|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A Menlo Park couple are petitioning San Mateo County Superior Court to overturn the city’s decision declaring their 3-year-old golden retriever a dangerous animal, a designation they called “quasi-criminal.”
A husky was left with a wound after an altercation in August with golden retriever Bär. Bär’s owners, Menlo Park residents Tobias Kunze and Liliana Kunze Briseño, said they were not in town at the time of the incident, and Bär was with a neighbor. The petition filed with the court states that the husky’s wound was cleaned by the vet and required no sutures.
“The state of California has started really overstretching their response to regular dog behavior,” Christine Kelly, the family’s attorney said.
The Kunze family maintains that Bär exhibits good behavior on his daily outings. They said that Bär has had thorough training from certified canine experts and has specifically been trained on leash walking.
“(Bär is) super happy, eager to please, friendly, sunny character,” Kunze said.
The Kunze family says that having an animal that is designated as dangerous is more taxing than people often realize.
Kunze Briseño describes the requirements as “draconian.” They include 6-foot fencing around their yard, Bär can’t go to a boarding facility and must be leashed at all times. They even have to notify animal control if they move. Any violations could result in criminal charges, brining fines and even jail time, according to the Kunzes.
“It’s a quasi-criminal designation masquerading as an administrative decision,” Kunze said.
In an interview, the family claims that the dangerous animal decision was based on one person’s report and that the San Mateo County Animal Control officer had allegedly made a decision when she showed up at the Kunzes home. According to the petition, the animal control officer was greeted by a docile Bär, who went up to the officer for petting. She said that Bär was cute, but needed to be leashed from now on, the petition states.
The Kunze family says that this incident reflects a larger issue with animal control in San Mateo County.
“Its not just about our dog, there’s important community issues at play here,” Kunze said.
The owners of Bär also filed 29 character affidavits from those who know the dog, many of which talk about Bär’s track record playing well with both children and other animals.
“Bär has always been the kindest, non-aggressive dog I have ever met,” neighbors Ryan and Leigh Anne Williams wrote in their statement. “Bär is one of the reasons we also wanted to get a dog.”
The Kunzes said they will continue to fight the dangerous animal designation, calling their pet a kind and loving animal.
“A dog can’t even be a dog these days, Bär’s behavior was normal dog behavior under ordinary circumstances,” Kelly said.
It’s lovely that Bär is at ease around humans and most other dogs. Even the kindest and calmest dogs can be unpredictable and aggressive at moments when encountering another animal that they perceive to be a threat. None of the positive, kind, and supportive things that the owners and neighbors have said change or rebut the facts of the incident that provoked these findings: Bär attacked another dog (a Husky no less) and drew blood in doing so. That should be taken very, very, seriously.
The owners are fortunate that the dog wasn’t euthanized. Six-foot fences and leashing hardly sound like a criminal sentence. My small dogs play in a yard with an eight-foot fence and never go out without leashes on. Most responsible dog people do the same.
The article seems to only represent the attacker’s side, disappointing. I support the sentiment of the previous commenters. It seems the argument is that if the dog attacks only one in 100 times it is somehow OK. I am sorry attorney Kelly, but it is hard to imagine in what world a dog being attacked to the point it needs “wounds cleaned by the vet” to be “normal dog behavior under ordinary circumstances”
It is misleading and wrong for the reporter to describe this as merely an “altercation” between two dogs. It was clearly an attack. There is a significant difference. Upon review of the record, the impartial hearing officer determined:
– “The incident which occurred, in which the subject animal broke free from its handler’s control, and charged toward the victim animal, and then caused bite/teeth wounds to the neck area of that animal, was undoubtedly an attack.”
– “… the injuries sustained by the victim animal are real injuries, regardless of whether they were downplayed by the subject animal’s owners at the hearing.”
– “… the victim animal did not in any way provoke or threaten an attack on the subject animal, and the incident occurred in public space.”
– “the [victim] animal remained leashed and is not purported to have committed any attack or caused any injury to its counterparty animal, even after being attacked itself. It was simply attacked, and is not found to be at any fault for having been attacked.”
This article is incredibly one-sided. The owners of B have organized a formidable PR campaign, including mass emailing neighbors with similarly claims that the injury caused by their dog was somehow grossly exaggerated. Bottom line it’s not OK for our community to simple “forgive and forget” dog-on-dog attacks. We need to enforce safeguards to ensure pet safety.
This is overreaction of the 1st order. This is one minor incident in this otherwise wonderfully behaved dog’ s life. I could understand this reaction to dog-on-person incident, not dog-on-dog, especially since the Husky’s injury was far from serious. Plus which, there is no mention in this article of what precipitated the bite. Were both dogs off lead? What was the reason for the confrontation? Is it just a chemistry issue between these 2 dogs? Who initiated the confrontation? I’ve rescued, rehabilitated, placed and trained 100’s of dogs for over 40 years. This reaction on the part of the authorities is overkill. If this happened in my state, in my city, the cops would be laughing at this non-incident.
I have seen the evidence and attended the hearing. The injury was negligible and there was zero evidence for an attack. The hearing officer actively distorted the facts to side with Animal Control (which pays him).
As for the injury, according to the owner’s photograph, there was a shallow injury of about 0.2” in size. The veterinary record initially notes another wound on the other side of the neck but subsequently only talks about this one injury. It also shows that the wound was simply cleaned, no stitches or sutures required, and that the injury had healed within a week.
As a dog aggression specialist and a forensic expert testified at the hearing, nothing about the injury supports an “attack”. On the contrary, according to their testimony, the injury is typical for what happens when untrained people are trying to separate dogs.
The witness statements disagree on what exactly happened, as do other accounts on that same day, for instance the one made by the husky’s owner on Nextdoor.
The newly hired, inexperienced Animal Control officer was out of her depth and the administrative hearing itself was a kangaroo court.
This case is as bogus as the other case we had a couple of years ago with a Malamute on Central Ave and it is high time that Menlo Park stops contracting with the County for Animal Control services.
Scott, what was bogus about the Malamute case on Central Ave?
The Malamute case involved a neighborhood Malamute that killed a dog, killed a cat and nearly killed another dog where Animal Control decided not to designate the dog as dangerous.
Oh, right, thanks for the reminder. One reason that dog wasn’t deemed dangerous was because one of the other dogs was loose and was the antagonist.