A Husky, a Poodle and a Dangerous Dog Law
Who knows what was going through the mind of Brandie the Siberian husky on that fateful walk in early May. Perhaps she saw Jack, the toy poodle, as prey. Perhaps, as her owners maintain, she saw him as a threat. Whatever the trigger, the Brandie bit and killed the poodle, thus marking this particular husky as a "Dangerous Dog."
You see, Brandie and her family reside in Broward County, Florida. Unlike most of the state where a dog must commit two offenses before being deemed dangerous, Broward has a "one-strike, you're out" ordinance. The law states:
"A Dangerous Dog is a dog that has done the following:
- A dog that when unprovoked approaches a person in a menacing fashion or with an attack attitude.
- A dog that has killed or caused the death of a domestic animal in one incident, while off the owners or keepers property.
- Has aggressively bitten, attacked, endangered, killed or inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property.
- Has been used primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting"
Since the incident happened while Brandie was being walked, it falls into the second category. And when a dog in Broward County is labeled a "Dangerous Dog", she must by put down.
Brandie's owners and Jack's owners dispute exactly what happened.
Susie Salemeh, Jack's owner, says that Brandie lunged into the yard and killed Jack. Roshelle Singer, who was walking Brandie, counters that they never entered Salemeh's yard and that Jack attacked Brandie, who reacted in self defense.
Both owners are, very obviously, heartbroken. "We loved this little dog. He was a family member," Salemeh was quoted as saying in a May 13, 2010 article on JustNews.com.
Lon Lipsky, Brandie's owner, is likewise horrified at the prospect of his own beloved pet being put to death. He has started a campaign to have her removed from "death row" and to have the Broward County ordinance changed. Brandie now has a petition on Care2.com, a Facebook page and a Twitter page.
A recent court hearing officially sentenced Brandie to death, although her owners say they plan to appeal the decision. The dog's plight has received an outpouring of support from the canine community and Siberian husky fanciers in particular.
Those who know Siberian huskies will testify that they are, by nature, non-aggressive - especially towards humans. In fact, most guides for Siberian owners warn that, despite their vaguely wolf-like appearance, it would be a mistake to employ them as a guard dog. With their friendly nature they would greet a burgler as a newfound friend! These guides also warn of the Siberian's strong prey drive. Meaning that small animals such as rabbits, squirrels and even cats in some cases may look like potential meals. But this prey drive doesn't make them dangerous dogs.
One has to wonder what would happen if a dog killed somebody's pet hamster in Broward County. Would this qualify as a dog killing a "domestic animal"? Would that dog's owners be forced to put him down too?
And who is to decide what constitutes a dog "approaching another person in a menacing fashion"? Does this mean that if you are walking your dog and she excitedly pulls towards someone, your dog could be deemed dangerous?
The debate continues. And while it does so, Brandie the husky sits in the canine version of death row, unaware of her potential fate. Unaware that she, a notoriously friendly breed of dog, has been placed in the same category of a dog that has "aggressively bitten, attacked, endangered, killed or inflicted severe injury on a human being."
Sources:
http://www.justnews.com/download/2010/0526/23684537.pdf
http://www.broward.org/animal/ani01700.htm#Dangerous
http://cbs4.com/local/Brandie.Brandy.Husky.2.1705572.html
http://www.justnews.com/furryfriends/23547074/detail.html?taf=mia
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=124107390946052&v=wall
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Thanks to everyone who commented on my article - both negative and positive! That's what this site is for.
And yes, I realize that I failed to mention that Brandie was on a leash whilst Jack was not. An oversight on my part.
I won't get into debating this right now as it is my article but I stand by what I said!
Thanks again,
Alice
This is so Old Testament - eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. I think we are not living in 2000 BC.
My opinion is that Brandie should not be killed . She hasn't proved in any way that she is a dangerous, violent dog, as all the evidence points in the opposite direction. I see no reason for her to be killed.
I can't imagine what kind of judge can just declare that she will killed when she is not vicious. Ok, muzzle her in public for the rest of her life.
But what about the poodle owners? Did they properly restrain their dog? Do we know for a fact that Jack was a trained and reasonable dog? Were they in control of the dog? Was he not a yappy, annoying little dog?
