Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 6/2/2008 9:31:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 9:48:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Couple Sues City for $206G After Dog Mistakenly Euthanized
Monday, June 02, 2008

E-Mail Print Share:

DENTON, Texas — A couple whose dog was mistakenly euthanized wants the city to pay $206,000 for the loss, future breeding opportunities and emotional pain.

Shawn Snider and Beth Bayless-Snider say they arrived to pick up their 3-year-old black Labrador mix on May 15 and found out a worker had killed it that morning.

"I'm not going to just let them get away with an apology," he said. "They can't bring my dog back, so the only thing they can do is give me money."

The worker apparently didn't notice an entry on the dog's records indicating the owners would pick it up May 16, said Lt. Lenn Carter of the Denton Police Department, which oversees the shelter. The Sniders arrived to pick up the dog a day earlier than expected.

An investigation is underway and the shelter worker could face discipline, Carter said. He declined to name the worker.

"It was definitely a mistake on our part," he said. "It's a really unfortunate incident, and we're going to take steps [so] that it doesn't happen again."

The Sniders filed a liability claim with the city's risk management department. City spokesman John Cabrales said officials could not comment on a pending claim.

The couple also hasn't ruled out a lawsuit, Snider said.

Animal control officers picked up their dog Amicus after it escaped from the couple's yard. Officers left a notice on the door telling the owners how to claim the dog, Carter said.

Bayless-Snider called the shelter the next day and arranged to pick up Amicus on May 16. They couldn't get the dog sooner because they were waiting for payday to afford the $109 recovery fee, Snider said.

The shelter can hold stray animals for at least four days. If they aren't picked up, animals become available for adoption or euthanasia.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361604,00.html

It's a mixed breed. Give them another one out of the shelter.


And if it was a pure-bred then what?

Hopefully they do file suit against the city and recover punitive damages. Maybe the monkey charged with doing the euthanizations in Denton, TX will pay attention next time or enjoy his new employment at DQ.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 9:53:54 AM EST
That sucks. But why was the dog in the shelter? Because some asshole didn't protect him from running away. Losing a dog due to someone else's negligence really sucks, I know, but to ask that much money is a load of shit and indicative of being a scumbag cocksucker.

Discipline the employee. Give them replacement cost for the dog, after deducting the shelters fee for having to capture the former one.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 9:57:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
It's a mixed breed. Give them another one out of the shelter.


Seriously. Normally I would be more sympathetic, but: 1) that's an asinine amount of money to ask for; and 2) it was the owner's own (in)action that enabled the problem in the first place.

Breeding opportunities my ass. The damn dog should have been fixed in the first place.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:02:52 AM EST
Wow, another set of low income shitbags with a frivolous lawsuit. Color me surprised.

Given the huge numbers of stray and feral animals running around, I'm amazed that the shelter doesn't have a policy that allows them to euthanize animals as soon as they come off of the dog catcher's truck.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:05:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:
I'm amazed that the shelter doesn't have a policy that allows them to euthanize animals as soon as they come off of the dog catcher's truck.


Yeah, because dogs never escape by accident from well secured yards and homes.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:17:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/2/2008 10:18:48 AM EST by Phil_in_Seattle]
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:20:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/2/2008 10:25:33 AM EST by joker581]

Originally Posted By evo462:

Originally Posted By joker581:
I'm amazed that the shelter doesn't have a policy that allows them to euthanize animals as soon as they come off of the dog catcher's truck.


Yeah, because dogs never escape by accident from well secured yards and homes.
A policy that allows them to immediately euthanize dogs is not the same as one that requires it. A well fed or maintained dog could easily be stored for a couple of days to see if anyone claims it.

This policy also prevents assholes from suing based on the idea that the pound is a kennel that has to hold your dog until you come get it.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:25:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Are they due some compensation? I think so, but $206k is high.
$206k is astronomical. A purebred dog producing high end puppies would have to have 100 perfect, surviving puppies in a lifetime, selling for $2000 each to even approach that figure.

When one of the parents is a mutt, you are generally lucky if you can give the puppies away. If you are really fortunate, someone will give you enough for one to cover the expense of feeding it since birth and taking it to the vet.

Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:26:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Animal control officers picked up their dog Amicus after it escaped from the couple's yard. Officers left a notice on the door telling the owners how to claim the dog, Carter said.

Bayless-Snider called the shelter the next day and arranged to pick up Amicus on May 16. They couldn't get the dog sooner because they were waiting for payday to afford the $109 recovery fee, Snider said.


