5th Street Dog Fight

dizzybeth79 wrote:

I agree. if its the couple I think it is.....They were always walking with that dog. Poor thing! Thats so sad. Isnt there a fine for the owner??(Although a fine would not even come close to making up for the loss!) I agree they should be arrested.

Even if there is a fine it wouldn't be enough and the owners wouldn't be able to pay PUT THE BIG DOG DOWN

Harley_D wrote:

I would like to know what the last 3 posts are talking about because they have no clue what happened to Lobo.

Glad you said that. I was beginning to think I had entered in the twilight zone.

Larry and Luann wrote:

We got the vet bill today and took it to the woman that owned the St. Bernard. She looked at it and then seemed to be irritated that we hadn't told her what had happened to our dog. Frankly, we hadn't seen the need to tell her sooner. We then told her we wanted X amount of money to buy another dog. She smirked and said "Well, dogs fight." We asked if she had something to write our phone number on so she could contact us about the bill. She said no. So we just looked at each other, shook our heads, and walked away. What the hell is wrong with people?? Are you going to tell us that if the situation was reversed, she wouldn't want restitution? We really would like your opinion on this latest development.
(BTW, we hate to say this, but we weren't really shocked by her response or attitude.) And we do have a police report in which she takes responsibility for the vet bill.

Push the the issue to have her dog put down its a dangerouse animal

Harley_D wrote:

I would like to know what the last 3 posts are talking about because they have no clue what happened to Lobo.

i know plenty about dogfights thank you very much.

cant you read

who the hell are u talkin too smartass

what wrote:

who the hell are u talkin too smartass

not you smartass

how many smart ass's are their ? lol

We realize that this is going to be a long post, but maybe someday it will be of use to someone who finds themselves in the position we were in.
According to City Ordinances, Chapter 91 regarding animals:
VICIOUS ANIMAL
Any animal which bites (to the extent of puncturing or severely bruising the skin),
inflicts injury to or otherwise attacks a human being or domestic animal without provocation on public or private property.
1. Every animal which is determined to be vicious as defined in § 91.001 shall be confined in an enclosure which is a covered fence or structure of sufficient height to allow the animal to stand erect without touching the top of the cover; forming or causing an enclosure suitable to prevent the entry of young children, and suitable to confine a dangerous animal. This structure shall be constructed in such a way as to prevent escape of dangerous animals by digging, climbing, or going through, and shall be kept hi condition which will prevent same.
The enclosure shall be securely locked with combination or key lock which has been designed to prevent accidental or malicious opening of the enclosure entrance/exit while on its owner's property.
When not on the private property of its owner, a vicious animal must be accompanied by the owner or other responsible person capable of handling the animal, and the animal must be securely muzzled and must be on a leash having a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds or greater, if this strength is necessary to restrain the vicious animal, and is not to exceed a length of three feet.
2. Enforcement. In the event that a public law enforcement officer, or the Animal Warden, has
probable cause to believe that a dangerous animal is being harbored in the city in violation of this chapter, the official may:
(a) Order the violation immediately corrected by having a law enforcement officer cite the owner or keeper to appear in court for the violation, and/or
(b) If the violation cannot be immediately corrected and the animal poses imminent serious threat to human beings or other domestic animals, the animal may be seized and impounded, in which case the owner or keeper will be cited to appear in court for the violation. At the owner's request and expense, the impoundment may be at a veterinarian or licensed kennel of the owner's choosing. If the court rules that the dog is not dangerous as defined, it will be released to the owner upon payment to the Animal Warden of the expense of keeping the dog, pursuant to aschedule of those costs. If the court rules that the animal is vicious as defined, the animal will be released to the owner after payment of any fees and penalties, and upon presentation of proof by the owner to the court, and inspection of the enclosure and restraining equipment by the Animal Warden, that the animal will be kept restrained and confined in accordance with thespecifications
provided in this chapter.
(c) If, within seven days after impoundment, the owner or keeper of the alleged vicious animal fails to either provide proof that the animal will henceforth be kept restrained and confined in compliance with the provisions of this chapter or fails to reclaim it from the Animal Shelter after impoundment, it will be humanely euthanized
by the Animal Warden, at the expense of the owner pursuant to a schedule of those costs.

The first responding officer completely dropped the ball on this one. But in his defense, we don't know how every officer can keep track of every law on the books. A complete copy of this ordinance can be obtained at City Hall. We also heard that you can get it at the library for a small printing fee.

Just curious, how is your case going? What happened to the other dog? How did the responding officer "drop the ball" so to speak. What happened?

Sorry...just curious.

Just curious, how is your case going? What happened to the other dog? How did the responding officer "drop the ball" so to speak. What happened? Just curious.

Hey let's get on with our lives.
This post started out asking what happened, it was then told, then other things came out beyond that. OKAY we all know now.
The End

We are preparing for small claims court. I guess telling the police you'll be responsible and then actually being responsible are 2 different things.
The St. Bernard should have at least been impounded for observation. It was not. Read section 1 above.

Larry and Luann wrote:

We are preparing for small claims court. I guess telling the police you'll be responsible and then actually being responsible are 2 different things.
The St. Bernard should have at least been impounded for observation. It was not. Read section 1 above.

Okay you stated it in previous post.
The End

Gee Whiz wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay you stated it in previous post.
The End

Who appointed you the Forum Nazi? If they want to continue this thread until doomsday, it's their right. Jeez, Gee Whiz.

Lets keep talking about it. If they dont like it they dont have to click this topic to read what we write. Its all free will. Its funny how some complain about what people write and or are still writing about but will constantly come back and complain about it.

amen buzz

so this dog is still at large? What's the best weapon to carry with me when I am walking my own dog?

Gee Whiz wrote:

Hey let's get on with our lives.
This post started out asking what happened, it was then told, then other things came out beyond that. OKAY we all know now.
The End

If you don't like this thread don't read it. Is that too hard for you to figure out or do you just like being an a$$? Just curious..........and by the way sorry you can't give me spam! LOL

deal with the owner of the dog! do what is needed to insure that ur safe. but the owner needs to be put down lol its her fault that her dog is loose.