Thursday, August 2, 2007

Comments, Responses, Articles, Cases

Although the purpose the the blog is not to get a debate going on the issues involved in the present case, from time to time we will post here (In this posting) or beneath this posting (in the comments) some comments or responses to particularly valuable comments for some time, but only as time permits. But please feel free to respond. At a minimum, I will make sure Eric and Belinda (and others as appropriate) see those comments that are worth reading. And we welcome all comments, positive and negative, the latter because they actually help Sidney's case as you lawyers know. Also, please do not refer to Sidney as a "pitbull" as the Washington Post did. He is a mix with some greyhound, terrier (e.g., pitbull), and God only knows what else in him. I have more pitbull in me some say, and I am half Scot and half French, but most know me as an American. If you are going to tag a label on Sidney, call him a Brooklynite. In the meantime, we are especially interested in constructive comments that will help us strengthen the entire process that brought this matter to where it is today to prevent every aspect of it from happening in the future, going back to July 4th, 10:29 p.m. and a dark street in Adams Morgan.

SOME ARTICLES OF INTEREST

Those wishing to read two articles related to the case or the subject of the case, please go to:

Washington Post Article on the case of July 27

You may find some of the comments on the Washington Post site of interest, both positive ones and negative ones. Please add your own. (As mentioned above, what the writers of the negative comments do not know, perhaps because they are not attorneys, is that the negative comments actually help Sidney's case.)

New York Times Article (July 23) on Dangerous Dogs
The above article is about the situation in Virginia.

Washingtron Post article (July 30) on Policies on Adopting/Adotping Pitbulls in the Washington Area.
The Washington Post
ran a hearbreaking but somewhat hopeful story today on the plight if pitbulls in the Washington area, "The Rap on Pit Bulls Revisited - Odds Improving for the Good Ones at Area Shelters" By Bill Brubaker, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, July 30, 2007; B01. It does support what many people have said about how it's not the dog, but the handler that makes or breaks the dog, and that goes for more than just pitbulls or large dogs. Incidentally, the policy as stated for the District was correctly stated as we understand it: The District tries to adopt out every dog that is adoptable (and I think I heard that it succeeds at that.) However, because there are so many pitbulls coming into that shelter (Did I hear 30 percent of the dogs are pitbulls or mixes and that animal control takes in 12,000 dogs are year? You do the math.), they do not put them through any temperament-behavior testing to determine if they are adoptable (for funding reasons). Therefore, they all are euthanized (but not, of course, those who are claimed by their owners. (A clear catch 22.) It is our hope that this will change with the new executive director, who owns a pitbull herself. We also know that if they started a program here where people could sponsor (i.e., pay for) the behavioral testing of one (or more) pitbull(s) a year (or whatever), we would probably would be the first to sign up. But for political reasons (e.g., one Councilman, Jim Graham, is adamantly against allowing pitbulls in DC), such a program might not be workable. In the meantime, we are totally against the current policy of discriminating on the basis of breed as it is stated and carried out (again, for funding reasons). If there is a problem with people out there, we need to go after that problem, not kill the good dogs that do not deserve to die. The good news is that people (including our animal control people --- are working to resolve these problems, but we are a long way off from a final solution.


There are two other article I am still trying to track down and will post links when I find them:

One article is on how some cities are beginning to rehab unwanted pitbulls for use as police dogs. The second one is called "Why Pitbull [and large dogs in general] Owners are Terrified of Small Dogs." Sidney's case may explain why. (Of course, Sidney is not a pitbull, only half)

Other DC cases We Found.

DC Case 1:

DC Case 2:

DC Case 3:

Thank you for visiting Sidney's site.

9 comments:

Blogger said...

QUESTION: Cmarsh asked: "Ignoring the Fourth Amendment, the Department of Health took Sidney by means that have been described as intimidation and coercion." As a DC resident that lives with three Pitbulls, the above statement deeply disturbs me. What exactly happened here? What should I do if they come knocking at my door to take my dogs away? I have had run-ins with our animal control officers in the past and they were always very professional and helpful, even when I was in the wrong. Did the officer really force his way into the house and grab the dog? Or was the dog taken from its yard? Im scared to even walk my dogs now!

COMMENT: Good question, cmarsh. It's so good, people might think it's a shill from me, which it is not, or maybe I think it's one from you. But I have published it, even though I am not here to debate the issues regarding Sidney's case because that is not my purpose or role and that would serve no useful purpose. But since you are interested in the future for your own sake, as I am, I will address it because it does raise several very important points all of us who own dogs need to know. My concern is exclusively with the 4th Amendment and the law. Since that matter in Sidney's case is being handled by people more competent than I, I will address the question in general terms as if it were my dog being seized. For a dog to be seized, the law requires either a warrant or competent consent. So if someone showed up at my door (or on the street) to seize my dog without a warrant they would need to get my consent. If I do not give it competently, they don’t get my dog. Books have been written on what consent is, but before I gave my consent to seize my dog, I would certainly want to make sure that I knew what I was doing, knew what my options were, and had the material facts I needed to make a competent decision. (Intimidation and coercion do not have to be physical, they can be legal.) Of course, if I did not consent and someone returned with a warrant, my guess is that all bets would be off. My guess also is that if I were an animal control officer showing up at some unknown person's home with a warrant, I certainly would want to be accompanied by a few burly police officers.