No checks? No credit cards? If my dog escaped and was being held by the city, I'd pawn something if I had to to get her back right now, not in a few days. And I don't see how they wouldn't be charged a per-day fee for leaving the dog there... why should the shelter have to feed and care for their dog for free?

As for the mistaken euthanasia, I can see a huge claim / lawsuit. If my dog is killed, it isn't a case of me just getting another dog. She isn't a possession. Losing her would cause me a great deal of grief. On the other hand, I do not believe the taxpayers should ever have to write a check for something like this. I believe public entities should be completely immune from any tort action, and that the only recourse should be against individuals, in this case, the person who fucked up and killed the dog. Let them sue that person, and if they prevail, collect as much as they can.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:29:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By evo462:

Originally Posted By joker581:
I'm amazed that the shelter doesn't have a policy that allows them to euthanize animals as soon as they come off of the dog catcher's truck.


Yeah, because dogs never escape by accident from well secured yards and homes.
A policy that allows them to immediately euthanize dogs is not the same as one that requires it. A well fed or maintained dog could easily be stored for a couple of days to see if anyone claims it.


So, if a dog has the misfortune to have been kept by subhumans who starve it and keep it chained up, and it escapes, it should face summary execution because the poor thing isn't well-fed or cared for?


This policy also prevents assholes from suing based on the idea that the pound is a kennel that has to hold your dog until you come get it.


It is entirely reasonable for captured dogs to be held for a certain amount of time before being released for adoption or to be killed. Getting rid of that "grace period" would cause far more problems than might be solved.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:31:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By jnojr:
If my dog is killed, it isn't a case of me just getting another dog. She isn't a possession. Losing her would cause me a great deal of grief.
That's the thing. In the eyes of the law, a dog is a possession. If it weren't, the doors would be open for lawsuits from everyone who ever had a dog get run over by a car and people who killed dogs for legitimate reasons would have to defend themselves in court for it.

Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:35:47 AM EST
. I would sue the shit out of everybody envolved.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:37:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/2/2008 10:39:07 AM EST by joker581]

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By evo462:

Originally Posted By joker581:
I'm amazed that the shelter doesn't have a policy that allows them to euthanize animals as soon as they come off of the dog catcher's truck.


Yeah, because dogs never escape by accident from well secured yards and homes.
A policy that allows them to immediately euthanize dogs is not the same as one that requires it. A well fed or maintained dog could easily be stored for a couple of days to see if anyone claims it.


So, if a dog has the misfortune to have been kept by subhumans who starve it and keep it chained up, and it escapes, it should face summary execution because the poor thing isn't well-fed or cared for? If this unfortunate starved dog is percieved to be a stray then, yes, it probably should be euthanized. The sad fact is that someone has to pay to maintain these animals. Those that are unlikely to be claimed or adopted are likely to be euthanized to reduce costs. That is the way it works in animal shelters and pounds, with the exception of "no-kill" shelters that usually select animals for intake based on their desireability.


This policy also prevents assholes from suing based on the idea that the pound is a kennel that has to hold your dog until you come get it.


It is entirely reasonable for captured dogs to be held for a certain amount of time before being released for adoption or to be killed. Getting rid of that "grace period" would cause far more problems than might be solved. I agree that getting rid of the grace period entirely would be likely to cause problems, which is why you'd need someone competent to make the kill/don't kill decision. In this case, such a policy would save everyone involved a lot of time and money by allowing the city to easily steamroll this bullshit lawsuit.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:42:06 AM EST
A dog is property under Texas law and their claim that their mutt had potential value as a stud dog or brood bitch is laughable. They DO have a right to claim a value, but it is more along the lines of an adoption fee cost for another mixed breed. Even a purebred dog has negligible value unless the owner can prove additional worth by the addition of championship and performance titles, history in the breed as a proven producer, etc...

I truly am sorry these folks lost their pet due to the incompetence of the Animal Control employee, but their lawsuit is without merit, IMO, and a waste of time.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 11:45:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:
In the eyes of the law, a dog is a possession. If it weren't, the doors would be open for lawsuits from everyone who ever had a dog get run over by a car and people who killed dogs for legitimate reasons would have to defend themselves in court for it.


Not too long ago, there was some court case that said otherwise.

That doesn't mean that a dog's life is sacrosanct, and you must not defend yourself from a dog that's attacking you. But if you recklessly or negligently kill a dog, you are not merely depriving someone of a low-worth possession. And it's time the law started to recognize that.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 11:50:43 AM EST
1) The dog was in the custody of the city because they failed to control and contain it

2) They could have gotten it sooner, but

3) They didn't have the money to pay the fine

4) It was a mutt, breeding opportunities doesn't fly.

