These people can not be sane!!??

 "They can't bring my dog back, so the only thing they can do is give me money."

 

That quote really kinda scares me. I think the guy's crazy, but I'm not weighing in on whether or not I think suing them is right or if the shelter was within its rights. I would never dream of asking people for that much money even if they accidentally killed my dog. I also wouldn't have left my dog in the shelter for that long. It seems to me the guy was just using this dog to make money, and when the dog needed him most - when he was picked up and taken to the shelter - the guy couldn't even get there within four days. I know what it's like to be broke, but I would borrow money, count coins, I would do just about anything I had to so I could go get my dog.

Dog_ma

the city has damaged his income by *killing* his beloved pet.

But, at the time of euthansia, the pet was no longer property of the owner - he blonged to the SHELTER. The shelter has an obligation to hold pets for 4 days. After that, the pet becomes the SHELTER'S PROPERTY. I don't believe the shelter owes this man a penny. He allowed his 'beloved pet' to roam the streets, and then knowingly left him at the shelter for over a week. The shelter cared for, fed, vaccinated, picked up, etc. this pet - and probably spent a lot more on him than the $100 RTO fee.

We had a very DA dog come into our shelter a while back. He was a stray, we had picked up after someone saw him being dumped. We had the dog for about a week, he was very people friendly. The day of his evaluation, he failed horribly for DA (seek and destroy). I happened to be in the office, and a lady walked in crying hysterically asking if we had seen her dog. She showed me a picture, and I said I think we have him. I walked her downstairs, and brought out the dog. It was her dog. Her roomies had dumped him while she was out of town. We gave her the benefit of the doubt and gave the dog back. Not a month later, the dog was back...he was in horrible condition, and had wounds on his head. We re-evaluated him, and decided to neuter him and see how bad his aggression was. He passed, and is waiting for his forever home. We had NO REASON to give that dog back to his 'owner' and frankly, we shouldn't have. She did not pick him up right away, she waited probably about 4-5 days before she came back for him. By law, we could have put him down and she would have no claim at all.

Sounds like they're just looking to "supplement their income" in whatever way they can.  I imagine if someone had hit the dog while running at large, they would have sued them as well.  Idiots. 

erica1989

But, at the time of euthansia, the pet was no longer property of the owner - he blonged to the SHELTER

They admitted they did wrong, policy is out the window when you stand in front of a news camera and admit you should not have euthanized the dog.

aDorkable

 "They can't bring my dog back, so the only thing they can do is give me money."

 

That quote really kinda scares me. I think the guy's crazy, but I'm not weighing in on whether or not I think suing them is right or if the shelter was within its rights. I would never dream of asking people for that much money even if they accidentally killed my dog. I also wouldn't have left my dog in the shelter for that long. It seems to me the guy was just using this dog to make money, and when the dog needed him most - when he was picked up and taken to the shelter - the guy couldn't even get there within four days. I know what it's like to be broke, but I would borrow money, count coins, I would do just about anything I had to so I could go get my dog.

 

The man said this in the context of punishing the shelter, though! And he's right about the punishing aspect of monetary damages.

It is odd to me that so few people are upset that this dog is dead. Dead. For all that we here on idog talk about saving dogs and rescuing dogs, where is the anger that a dog with a home was "disposed of"?

Gina was right - we'd all be really mad if we liked the owner, and approved of the way he kept his dogs. We'd be aghast if the belle of Westminster was accidentally introduced to Mr. Needle despite a notation that the owner was going to come for him or her.
 

erica1989

Dog_ma

the city has damaged his income by *killing* his beloved pet.

But, at the time of euthansia, the pet was no longer property of the owner - he blonged to the SHELTER. The shelter has an obligation to hold pets for 4 days. After that, the pet becomes the SHELTER'S PROPERTY. I don't believe the shelter owes this man a penny.

And the shelter waved those rights when they AGREED to HOLD the dog till the pick up date.  It would have been one thing if they told the owner, no you have to come get it within the 4 day limit, but instead they told them they yes the would hold their dog a few extra days so the owners could get the cash from their next paycheck.

