Dutch the Dog

I read most of the article. My daughter has a pit bull and to be honest I AM nervous about it. I really don't know what to think. The woman attacked the dog with a metal pole makes me wonder what provoked her to do that. I really don't know what to think.

Alot of thoughts crossed my mind as I read this article. But I think it all comes down to the "vicious animals" ordinance. All the people in the world can sign a petition in hopes of saving an animal BUT, if there is an ordinance in place I think it will inevidably take precidence over anything else. Sure the owner and friend of the owner want to save an animal they have come to love. And as far as what they are saying about the judge, I think judges have a rough job staying impartial and being professional. Especially with everyone else has long their link with reality. Why was the woman bit in the first place? If she was abusing the dog she deserves to be bit. Is an animal supposed to just set by and let someone punch, kick and beat it with a metal pole and do nothing? And I think if this is actually the facts of the story of what actually happened then I don't think the dog acted viciously at all. IT WAS DEFENDING ITSELF. I am totally against pit bulls. I don't like them, don't like to around them. I don't trust them. If this dog is like one of them I could be swayed. lol But I think a dog of any breeding has a right to defend itself. If the judge didn't see that, for what ever reason, then he needs to be replaced. I think vicious comes from just meaness. I think that defending and viciousness are two VERY different things. ANd there is the mentality too of some people that if it is an animal it doesn't matter what the truth of the matter is. It bit someone and they turn their hearing off to anything further. Did the dog bite and then it was beaten? Or vice versa? Reading a different article and finally understanding what happened I think the former owner should have been brought up on charges. She admitted to animal control officers that she was beating the animal before it bit her. Why didn't whoever was handling the case bring this animal control officer into court and have this person tell them what this officer was told by the former owner. This sounds like a real miscarriage of justice. A dog killed for no reason. I wonder if the stigma I feel about pit bulls is some what what happened here. I wouldn't want to be the judge in this case. From what I have read the former owner has actually filed charges against the owner of the dog. The bite she recieved didn't even tear the skin. And this municipal ordinance reads that "A vicious animal is defined as any animal that, without provocation, bites or attacks persons or other animals." This seems really cut and dried. The judge should have known all this. Why did the judge feel the dog should be euthanized? Makes no sense. What do you do when the judge obviously went against the municipal ordinance? I am glad that I read further. This previous owner of the dog obviously has viciousness issues of her own. She shouldn't have been made responsible for the dog in the first place. And the judge should be brought up on charges too. For not paying attention to the evidence. IDIOTS!! I think I really did a flip flop from the beginning of this to now. After getting more information on the case. It is sad. You said the dog was euthanized then? That is a shame. I hope the owner continues to fight for his dog even though he is gone now. That woman needs to have something done about her and the judge. IDIOTS I tell you.

That has to be the worst piece of anything that I have ever attempted to read. "A bit long" was quite an understatement Dawny. The author kept changing tack so often it was hard to know if something had been left out and you had missed the ending to the story about Dutch. He does get back on track a bit later though. It's always the dog I feel for and I'm glad Dutch was put to sleep. He was simply in a no-win situation and he would have ended up again being mistreated and eventually killed sooner or later so I'm glad he was saved that. The previous owner should never have agreed to look after him when she gave him away in the first place because she was afraid of him.

I read a few paragraphs but still didn't get the general gist. I wish he could have gotten to the point right from the get go and then later go into all of what everyone else was trying to say. There's always 2 sides to every story.. and it's hard to tell what's truth and what isn't.

I think that not only in this story, but in many stories where it comes to vicious attacks by dogs that they are skewed because of the breed of dog that has been involved in this attack. I guess what I'm saying is that a small breed dog is more likely to attack a person than a larger breed of dog, but you never hear about an attack of a chihuahua on a person, you hear of attacks by pit bulls and other large dogs like that. Me personally, I believe that all dogs have the potential to attack, but certain breeds have been given a bad name because of other reasons that people keep these breeds of dogs.

I'm actually with you on this 100%. A better effort should have been made to determine if he was truly a vicious dog. It doesn't sound like he was. If this was truly the only incident that has occurred for them to base their decision on, then they really have euthanized a dog that simply needed to be nurtured more. It's not uncommon for a dog to turn on it's own owner and especially if he was trying to defend himself from brutality. The whole incident stinks to me.