This poster rules that the claimant be issued a check in the amount of $1,000 for their duress, and be given their choice of animal from the city shelter at no cost including immunizations and spay / neuter.

Next....

($206K....what thee fuck.)
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 11:53:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:
Wow, another set of low income shitbags with a frivolous lawsuit. Color me surprised.

Given the huge numbers of stray and feral animals running around, I'm amazed that the shelter doesn't have a policy that allows them to euthanize animals as soon as they come off of the dog catcher's truck.


It should be a referendum to the city; should the people pay for this or not?




Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:11:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:
I'm amazed that the shelter doesn't have a policy that allows them to euthanize animals as soon as they come off of the dog catcher's truck.


Texas State Law sets a minimum holding period of 3 days for healthy stray animals. County and City ordinances can be more lenient but not go less than the 3 days.

Injured or sick is another story. Unfortunately these accidents happen. 2 black labs mixes get put in the same pen, one scheduled to go home, one scheduled for euthanasia. Inattention to detail and a mistake is made.

Not saying this is what happened, but it has happened at our shelter. Lots of apologizing, offers of another dog, changes in policies and procedures to insure these kinds of incidents do not repeat themselves. We now have 3 different warning systems in place for the animals as a checks and balance system to insure the wrong animal does not get put down.

People threaten lawsuits but once they calm down and realize the only reason Animal Control had the dog in the first place was due to someone else's carelessness, they normally back off. Besides how many lawyers and much $$$ can a city like Denton throw at you defending itself?
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:32:32 PM EST
man some of you people really hate dogs.

my dog is a member of the family, if this was me there would be hell to pay
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:37:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.

my dog is a member of the family, if this was me there would be hell to pay


$206k wouldn't be enough to pay the Lawyer, for what I would do to the dumbass that KILLED my dog
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:39:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.

my dog is a member of the family, if this was me there would be hell to pay



You wouldn't have left him there for a few days either.

They could have pawned their TV , something to come up with $100
to get him back if they cared that much about him.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:41:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.
Who?

I love dogs. I would have had nothing but sympathy for these people if they were asking for reasonable replacement costs for the dog and a sane amount of money for their time.

Instead they are using this as an opportunity to try to force the city to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for some mutt that they didn't care enough about to spring from the pound. This kind of frivolous lawsuit pisses me off more than I can even express here.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:42:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By kybosshog420:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.

my dog is a member of the family, if this was me there would be hell to pay


$206k wouldn't be enough to pay the Lawyer, for what I would do to the dumbass that KILLED my dog


I can tell you what this thread will turn into, a bunch of people saying "control your dog and blah blah blah wont happen"
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:44:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/2/2008 7:46:54 PM EST by Just_Parker]

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.
Who?

I love dogs. I would have had nothing but sympathy for these people if they were asking for reasonable replacement costs for the dog and a sane amount of money for their time.

Instead they are using this as an opportunity to try to force the city to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for some mutt that they didn't care enough about to spring from the pound. This kind of frivolous lawsuit pisses me off more than I can even express here.


the article stated that they called the pound and informed them when they were going to come pick up the dog. They even showed up a day early, only to find that the dog had been put down.

my guess is they both probably had jobs and couldnt make it down there during regular business hours.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:45:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:

Originally Posted By kybosshog420:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.

my dog is a member of the family, if this was me there would be hell to pay


$206k wouldn't be enough to pay the Lawyer, for what I would do to the dumbass that KILLED my dog


I can tell you what this thread will turn into, a bunch of people saying "control your dog and blah blah blah wont happen"
Those people are correct. The city is not responsible for maintaining people's loose dogs.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:50:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.
Who?

I love dogs. I would have had nothing but sympathy for these people if they were asking for reasonable replacement costs for the dog and a sane amount of money for their time.

Instead they are using this as an opportunity to try to force the city to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for some mutt that they didn't care enough about to spring from the pound. This kind of frivolous lawsuit pisses me off more than I can even express here.


the article stated that they called the pound and informed them when they were going to come pick up the dog. They even showed up a day early, only to find that the dog had been put down.
The article also stated that they opted to leave the dog at the pound until payday rather than going down and picking it up.

Suddenly the dog that wasn't worth borrowing $109 to spring from the pound is worth $206,000? That is bullshit and I hope that these people get their asses handed to them in court, followed by a lifetime of debt to cover the legal bills that this will rack up for them.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:52:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:

Originally Posted By kybosshog420:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.

my dog is a member of the family, if this was me there would be hell to pay


$206k wouldn't be enough to pay the Lawyer, for what I would do to the dumbass that KILLED my dog


I can tell you what this thread will turn into, a bunch of people saying "control your dog and blah blah blah wont happen"
Those people are correct. The city is not responsible for maintaining people's loose dogs.

funny i thought that was the purpose of the human society. to take care of peoples dogs until they could come pick them up.

Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:54:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.
Who?

I love dogs. I would have had nothing but sympathy for these people if they were asking for reasonable replacement costs for the dog and a sane amount of money for their time.

Instead they are using this as an opportunity to try to force the city to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for some mutt that they didn't care enough about to spring from the pound. This kind of frivolous lawsuit pisses me off more than I can even express here.


the article stated that they called the pound and informed them when they were going to come pick up the dog. They even showed up a day early, only to find that the dog had been put down.
The article also stated that they opted to leave the dog at the pound until payday rather than going down and picking it up.

Suddenly the dog that wasn't worth borrowing $109 to spring from the pound is worth $206,000? That is bullshit and I hope that these people get their asses handed to them in court, followed by a lifetime of debt to cover the legal bills that this will rack up for them.


had they been made aware of the dogs pending premature execution im sure they would of taken steps to acquire the money a bit faster.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:55:01 PM EST
A guy I know came home on a Thursday to find his dog escaped with notice to pick the dog up. This was past hours of operation for the town kennel.

He went the following day after work (4PM) but the town told him animals were not available for pickup after 4PM on Friday. He was told to return Monday.

When he returned Monday, he was told that dogs were always euthanized over the weekend, and his had been killed. They did not offer an appology. He fought back and as a result the town's euthanasia policy is now far less retarded.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:57:56 PM EST
Just give them another dog or two for the mistake. It's an animal and mistakes happen.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 7:59:57 PM EST
My kids just got told today that their 13yo Corgi will be euthanized in the next day or so..my 7yo daughter cried for 20 min straight
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:15:45 PM EST
My dog's life is worth a lot more to me than all the criminals lives that I deal with on a daily basis.

Hell, my dog means as much - if not more to me than my current girlfriend. And my dog probably cares more for me than the girlfriend sometimes.

Of course, my dog is trained not to run away from me or my home. I can't say the same about the girlfriend....
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 3:49:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 3:57:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/3/2008 3:58:45 AM EST by joker581]

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:

Originally Posted By kybosshog420:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.

my dog is a member of the family, if this was me there would be hell to pay


$206k wouldn't be enough to pay the Lawyer, for what I would do to the dumbass that KILLED my dog


I can tell you what this thread will turn into, a bunch of people saying "control your dog and blah blah blah wont happen"
Those people are correct. The city is not responsible for maintaining people's loose dogs.

funny i thought that was the purpose of the human society. to take care of peoples dogs until they could come pick them up.

Think again. The purpose of animal control is to get uncontrolled animals off of the street. What happens to them after that varies, but it is not a dog spa where they should be left until you get around to picking them up.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 7:24:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/4/2008 7:27:34 PM EST by JasonblkZ06]

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Couple Sues City for $206G After Dog Mistakenly Euthanized
Monday, June 02, 2008

E-Mail Print Share:

DENTON, Texas — A couple whose dog was mistakenly euthanized wants the city to pay $206,000 for the loss, future breeding opportunities and emotional pain.

Shawn Snider and Beth Bayless-Snider say they arrived to pick up their 3-year-old black Labrador mix on May 15 and found out a worker had killed it that morning.

"I'm not going to just let them get away with an apology," he said. "They can't bring my dog back, so the only thing they can do is give me money."

The worker apparently didn't notice an entry on the dog's records indicating the owners would pick it up May 16, said Lt. Lenn Carter of the Denton Police Department, which oversees the shelter. The Sniders arrived to pick up the dog a day earlier than expected.

An investigation is underway and the shelter worker could face discipline, Carter said. He declined to name the worker.

"It was definitely a mistake on our part," he said. "It's a really unfortunate incident, and we're going to take steps [so] that it doesn't happen again."

The Sniders filed a liability claim with the city's risk management department. City spokesman John Cabrales said officials could not comment on a pending claim.

The couple also hasn't ruled out a lawsuit, Snider said.

Animal control officers picked up their dog Amicus after it escaped from the couple's yard. Officers left a notice on the door telling the owners how to claim the dog, Carter said.

Bayless-Snider called the shelter the next day and arranged to pick up Amicus on May 16. They couldn't get the dog sooner because they were waiting for payday to afford the $109 recovery fee, Snider said.

The shelter can hold stray animals for at least four days. If they aren't picked up, animals become available for adoption or euthanasia.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361604,00.html

It's a mixed breed. Give them another one out of the shelter.


