Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Update: Row Gets to Go Home!

Hi Everyone. Here is a further update about Row. A commentor on his blog was able to attend the hearing and has posted a report in the comments section. I have reprinted below.

Long and short, Row will be able to go home. He will be neutered, not SUCH a bad thing - better than a trip over the Rainbow Bridge. He is to be suitably confined - don't know what that really means but I will find out and post.

In a horrific situation like this the outcome - though perhaps not entirely fair (two sides to every story, read below) - could have been worse and fatal for Row.

I still hold that the situation could have been avoided, first by Row's owner, and second by the alleged victims - come on folks use your head! I think the worst offender here was not Mr Scott, nor the lady victim, but the man that was with her. HE attacked Row by his own admission, Row didn't bite him now did he.

We'll really never know, but at least Row will go home and live.

Post to

Betty Ann January 12th, 2010 at 18:35
Here is the truth concerning Brevard County vs Row (Scott)
I attended a hearing to determine if the Akita Row (Scott) could be declared a dangerous dog.
On December 9, 2009 there was an encounter between the dog, Row (Ronin), and an elderly couple. Row’s owner was visiting his ex-wife’s house and the dog was tethered with a plastic covered steel cable to a tree in the front yard.The elderly couple approached the house and clearly saw the dog in the yard.The dog barked at the couple but they took no action to avoid the dog and continued forward. The law states that people have every right to remain on the sidewalk. This was a quiet residential street so the ability to cross the street or walk in the street was not limited by traffic. It is completely legal for the couple to remain on the sidewalk and to take no evasive action to avoid the dog.
Unfortunately for Row, his tether was long enough for him to reach the sidewalk. Row was able to leave the property if only by a few feet. He was able to reach the couple and he jumped up on them. At this point testimony and evidence diverge and statements are contradictory. The man states that he punched the dog and grabbed its collar and hit the dog with “the other end of the leash” when it jumped up on the woman who stated that she was behind the man. The woman states that she stumbled backward into the street and injured her arm. She does not believe she was bitten. When the dog jumped up he was face to face with the woman. The only damage shown at the hearing was a photo of the woman’s right arm showing a cut or scrape at the elbow. She refused to allow her medical information to be released to the hearing so there is only one photo taken 7 days after the event available to the hearing committee.
The committee determined that Row did meet the minimum requirement to be declared a dangerous dog because he was able to approach these people on public land and the woman had an injury as a result. It was determined that there was no evidence to support a bite. There were no deep bruises no puncture no opposing bite marks just scratches. It could not be determined if the marks on the woman’s arm were from the fall or from the dog’s feet.Remember she claimed he was looking into her face not clamped onto her arm.
According to law, Row’s owner will have to neuter the dog and keep him in suitable confinement. The dog will be returned to the owner. The owner has the right to appeal.
The decision to declare Row a dangerous dog was made by a committee of 2 volunteers. It was a unanimous decision. In conversations post-hearing it was agreed that Row was not a dangerous or aggressive dog but he had committed an act that met the minimum requirements of the law by leaving the property and there was injury involved.
Row will be allowed to return home and the owner will be required to bring the dog’s accommodations up to what is required by county law.
Now let’s do the math. The tether was 19.5 feet long. The actual tether was displayed at the hearing.
Row’s tether was high up on the limb of a very large oak tree with thick limbs. Lets assume the tree limb is 1 1/5 feet thick based on the photo of the tree. If tree is 7 feet from the sidewalk and the tether was 7 feet up from the ground, we now have all tree sides of the triangle.
If a is Upright side of triangle 7 feet
If b is Horizontal side of triangle 7 feet
Formula for diagonal side c is
a squared + b squared = c squared
so the length of c is square root of c
that value is 9.8995 feet
How much tether was needed to encircle the tree limb?
That value is 3.14159 times the thickness of the limb
3.14159 times 1.5 feet = 4.7124 feet
9.8995 feet plus 4.7124 feet = 14.61 feet
19.5 feet total length of tether minus 14.61 feet = 4.89 feet
If sidewalk is 3 feet wide then the dog can get 1.89 feet past the sidewalk.There is a wide area of grass between the sidewalk and the street. I’m guessing another 7 to 8 feet.
So why didn’t these people just step over into the quiet residential street and save us all a lot of grief? They clearly saw the dog. What is wrong with this picture?
Betty AnnWinter Springs FL


cathy said...

So happy to hear this outcome. And a hard lesson to learn for everyone. As the owners of such large powerful dogs we must never forget their natural instinct to guard and protect territory. Neutering is essential and they should never be left unattended in an unsecured yard. With educated and attentive owners I still believe akitas are a wonderful breed. Once you have known one you tend to develop a life long love of the breed.

Di's Kitchen said...