In this case, the conclusion the court reached was clearly biased on the size difference between the two dogs . But dogs don't distinguish between different sizes. Let's be honest, had Jack been a large dog, he would not have been killed, in addition, he could have potentially harmed Brandie. His size does not excuse his behaviour and to me, its owners should blame themselves for having their dog killed.
P.S. I could bet that Jack was bought from a pet-shop, that kind of owners those people seem to be!
The problem here isn't the law - it's lack of common sense. If a dog attacks unprovoked, the dog can't be trusted not to do so again in the future. That's simple common sense. Probably none of us commenting were there and know what really happened, which creates the difficulty. If the Husky attacked in an unprovoked manner, then it's clearly a dangerous dog. If it was protecting itself against attack from the poodle, then who can blame it?
The essence of the law is a failure to restrain you pet in public. On a short leash, the attack would have been impossible. You pull up on the leash and the dog is unable to bite. It isn't rocket science and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The law says if you're too stupid to figure out something that simple, and your pet kills another animal as a result, it's your fault.
The law is dead on. It is your fault. If you insist on common sense, try using a little of it! Who else besides the pet owner should be responsible for restraining their pet in public?
The "I didn't know the gun was loaded." argument doesn't fly. You assume a gun is loaded at all times and don't point it at anyone. You assume a dog can bite at all times and don't point it at anyone. It is your responsibility, and your's alone, to make sure your gun, or your dog, doesn't cause harm to anyone else.
Two things are beyond dispute here. 1. The dog killed another pet. 2. The pet owner did not have control of their dog when it happened. You can speculate about everything else until the cows come home, but those two facts are not in doubt.
If you don't want to go to court and have your pet put down, keep it on a short leash. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime . That's common sense.
There is a principal at law that, "If not for this, that wouldn't have happened.". It's the essence of justice and how blame is fixed, especially in situations of negligence. If there's a situation where blame can't be accurately placed on that basis, I've yet to hear of one. So, put on your thinking caps and try to come up with a different answer. If the huskie had been on a short leash, walking in its owner's shadow, would the poodle be dead? The answer is no. Preventing the incident was completely within the huskie owner's control. There are no excuses.
On the flip side, if the huskie was on a short leash, walking in its owner's shadow, and they were attacked while walking down the center of the sidewalk, it would be the other dog on death row.
If you're concerned about being attacked by other dogs while properly and legally walking your own, buy a gun and get a license to carry it. Don't wander through the neighborhood playing Michael Vick .
That's about as fair as it gets. The blame rests where it belongs. End of conversation.
Why is anyone even responding to this troll? It is obvious he does nothing but sit on this website and start arguments to amuse himself since his life holds no other significant meaning. Stop giving him the pleasure of a response and he will probably move on to another post and ramble mindless, ignorant responses in a feeble attempt to sound intelligent (and fail miserably).
Although I agree with you in that the husky should have been better restrained, I do not agree with you that an owner's negligence should result in the death of an innocent animal.
Fact of the matter is, if Brandie had intended to kill the small dog, she would have done it and it would have been bloody. It is not in a husky's pedigree to use their jaws as vice grips (like border terriers for instance that are bred to kill foxes with a snap of their jaw and no more). A husky that intended to kill would have ripped the little dog to shreds. Thus, in this instance, I find no fault with the husky as it is clear to me that it was not acting maliciously, but at best trying to defend itself.
However, if the ordinance wants to protect against "stupid owners" then take the dog away from the owner and re-home it. Fine the owner, ban them from ever owning a dog again (although in this case I feel that would be extreme, I'm just trying to make a point here). Punish the owners, not the dog who is clearly innocent here.
The Broward County Ordinance was intended to protect against aggressive animals , as stated in its written word, NOT against stupid owners. Thus, the punishment just isn't fitting the crime here.
There are two obvious problems with sending a biting dog to a shelter. First, and most obvious, is owners would just turn around and bail them out on the cheap. In other words, the penalty for tearing someone's child to shreds would be around $75. Second, and almost as obvious is, assuming the owner doesn't play cute with the loophole it would create, over 4 million adoptable pets are euthanized in the US each and every year. The chances of a senior pet getting adopted, with a history of attacking people or pets, is about as close to zero as it gets.
