It breaks my heart to report that Row has indeed been declared a dangerous dog and will likely suffer the most horrible consequence. It pains me even more to say that perhaps, the circumstances were not as we thought. There are indeed two sides to every story - and the truth lies someplace in between.
I am not above admitting that I may have been wrong in this case. I may have fallen into the knee jerk reaction of any dog owner - that of defending the animal (and by default it's owner) against what seemed like false accusations.
Do we, any of us know what the real story is? No we do not, I do not. Apparently we were not given the entire picture by the owner on Row's website. There are two sides to every story, the truth lies someplace in between. I cannot blame him, I love my dogs and would be devastated if I were facing the eminent loss of my companion. Even though my head would tell me that Row may have a problem, my heart would be as blind as justice. I hold no fault to Mr Scott for defending Row. I hold him at fault for not protecting this animal in the first place, for not understanding his responsibility to KEEP ROW OUT OF HARM"S WAY.
We will never truly know if Row was acting aggressively or speaking in the way all Akita owners find dear. Row should not have been in the situation, he should not have been tied unattended, it was a mistake, we all make them. A teaching moment, yes, but what is taught, nothing but pain and sadness.
That all being said my heart goes out to Row's owner, I am sure he will forever remember Row and the part he played in Row's life. I hope that he will continue to defend Row and will be successful in bringing him home and getting him the help and training he needs. But, more so my heart goes out to Row, who at one point in his life rode high as a champion.
It is my hope dear Row that you do not go to the bridge, but if you do, run free and happy.
Below is the letter I received from Brevard County regarding Row's case as well as a single photo of the victim's injury. I do not profess to know if this is a bite or not judge for yourself, but does it matter?
A brief summary of the findings of the Council on the events of that day are as follows;
The victim and her husband were walking down a public sidewalk towards Mr. Scott's house, Mr. Scott had Row aka Ronin tied out to a tree limb of a tree approximately 6 to 7 feet from the sidewalk on a cable that measured 19' 9" long (20 ft cable that had kinks in it from usage). The Council found that the based on the length of the tether, the distances from the tree to the sidewalk that Row was able to at least reach the sidewalk and possibly as far as into the public street. Mr. Scott had given the actual cable used to tie Row out with and it was shown to the Council during the meeting. Photographs of the sidewalk clearly showed paw prints as well as the drag marks made by the victim as she was scrambling to get away from the dog. They did find that the injuries sustained by the victim were made by Row and not caused by "falling" by this I mean her contact with the ground or roadway caused the injuries she had to her right arm/elbow.
The Basis for the Determination of the Council stated that they found that Row aka Ronin did, without provocation, chase or approach a person on a public sidewalk in an aggressive, menacing fashion and apparent attitude of attack and caused injury to a human.
At this point Mr. Scott has 10 business days in which to appeal the council's decision to the County Court or 14 days in which to come into full compliance with the provisions set forth by County ordinance, his third option would be to sign ownership of the dog to the County.
I’ve also attached one of the pictures of the injury sustained by the victim. I also believe the Mr. Scott’s page fails to mention that Ronin had also bit his niece the day prior.
I hope this answers your question.