This dog is a service dog for a handicapped person and this woman who beat the dog with a metal pipe wants the dog killed and the idiot judge agrees with her? Who is going to help that disabled man get along? Does he and his wife have to call the hospital and get a nurse to come over and live with them? Do they have to go to a handicapped seniors apartment and have to be around people who have to be bused to the stores all the time? Besides that, that dog is a rare breed and I saw his picture. It is not that he is a pit bull. They should get the dog placed with a rescue unit who will take care and get the dog to improve before returning him to his owners.

I'm sorry but I just couldn't finish that rambling opinion piece, citing irrelevant information about the internet, etc. but never getting to the facts of WHY that woman attacked the dog. Maybe he did eventually mention it, but after ten minutes of reading and looking over at the scroll bar still near the top of the screen, I just gave up. If anyone got to the bottom of the opinion piece and found a reason for the woman's actions, please enlighten me.

hi dawn after three vicious attacks by just two pit bulls in tustin a couple of years ago I am all for killing the vicious animals. the first was a boy walking past the loose pit bulls yard on his way to school., He was knocked down and viciously bitten on his face and neck He was in the hospital for weeks with a number of surgeries, then a half hour later than thaty attact a second pit bull joined the first and they attacked a woman out walking her poodle. they attacked her and the poodle . The dog was killed in just a few moments.The two dogs savaged the woman by the throat and she was dying when medical help was summoned. So for me I believe the article showed that dutch deserved to be killed. That's my own opinion of course.But I had horrible visions of that poor woman bit on the butt and the thigh and how agonizing that must have been. I do not feel any sympathy[ for Dutch what soever.

Great post. It just show how messy people can be at times. If you do not mind me saying this but I do not blame anyone except for the dog owner for this entire commotion. The owner should be aware that the owned dog is already is a potential for the "Vicious Animal" ordinance and as such should be wearing a muzzle at all times when it is being walked in open public places. After all, the ordinance isn't for nothing and the owner should be aware to take the necessary precautions to prevent this event or similar kind from happening. Dogs like humans have their own temperament and would attack when they are threatened or provoked as in this incident. I have seen that owners of big dogs do not like to put the muzzle on their dogs and while they may have their own legitimate reasons whether it be for appearance or whatever, should be aware that their dogs will be in for such epic proportion when they attack people. I may be a dog lover but I detest irresponsible and ignorant owners who does not train their dogs to be obedient. I have seen in my experience how owners are literally towed by their dogs and I simply do not fancy myself to be in the same path of these dogs because I do not know what I will be in for or end up in. Owners and apologetics will always be on the defensive but they forget that all that is whatever is happening to them now would have been avoided in the first place. In this case, I understand that the dog is being defended as a service dog for the army veteran owner but I think the owner including sympathizers here need to remember that service dog should NEVER attack anyone even when provoked and that its duty is after all to take care of his master. Now because it has attacked a person, the owner being an incapable due to whatever physical limitations could not be fit to own this dog anymore. He will need to get another service dog for himself and as for the dog, let's just say that he should NOT have attacked or it should have been fitted with a muzzle. The sentence may be harsh but like a law enforcement officer who breaks the law, he will be punished even more severely for his crimes and I don't expect any exception here. Footnote: To all passionate dog lovers, I am not a dog hater nor am I being condescending here. But I feel that dog owners today are not like yesterday or yourselves even who would go beyond to look after and most of all, protect their pet dogs as in this handicapped owner's case. After all, how difficult is it to own a muzzle and put it on for his euthanized dog here?

I read two thirds of the first sentence and having read that, I did not want to read anything more. If we are talking about a dog then why does race have to be mentioned? Actually, when I read your toitle to this post I read it as, 'Ditch the Dog;, not 'Dutch the Dog'. My error was in fact corect and the dog was ditched. I have read the other responses posted to get an idea of what the article actually said but thery all claim it was confusing. Did the lady get euthanised for beating the dog with a metal pole too? I hope Dutch is in a better place. Waht a h*ll people can be to animals let alone each other.

I want that pole Dawny. I am very moody and bad tempered lately so this is my chance to get rid of all this funky emotions. Anyone who beat a dog whether with your hands a pole or whatever they can lay their hands on must be beaten and treated the same way. That dog did not deserve to be put down. The court is just as stupid and useless. I hope they all burn in hell for this. I think i feel better now. A bit.

Nobody would have thought there was an uproar over whether or not a dog was euthanized.I wonder if their petition will save the situation.

thank you for sharing this it is sad that any dog will bite any person and to even just beat on a dog after all the dog does what the owner trains there are way to many people out there that train dogs as fight dogs what i thing they need to do if you caught training a dog to fight then you should be put in prison and see if that take the fight out of the person

very sad... so sorry to hear that. I love animals. Sorry the lady got hurt.