As far as the physical fears you have, which I have no interest in here (in Sidney's case) because I was not there and for the above reason, from all I have seen and heard I do not think any of us in the District have anything to worry about with the animal control officers. These are professional, hardworking, compassionate, dedicated, helpful and underpaid people who have a thankless job and who are right up there on the same level as firemen and police officers, no, they are a step above them. And they are only carrying out the policies and orders that they are given (which can be a problem if those policies or orders are now the best, and maybe the outcome of Sindey's case -- regardless of what happens to him --- will be to improve them if needed). At the hearing, I saw the two animal control officers who were involved with Sidney's seizure. If their personalities are anything like their appearances (and they never are), those two couldn’t even intimidate my neighbor's Chihuahua, and maybe that's why there are so successful at what they do. And by the way, I think I heard from the hearing that there are something like 2-3 dog seizures a year as the result of dog bites (which makes Sidney's case so very special). If that is the case, and if the track record of the animal control people holds, few of us have anything to worry about. Indeed, it's the animal control officers who always have something to worry about. Fortunately, they work in close cooperation with the police department, and that's the way it should be.

I cannot end my comment without addressing something else you wrote, that you have had run-ins with our animal control officers in the past and they were always very professional and helpful, even when you were in the wrong, and that you own three dogs. With your situation as you described it, I trust that you know that you have higher duties and standards of care to maintain in terms of the public, others' dogs, and your own dogs. (I certainly do not envy you.) I am not here to advise you of anything specific because I do not know your situation and that is not my place to do that, but on the basis of what you just told me, and let me mince words, I would urge you to make sure you are doing all you need to do to fulfill those duties and the standards of care. My guess is that you are, and good for you if that is the case. Oh, by the way, with your three big dogs, until the animal law case law builds up on what constitutes provocation resulting in dogs bites, standards of care, and so on, you do have something to be terrified about, but it is not the animal control officers. It's small dogs.

Blogger said...

Message to LC from Blogger:

LC, I have passed along your full message to Eric Wallach and Belinda Blum, Sidney's owners, who do not run this blog, although I consent from them to do so. I am not connected with them or any other parties (or dogs) in this matter and never saw them until the hearing. I am a DC resident who is putting aside the compassion I feel for all the dogs involved, as well as their owners, and the incident, which is over, and trying to focus on my concerns about some very fundamental issues of process here, and that's why I have chosen to get as close to this matter as I can. Fortunately, many of those matters are now in the hands of a fair judge and all we can do is hope that fairness prevails.

Although I had intended to permit very few comments, your comment is so extraordinary (but typical of many, but not all of course) that I decided to post it (without your contact information, which I will pass on to Sidney's owners). If you wish me to remove your comment, post another comment to that effect and I will. What follows is your comment without any editing. Thank you for commenting and showing your concern for all the parties and dogs.


LC's s comment

I am the owner of a Toy Fox Terrier and I think I know why your dog, Sidney, may have responded the way he did. I think this was a natural happening of the part of him/her that is a greyhound.

We had a greyhound next door - our dog, 4 lbs at the time, dug under the fence and went to "see it."

I do believe the greyhound thought she was a rabbit and chased her until he got her in his mouth and began to shake her in his mouth -

By the way, this is the same thing my little dog does with her food - she will toy with dry food and throw it up in the air, etc. Also, shake it in her mouth and spit it out before she eats it. This is, in my opinion, a natural action of some animals.

Anyway, my husband was able to get over in the other yard and bring, Tootie, our injured dog home.

Our vet came riding over on his motorcycle and checked her out - he could detect no broken bones, thank God. She was sore for weeks - but she, like the dog in your case - LIVED.

I hold no bad feelings toward that greyhound. I know that she or he was only doing what came naturally....

If you want me to do anything, please post some addresses on your site. We will keep you, your dog and the other little dog in our hearts and prayers. I do not believe your dog is vicious like some that are in the paper regularly. If you were a DC citizen, perhaps these actions would have been different.

Please, if you are allowed to keep your dog which is precious to you, figure out a way to keep Sidney out of similar situations.

[redaction]

Unknown said...

All I have to say is Man created the Pitbull, abused it and now wants to destroy it. If Sidney were another breed, say Lab, would he be in the same situation?

It's sad that Pitbulls have such a bad reputation. These are animals who act like animals and are judge by human standards. Sidney acted in accordance to the situation, and so did Molly. It was an unfortunate event for all. I pity the plight of the Pitbull.

SW

Paws4Life said...

I have read about Sydney and this blog. I have done a network broadcast for Sydney to bring more support.

We just fought a case here for over 90 days here in Florida regarding a German Shepard named Zeus who was ordered to be killed for biting a Verizon contractor when he entered the home.

Well through lots of 'networking', phone calls, emails,letters and a petition to save Zeus...He is going home! We just found out Friday night.

I too have a blog I'd like to share with you.


http://paws4life.blogspot.com/

DCdoglover said...