What disturbs me most about this case is an innocent dog that was leading what appears to be a pretty good life was killed because someone didn't take the time to check what was posted right on the dog's kennel door.  If nothing else perhaps the lawsuit will encourage the shelter to fix a system that would allow such a mistake to occur in the first place.

an innocent dog that was leading what appears to be a pretty good life was killed because someone didn't take the time to check what was posted right on the dog's kennel door.

1. All dogs are innocent, even those who are evalutated and determined to be "seek and destroy" dog aggressive
2. ""Pretty good life" is quite relative.  Some might say that being used as a stud and income supplementation, and left in the shelter until $100 could be scraped up to redeem him, might not indicate idyllic living conditions.  Especially if you consider that basic health costs for pre-breeding screening cost at least twice that.  The test for brucellosis alone is around $100 around here.  What if their "beloved pet" had come down with severe arthritis in his later years, or renal failure - hmm, I wonder whether their beloved pet was on HW protection?  A couple weeks ago Gus ate a bunch of litter from the duck pen and showed signs that he was developing a blockage.  We were facing a vet bill of a couple thousand dollars, or more.  Before we even went to the vet, we called a couple people and made arrangements for emergency loans.  We have NO credit, so that was the only option we had.  Thankfully, Gus obliged us by passing the chunk of pine shavings just a few hours later.  But that's what you do when your dog really is a beloved family member.
   
3. Connecting the dots here - "was killed because someone didn't take the time to check what was posted right on the dog's kennel door."  Well, no, the dog died because he was intact, allowed to escape, and then his beloved family members didn't make picking him up a priority. 
   

People like that make me so sad - they cannot take responsibility for themselves, need to go on crusades and find dragons to slay everywhere else.  Sometimes life hands you a sucky hand of cards, sometimes it was avoidable and sometimes not.  What the world needs a little less of is hate and anger and maybe a little more remorse for the state of events that has brought us to arguing over who has the right to kill a dog or keep it in misery.

I think that the part that really bothers me is the fact that some idiot was planning on breeding a Lab mix for profit, plus allowing his so called beloved animal run at large!  AAARGH!

Why do some backwater people feel that just 'cause they have an unspayed or neutered dog, they can breed them for profit; unconcerned about the health of the dogs/puppies, the population control issues, or any other factor involved with the responsible breeding aspect. 

Now the moron can't start his own puppy mill, so he wants to sue the city for $206,000 dollars????  I would honestly like to know if this figure is what he feels would be the total amount of 'lost income' from the puppies, or what the estimated emotional and replacement value of his Lab x would equal?

Now I do admit that if the city accidentally euthanized my dog, yes, I would press the lawsuit factor (although my dogs would never ever have the opportunity to be roaming free, or be in a position that would require them to be picked up by animal services), but $206,000?  Come on, is this guy for real?

Lastly, with all of the costs that are associated with the proper rearing and breeding of dogs, why could this guy not afford the $109.00 to get his pet out of animal control?  Something tells me that this guy isn't a reputable breeder, nor is he a responsible dog owner! (Typed with sarcasm.)

brookcove

"was killed because someone didn't take the time to check what was posted right on the dog's kennel door."  Well, no, the dog died because he was intact, allowed to escape, and then his beloved family members didn't make picking him up a priority. 

Exactly what I was going to say. No, I'm not happy that the dog died - who would be? But I do not think it is fair to go after the shelter workers like that. If people would take responsibility for their animals, there would be no reason for animal control agencies. These people KNEW that their dog was escaping, and yet - they did nothing to prevent it. They said he had gotten out a FEW times, this was not his first escape. I know if my dog started escaping from the yard you can bet your grandma he would be on a leash attached to my hand at all times when outside.

brookcove

"Pretty good life" is quite relative.  Some might say that being used as a stud and income supplementation, and left in the shelter until $100 could be scraped up to redeem him, might not indicate idyllic living conditions.  Especially if you consider that basic health costs for pre-breeding screening cost at least twice that.  The test for brucellosis alone is around $100 around here.  What if their "beloved pet" had come down with severe arthritis in his later years, or renal failure - hmm, I wonder whether their beloved pet was on HW protection?  A couple weeks ago Gus ate a bunch of litter from the duck pen and showed signs that he was developing a blockage.  We were facing a vet bill of a couple thousand dollars, or more.  Before we even went to the vet, we called a couple people and made arrangements for emergency loans.  We have NO credit, so that was the only option we had.  Thankfully, Gus obliged us by passing the chunk of pine shavings just a few hours later.  But that's what you do when your dog really is a beloved family member.