RE: "Thus, the punishment just isn't fitting the crime here."
An eye for an eye is about as fitting as it gets. Why shouldn't the owner have a taste of what the other pet owner feels? That pet owner started her day with her cherished companion animal in her own home and yard. Now her pet is dead. If the huskie had been properly restrained, her pet would still be alive. Why should she be the only one that loses, with no justice for the wrong done to her? What would be your view if tomorrow you found yourself in the same place, when someone with a bigger dog than your's does you the same way?
You get to sit at home alone with your dead dog in your lap, while the other owner explains to you what a nice dog they have. I am absolutely appalled at the mindset of the posters on this board who seem to think that's just fine and dandy. How can you fail to understand that killing someone else's pet is wrong? Their day was going just fine until your unrestrained dog came along and killed their pet. Put yourself in that person's shoes for 30 seconds and ask yourself if a law harsh enough to motivate pet owners to exercise reasonable care is good or bad. If there's no downside to doing it wrong, there's no incentive to do it right.
A reasonable person would look at this situation and say, "You know, those yo-yo leashes are worthless, and since I don't want this to happen to me, I will take extra care from now on.".
I don't like wearing a seatbelt. I'm a careful driver and have never needed one. Never the less, I wear a seatbelt because I like getting tickets even less. Even though I don't like the law , I can't argue with the fact it has been proven to save lives.
You don't like keeping your dog on a short leash. You figure your dog has never biten anyone and you don't think it's necessary. If you know you'll be punished for not keeping your dog on a short leash, you will probably do it, even if grudgingly. Come the day you are able to pull your dog up short from delivering a lethal strike on another person's pet, maybe then you'll understand the life you saved was your pet's own.
Until then, I can guarantee these people are going to lose on appeal. The court has already upheld the law once. When the court hands down its written decision, please post it to see how closely it matches what I've said. Moral arguments may be lost on those who lack morals, but the law usually finds a way to enforce moral conduct on those unable to do the right thing for the right reason on their own.
Earl, the idiot poodle's owners were allowing it to run lose. The POODLE ran out of it's yard and attacked Brandie who was on a leash. IF THE IDIOT POODLE'S OWNERS HAD OBEYED THE LEASH LAW their dog would still be alive.
Brandie was not at fault and her owners were not at fault.
Brandie will win on appeal because they will have a REAL JUDGE, who will listen to the evidence.
I'm replying because I see merit to your argument, Don, but I still can't agree with you.
I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that the small dog who died broke the law first? If those owners had kept their dog on a leash or restrained properly, this whole situation never would have happened.
So what about the argument that the owners of the small dog broke the law, their dog died, there's their punishment ? According to your argument above, the husky owners deserve to have their dog die because they broke the law since their dog wasn't restrained properly, but regardless of how ineffective they might be, the husky WAS on a leash. The law doesn't specify against flexi-leads or not. It just says leash (besides, the court case states that the leash was locked on a short setting, so the husky wasn't able to wander about). The husky was on a leash. The poodle was not. The poodle's owners broke the law. The poodle died. The husky owners did not break the law. The husky gets to live.
I just feel like you're ignoring the fact that the poodle's owner's negligence caused this entire issue. That husky went on the same walk, everyday. The only time it was an issue was when the poodle was offleash and came running at the husky.
If you're going to use that logic, shouldn't you use it across the board and not just with the bigger dog? Yes it's horrible that the poodle died, but it's owners broke the law.
The unrestrained aggressive poodle was a-okay in your book ? At least the husky was on a leash and not free to charge and attack anyone that walked by. The Husky defended itself from an aggressive, stupid little dog. Frankly, I really don’t feel all that bad that the poodle is dead. It was probably one of those mean snappy little things that the owners spoiled like crazy and ignored it’s aggression because “aww it doesn’t mean it...it’s so cute!” or just blamed all the people that the stupid thing attacked for being “mean” to it.
Perhaps the situation could have been handled better but I’m not going to condemn an animal from defending itself.