From Dogtime:
Ken Harrington, a 30 year marine veteran and retired colonel, had to do what every dog owner dreads. He had to bury his German Shepherd Dog, Dakota, after he was run over by a car. The dog escaped from his yard after he bolted after a deer, and the driver, Maggie Cassaro, couldn’t stop in time. Dakota was Harrington’s best friend and companion, so he was devastated. But just nine weeks after burying his beloved dog, Harrington found out that Cassaro was suing him for damages to her car in the amount of just over $900.
Cassaro alleges that it is the owner’s fault that her car was damaged, and the law is on her side. Harrington points out that dogs do not need to be restrained by a leash on their owner’s property, which is true. But the fence that kept Dakota on the property wasn’t adequate enough to keep him from running into the street. Harrington also says that it’s impossible to stop a hunting dog from taking off after an animal, but proper training and an adequate fence probably would have saved his dog’s life.
3 comments:
It is a terrible thought to put more stress on someone who is already distraight over the loss of their pet, but it MAY put the idea of more RESPONSIBILITY into the next dog's future. After all, I bet the GSD in question was neutered, and isn't that the height of responsible pet ownership? Never mind that he deliberately ran off, disregarded a barrier and outright ignored his owner's commands to recall, if he even knew what they meant? I'm not sure I'd go through with it if I hit a dog that was running at large, but one can hope that the lesson of why the dog was lost in the first place would resonate without adding financial penalty on top of it; unfortunately, the loss is chalked up to something totally unrelated to training ("it’s impossible to stop a hunting dog from taking off after an animal" fr srs?) and no habits are changed with the next dog.
After all, Ohio started judging dogs on behavior instead of breed (I believe it was 2012 when that law was passed), and the first dog that made the news in this respect was a Bichon. I dearly wish the law made an example of this owner, but alas, emotion and feelz won over reason and the law, although a lack of evidence-taking certainly didn't make things easy: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/06/26/dangerous-dog-law-has-some-biting-back.html
As an aside, I'm intrigued that despite the owner's military history, the dog is not mentioned as a "service dog."
Pity the dog was killed, and my heart goes out to anyone loosing a beloved animal.
But I don't get it. Was Harrington dumb enough to expect an invisible fence to deter a dog with strong prey drive from going after high value prey? Surely he'd seen the dog break through the fence before. Is he even sure that the collar was set up to deter a large, motivated, thick-coated dog? I don't care what his rank is, he's an idiot. It is possible to stop a hunting dog from taking off after an animal, but it may take substantial fencing or even a covered run.
Of course, provided she was driving below the speed limit, Cassaro has a case to sue. The dog was not on his property. Full stop. By law, it needed to be leashed or at least under control.
Helps to read the article. The fence that failed was a traditional fence. That's why you need an invisible fence inside it. In fact invisible fences work well with dogs that have massive prey drive. I've kept working terriers behind invisible fences for 17 years. A dog cannot crawl under, dug under, or climb over an invisible fence. Yes, get a solid fence. But pair an invisible fence with it. Not hard to do and no longer expensive. When you move, the old fence stays, but the IF rig can move with you.
Post a Comment