The employees of the Washington Humane Society were just doing their jobs, just as you say Department of Health staff is just doing their jobs. The Humane Society does not make decisions in these cases, the DC Health Department and the court system do.

Blogger said...

Blogger received the following message from someone who had sent the message on to the DoH and others after reading the article in The Washington Post. It is posted here unredacted except for the name.

Dear all those concerned:

After reading the article in the Post about Sidney, the Greyhound/pit bull mix I was very upset. Please release Sidney because he sounds like a good dog and just made one mistake here in DC. He is loved and needed by this wonderful family from New York.

I have a dog that I love very much and cannot fathom something like this could happen. My dog sometimes acts agressively, but because he is small he is not thought of as a threat. I can imagine my dog doing what Molly, the bichon did. The whole thing was an unfortunate situation. Neither of the dogs were at fault.

It is unfortunate that Pit Bulls are always found guilty. I also know how small dogs, who act tough, can lunge at big dogs and sometimes get into trouble. This is how dogs act. They are animals and shouldn't be punished for a human crime.

Please see the plight of the Pit Bull. Either they are forced into a life of fighting or killed for having that reputation or just being a pit bull. This poor breed is doomed either way. Man has created a death path for this dog. They are good dogs, but are discriminated against by everybody. I, as an animal lover, am pleading everyone to help this breed and give them the break that they deserve.

Please let Sidney live the rest of his life with the only family he knows. He doesn't deserve to die. No pit bull deserve to die just because he is a pit bull.

Sincerely, SW

Anonymous said...

I think that this is getting out of hand. Seriously. Lets consider... Sidney is a dog. Dogs have a natural tendency to 1. protect, 2. confront when approached. It was a horrible incident, but lets be reasonable. Should death be the punishment for doing what comes natural for a dog to do??? Sidney didn't intentional bite Dr. Stillions. If he did that might be a whole new ball game, but lets keep it real, if I had two 10 lb dogs, and see a much larger dog there, i would have moved out of the way, walked around or pulled my dogs closer to me.

The fact that the Department of Health took Sidney under those circumstances that is CRAZY!! We do still live in America don't we???

Blogger said...

TO Anon.

That (above comment) is one of the most reasonable, thoughtful, dispassionate comments I have seen, and gets at the core of what this blog is all about, to prevent this from happening again. Of course, this raises the obvious question, Why did what took place after the incident happen? The answer, as best we can tell, is that Sidney had some pitbull in him and the accident occurred in the ward of the councilman who is trying to ban pitbulls from the city. (If Sidney had been greyhound and it occurred in our own ward 2, this would have needed quickly in exactly the way we think/predict/hope it will end.) Our conclusion also is that DoH was forced to cave in to some external pressure and bypass whatever procedures they have to resolve these cases quickly. We believe, based on what we learned, that DoH really wanted to resolve this quickly and fairly (on or about July 5th), but were unable to. As the result, the city got way too much adverse publicity here and elsewhere, hundreds of hours of busy, talented people in the DC government who had higher priority matters to work on were wasted, and two families were made to suffer, and are still suffering as of this moment, not to menion that Sidney was actually on a track that could have led (perhaps still can) to his death. After this matter is closed, however it is closed, we then intend to work to close the gaps exposed. As you so astutely pointed out, Sidney's space was invaded (without warning and within one foot by two unfamiliar dogs he probably mistook for prey) and he did what most dogs would do. (This is why we have leash laws, and Sidney was on a very short leash.) Just go to the Humane Society's Bark Ball (after donating, of course) and see this live before your eyes as hundreds of dogs who never met get together in close quarters for the first time. Clearly, there is a question of assumption of risk, foreseeable consequences, contributory negligence, last clear chance to avoid an accident or, putting it in the familiar, putting one's hand in a tiger's cage. Sidney is doing all of us here in DC a favor by exposing problems that need to be solved. And the first problem that needs to be worked on is to educate the remaining 10 percent of people who do not seem to understand what constitutes a dog's space and what it means to invade that. This is not a big dog-litle dog issue, or a victim-perpetrator issue. This is an issue of common sense.

bullreba said...

I read about Sidney in the paper and saw a story this evening on the local news for DC. I live in the DC suburbs. At the time, I had two bullmastiff sisters. We lived in a townhouse development with a walking path with a lot of trees. My husband and I were each walking a dog when when of them stopped to pee. From around the corner came a man walking two Italian Greyhounds. These dogs went ballistic, snarling and charging at my dog. My one dog is a big softie, so she just moved away. The other just answered them back and a lot of snarling ensued. At one point, my dog had one of the IG's in her mouth doing that shaking thing. We were able to get them separated. I, of course, apologized repeatedly to the owner. He was surprisingly cool about the whole thing, saying that his dogs were in the wrong. Believe me, this NEVER happens. I can't tell how many times I've walked my dogs and another smaller dog acts aggressively towards them. I always keep my dog as far away from little dogs as possible, because I know that if anything happens, my dogs would be blamed because they are large and a bull breed. Then I hear the little dogs' owners make some comment like "that dog will eat you for dinner." It just makes furious. I hope Sidney gets freed, and I will do what I can to help.