for dogs that hate people and kill cats. What, I don't have guests? And I like my cats!

[ziggzmom]

K..I guess my point is this...while the owner may be irresponsible (and from what I read she is), how is it fair that the dog is to be euthanized? The dog did not attack a person.

 

It seems to me, this tells me that no ones dog is safe from euthinasia for getting lose from their owners. I agree that the aggressive behaviour should be dealt with and perhaps the dog should not be returned to the owner, but to kill it because the owner has no idea how to train it?? Seems a tad extreme to me.

 

Two separate animal behaviourist/dog trainers were brought in and all said the dog could be rehabilitated without question. Does the dog not have a right to her life? I mean from the dogs point of view, she was only protecting her territory no? Mind you I suppose I would feel angry if it was my dog she'd attacked but I honestly wouldn't advocate having the dog euthanized for protecting what she feels is her turf. The dog was adopted at the age of five and as far as I could ascertain there was no information on her prior "life". Who knows what abuses she suffered at the hands of other dogs?

 

So what I'm asking, is it fair that she is to be put to death because of an irresponsible owner?

 

 

Hi,

 

Fair or not, it appears that the owner isn't willing or able to do what needs to be done to insure the safety of other dogs, so it appears that the dog will be the one to suffer. It's a difficult situation for sure. Whether or not the dog had suffered abuses at the hands of other dogs in her prior life, if the owner was acting responsibly it would be a non-issue.

 

Janet

[momtotwo]

I understand your "vent", my thought was just that if there is someone who wants the dog (she said it had been evaluated and deemed rehabable (is that a word!)) that those who evaluated should be able to take it if they want it. Not that someone should HAVE to take it.

 

I still feel like putting this dog to sleep might be the most humane thing we could do for it at this time, and realize that might not be a popular feeling but this owner cannot have this dog back and why continue to punish the dog.

[Root Beer]

So what I'm asking, is it fair that she is to be put to death because of an irresponsible owner?

 

No, it's not fair, but it happens.

 

Many very nice dogs who are simply abandoned by their owners are put to death. Many dogs with "issues" are put to death because their owners cannot deal with them, or sometimes, simply don't want to. Many dogs are put to death because they snapped at someone in justified defense in the face of harassment by a human who should have known better. And many, many, many dogs are put to death simply because there is no room for them in shelters, etc. None of that is fair, but it happens all the time.

 

Personally, I don't feel that a "nice" dog has more of a "right" to live than a dog with issues. My heart dog is a dog with issues and I have a great deal of love for those types of dogs. At the same time, a dog with serious issues needs an owner who is not only responsible, but willing to go many, many, many extra miles to ensure the dog's safety and well being (and, equally, the well being and safety of other dogs and people). And those homes are not so easy to come by.

 

I feel very bad for the dog in this case. He certainly didn't deserve this on account of an irresponsbile owner. It is truly a shame and it's not fair to the dog. But it is what it is. The dog certainly cannot go back to an owner who is not willing to take necessary meausres to keep her dog safe and others safe from her dog.

[Ooky]

The only negative experience I've ever had with another dog while walking Odin was when we were on the opposite side of the street, on leash, and some dog came barrelling out of its house from across the street at us. The dog got Odin and they were suddenly tangling out in the street with Odin screaming. In the end, there was no harm done, and the woman ran out and got her dog. But what got me mad about the encounter, even though I was thankful the other dog had clearly been more bluster than substance, was how offended the other woman seemed towards me. She explained that her dog hates puppies and that "you have to be careful". WTH? I was on a public sidewalk on-leash, her dog came at us! But she honestly didn't see the gravity of what her dog had done. She was frusterated, yes, and irritated over the interaction, but seemed to be more than willing to find some way to convince herself it was really our fault, or just "those circumstances" or something. I am not sure what she though we should have done, but I was getting the feeling she was suggesting that I be careful when he front door opens, or better yet, maybe I should think of a new route. She never apologized and insisted her dog was wonderful, it just hated puppies.

 

This person in this thread reminds me of that woman. I can't even begin to fathom the cluelessness, or at least the extreme committment to rationalization.

[Shetlander]

It seems to me, this tells me that no ones dog is safe from euthinasia for getting lose from their owners.

 

That strikes me as an overstatement. This isn't a simple matter of a dog getting loose and running around being a friendly but annoying goof. This is a dog getting loose to attack or threaten other animals -- at least three times and after a muzzle order, no less. I don't follow the reasoning why she hasn't been able to have a fence installed. And then there is the fact that the dog has no recall and she has failed to put some sort of procedure in place for taking her dog out. For example, not leashing and muzzling right by a door but instead in a different room. The blog entry has a lot of excuses and minimizing the problem, not to mention the owner's responsibility.

 

So what I'm asking, is it fair that she is to be put to death because of an irresponsible owner?

 

No, but as others have pointed out many, many dogs, those with problems and those who would be fabulous, easy to live with pets are put to sleep because there aren't enough homes. Sadly, life is not always fair -- especially not for dogs who rely on their people to manage and train them to behave in ways that allow them to live safely in society. But meanwhile, those owners who do keep their dogs under control deserve to be able to go out in public without a loose, untrained, mismanaged dog menacing or attacking them.

[ArchersMomma]

I guess what I'm having an issue with is that the owner has agreed to pay all expenses to have the dog rehabilitated. However, I don't think she should have the dog back so if that were the case, she may not be so willing to pay for rehab. She did install a fence but you're correct, why did it have to get to the point it's at before she did so?

 

I guess I'm just heartbroken for the dog. I would be very upset if my dog was attacked by hers but I still would blame the owner not the dog. She hasn't been fined so I don't understand why the dog is being punished.

 

I agree on principle with what most of you are saying and it's heartbreaking that so many dogs are PTS that are perfectly fine because their owners are irresponsible and not dog-educated. But it just somehow seems wrong to me that this dog has so many advocates and yet will likely be put down in the end...it's just seems very un-Canadian to me I guess.

[Lenajo]

Nobody ever said it was fair. I think she should pay the bill for the euthanasia at the vet least, and preferably also some healthy sized fines for breaking the muzzle mandate from AC - the cause of the final incident.

 

In fact, if life were perfect, she'd be treated as if she had killed that dog herself. Because she did. Not the people who were walking their own dogs, not animal control....

[Shetlander]

I guess what I'm having an issue with is that the owner has agreed to pay all expenses to have the dog rehabilitated.

 

Does she have someone who will take the dog, not just to try to rehabilitate but to keep in a secure, dog savvy home? And would she be willing to relinguish the dog to someone else? Then, maybe a court would be willing to try that option. Otherwise, I don't see a reasonable way to solve the basic problem of keeping other animals safe.