And if it was a pure-bred then what?

Hopefully they do file suit against the city and recover punitive damages. Maybe the monkey charged with doing the euthanizations in Denton, TX will pay attention next time or enjoy his new employment at DQ.


Yeah good idea, have all the homeowners in Denton foot the bill for this. We are too sue happy as it is and the more BS like this that takes the place the more it will continue. A MUTT for future breeding rights? Were they currently breeding this dog? No, so that and the fact it was a MUTT make this argument invalid. Yes it is a tragic accident but if they really wanted their dog that bad they would have not lost it to begin with then would have gone over to get it right away. I think the truth is they are trash looking for a frivolous lawsuit and prob didn't care for the dog too much.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 7:30:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:

Originally Posted By kybosshog420:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.

my dog is a member of the family, if this was me there would be hell to pay


$206k wouldn't be enough to pay the Lawyer, for what I would do to the dumbass that KILLED my dog


I can tell you what this thread will turn into, a bunch of people saying "control your dog and blah blah blah wont happen"
Those people are correct. The city is not responsible for maintaining people's loose dogs.


I agree with your sentiment, but the city has taken it upon themselves to round up dogs, and in this case kill it. It's taken animals on as a responsibility, so it should also be responsible for making sure it's not putting someone's wanted dog to death.

They should pay. Not $206k, not even $10k, but they should pay.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 7:36:26 PM EST
Wow this kinda hits close to home literally. I hadnt heard about this yet, and that shelter is only about 12 miles away from me.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 7:44:43 PM EST
I keep my dogs in my yard. I check the fence daily for any indications that my dogs are attempting to escape and repair as needed. I do this, not only to keep my pets, but also to protect myself from a lawsuit from someone getting bit by my roaming dog.
If one were to get out and get picked up, I could certainly come up with the money to spring them.
The whole mess could have been avoided with a little diligence on the part of the owners.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 8:38:12 AM EST
Whats a lab mix worth? $200? That's all they should be entitled to. Don't know how courts have ruled in TX, but in WI, a pet is considered property.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:45:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:

Originally Posted By joker581:

Originally Posted By Just_Parker:
man some of you people really hate dogs.
Who?

I love dogs. I would have had nothing but sympathy for these people if they were asking for reasonable replacement costs for the dog and a sane amount of money for their time.

Instead they are using this as an opportunity to try to force the city to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for some mutt that they didn't care enough about to spring from the pound. This kind of frivolous lawsuit pisses me off more than I can even express here.


the article stated that they called the pound and informed them when they were going to come pick up the dog. They even showed up a day early, only to find that the dog had been put down.

my guess is they both probably had jobs and couldnt make it down there during regular business hours.


Article says they were waiting for their paychecks in order to afford the $109 bill from the Animal Shelter. If you can't afford $109 w/o waiting for payday maybe you shouldn't have a dog.....

I'm looking at ~$3-4K (yes, 3-4 THOUSAND dollars) in surgery for my black lab mix to repair a torn ACL. This is after spending ~$2K on surgery to remove a golf ball sized cancer tumor a few years ago. Pets can be expensive, if you're poor maybe you shouldn't be taking on that kind of obligation......

I know some of you will say to skip the surgery but having a lame black lab isn't an option and neither is putting her down.

Brian
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:51:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By rtech:
Of course, my dog is trained not to run away from me or my home. I can't say the same about the girlfriend....


Kind of a funny story:
We had gone dirt bike riding/camping with friends and parked our trailer in front of their house while all of us went to dinner. Our dog and their dog were in the back yard, as we were rounding the corner onto their street we were talking about our dog getting out of our yard (because the gate was left open) and cruising the neighborhood to her vet's office. As we round the corner guess who is sitting by the driver door of my truck waiting for us to return - yep, our dog had broken a fence board and thought we were going to leave w/o her.

Brian
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:52:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By VoodooChile:
My kids just got told today that their 13yo Corgi will be euthanized in the next day or so..my 7yo daughter cried for 20 min straight


I'm sorry.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 3:45:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By evo462:

Originally Posted By joker581:
I'm amazed that the shelter doesn't have a policy that allows them to euthanize animals as soon as they come off of the dog catcher's truck.


Yeah, because dogs never escape by accident from well secured yards and homes.


No the dogs leave on purpose. If it was well secured they couldn't get out.

In any case they are going to find out the hard way that dogs being property aren't the cash cow they and their lawyer believe. Unless Texas is radically different, animals are good for replacement value and incidental documentable costs and that's about it. (Of course the lawyer might have told them that and took a fee up fron with no contingency on winning.)
Top Top