Dog that kills one cat and inflicts minor injury on a person considered “potentially dangerous” in Santa Rosa

NEWS AND COMMENT-CENTRE ROSA, CALIFORNIA: A man owns two aggressive dogs; one is a pit-bull and the other is a shepherd mix. They were allowed to roam freely in Santa Rosa and they attacked and killed two domestic cats who were also allowed to roam freely. It is unclear if this occurred in one incident or two.

Initially, Animal Services picked up and returned the dogs to their owner and nothing else happened. Under the Santa Rosa ordinance, an incident in which an animal kills another and a person suffers a minor injury by the same animal is considered to be ‘potentially dangerous’ and not ‘vicious’. To be considered vicious the animal has to kill two other animals or seriously injure a person.

As a consequence, the owner of the two dogs voluntarily agreed to designate them as “potentially dangerous” but not viscous. This imposed a series of obligations on him under the ordinance including:

  • Muzzling and leashing his dogs when he takes them for walks;
  • Keeping his dogs indoors or in a secure enclosure in his backyard;
  • Ensuring that his dogs wear a bright orange collar which says “potentially dangerous dog” on it when he takes them for walks;
  • Erect signs at his expense outside his home to let people know that potentially dangerous dogs live inside;
  • Pay a registration fee of $148 per year per dog and
  • The designation of ‘potentially dangerous dog’ will last for three years.

Citizens in the area want more. They appear to be dissatisfied with the fact that Animal Services returned the dogs to the owner after they had killed two cats. Incidentally, the two dogs had also chased a woman who defended herself by going into a carport where a car was parked and placing the car between herself and the dog that had an interest in attacking her. The dog eventually lost interest.

It is clear from the story that the two dogs are genuinely dangerous. The citizens of Santa Rosa believe that the current ordinance does not go far enough to protect them and their pets. The owner, Malik, of one of the cats who was killed, Dale, said that “the whole system is rigged, and it doesn’t benefit the victims.”

He’s going to sue for compensation because of the damage done to their home while trying to stop the dogs from killing their cat. They were unsuccessful but damage was done in the process.

Some residents will only be happy when the dogs concerned are either euthanised or relocated out of the area. To relocate the dogs would be a failure in my opinion because you simply transfer the problem to somebody else’s neighbourhood.

The Assistant City Attorney, Adam Abel, said that the Animal Services officer Andy O’Brien had handled the case correctly i.e. in returning the dogs to the owner and doing nothing else.

The Animal Services Operations Manager, Brian Whipple, said that he considered the area safe to walk, currently.

There were indications before the incident regarding the two cats that the dogs were terrorising the neighbourhood. For instance, they were on the front porch of an owner who lives with four cats. It appears that the dogs were hunting the cats at the time.

This is clearly one of those classic cases were the law needs to be a balancing act between allowing freedoms for dog owners and their dogs who have rights and cat owners and their cats who also have rights. The question is what is the cut-off point in terms of damage done by the dogs at which they should be euthanised. I don’t have the answer. However, I would err on the side of safety and have them euthanized under the circumstances as described.

I don’t think anyone needs to have large and powerful dogs with a known predisposition to be aggressive. These dogs should not exist. Humans created them. It is another human failure.

Source: The Press Democrat.

3 thoughts on “Dog that kills one cat and inflicts minor injury on a person considered “potentially dangerous” in Santa Rosa”

  1. The difference between “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” is non-existent when the dog(s) in question have attacked/killed any animal, especially a smaller animal. The only solution is euthanasia. Relocation does nothing to deter the vicious behavior and allows the dog to continue killing.

    Those who truly believe that these killer dogs are really only misunderstood need to let these same dogs live in THEIR homes and communities. NOT OURS!

    Reply
  2. Hey Mike you can delete this link after you go read it. Seems the Russian army is running out of petrol! LMAO! I scrolled down and read many funny comments.

    They ukranian from the car ask the if the have some issues.

    Soldiers: out of fuel

    Ukrainian: we can tow you buck to Russia
    RU:haha
    Ukrainian: where you going?

    RU: we don’t know
    Ukrainian: you going to Kiev. For the moment all is in our side… Your people give up easy…

    Reply
    • Yes, I have read this too. God willing the Russians will be defeated. That would be amazing. They seem to be poorly organised: no fuel, getting lost, no food, can’t tell who to shoot! 😊.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

follow it link and logo