His living conditions seemed more idyllic than death.  Some might say since you don't have $10,000 set aside for each one of your dogs, for emergencies it is irresponsible and would result in less then idyllic conditions for your dogs.  The fact is though the shelter didn't put him down because of bad living conditions or because they thought he was suffering.  They killed him because someone made a mistake.

 

brookcove

Connecting the dots here - "was killed because someone didn't take the time to check what was posted right on the dog's kennel door."  Well, no, the dog died because he was intact, allowed to escape, and then his beloved family members didn't make picking him up a priority.

Nope, the dog was living and breathing when he entered the shelter and became their responsibility.  Yes, the owners might have set the ball rolling, but it was the shelter that killed him.  It would be like Child Welfare taking in a kid because their parents aren't being responsible, then doing something negligent that results in the child's death.  They can't go in point a finger at the parents' when the child was their responsibility at the time. The phrase, two wrongs don't make a right comes to mind here.

 

brookcove

People like that make me so sad - they cannot take responsibility for themselves, need to go on crusades and find dragons to slay everywhere else.  Sometimes life hands you a sucky hand of cards, sometimes it was avoidable and sometimes not.  What the world needs a little less of is hate and anger and maybe a little more remorse for the state of events that has brought us to arguing over who has the right to kill a dog or keep it in misery.

I think this was a completely preventable situation.  The Shelter already admitted in the news report that they need to revise policies so this doesn't happen again.  I wonder how many other dogs there might have died early and not had that extra day to get adopted because someone wasn't paying attention to what was written on their kennel doors? 

Perhaps I just expect too high of a standard on people who's jobs it is to look out and protect the animals in their care.  It's hard to fix a mistake resulting in death.

The dog had escaped MULTIPLE times and nobody bothered to fix the FENCE? If you don't have the money to fix the fence. at least tie him up while he's outside so he can't get away in the first place!

Stupid, irresponsible people. 

 

BannedBreed Lover

Why do some backwater people feel that just 'cause they have an unspayed or neutered dog, they can breed them for profit; unconcerned about the health of the dogs/puppies, the population control issues, or any other factor involved with the responsible breeding aspect. 

Now the moron can't start his own puppy mill, so he wants to sue the city for $206,000 dollars????  I would honestly like to know if this figure is what he feels would be the total amount of 'lost income' from the puppies, or what the estimated emotional and replacement value of his Lab x would equal?

The real morons are the ignorant people buying the mixed breed puppies.  They must be paying a considerable amount if he is considering it profitable income.

Normally I would hold a dog owner responsible if their dog got away, as I always said I would never let that happen, until this past Sunday.  Zoe slipped out the front door right behind me and I didn't realize until 15 minutes later when she decided to go looking for me.  It was a frightening experience but it did happen.

This story is a comedy of errors.  (not a comedy, but you know what I mean).

I sure hope he does not get the money.  I'd think a good lawyer would have a fun time refuting how the plaintiff arrived at $206,000.

Anyone here read Winograd's "Redemption"?  Maybe this fine stud dog could have been spared if it weren't for the shelter's policies/procedures?

However sad or comedic the story is to some.....the dog lost it's life......and the shelter messed up......those are two facts.....

BannedBreed Lover

I think that the part that really bothers me is the fact that some idiot was planning on breeding a Lab mix for profit, plus allowing his so called beloved animal run at large!  AAARGH!

The shelter worker needlessly killed a dog and the "part that really bothers" you is that the owner may have bred the dog????  The dog died for NO REASON and instead of being "bothered" by that fact too many here seem to be more concerned with their desire to dictate just who should be allowed to breed their dogs!

BannedBreed Lover

Now I do admit that if the city accidentally euthanized my dog, yes, I would press the lawsuit factor

So if the city killed your dogs would it be alright to refer to you in the same manner that you are referring to this man ("moron" "backwater";) ???  Did ever occur to anyone that perhaps the man was upset when he spoke to the press and and came up with the $206,000 figure???  If your dog was killed by the city for no reason would it be possible that you too may say some things in anger??? 

Mark