# DNA Clears Service Dog



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

Interesting.


DNA Clears Service Dog of Guilt for Another Canine's Death | petMD


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

Wow! So glad he was cleared. Absolutely terrifying that can happen to a dog and his family. So unfair.


----------



## CatChandler (Jul 25, 2016)

That is ridiculously unfair. I could go on about this (I'm sure we all could!), but wow, just glad it turned out okay for Jeb and his owner.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Wouldn't have happened if the owners of the service dog didn't allow their dog to run around like he owned the world. So he was falsely accused of another dog's death. That shouldn't have given him a ruling of death even if it was true. A designation of dangerous maybe. But killing a dog because it killed another dog? That fcrazy. What is wrong with people. Make the owners pay restitution. 

Ok, let's think of it being on the other side. Let's say our GSD, my werewolf got killed by the neighbor's Cane Corso (don't want to bash pit bulls today). How would I feel about that. My dog is in my yard, but not otherwise protected. I wouldn't normally allow her to run free in the yard. But let's say, she got over the x-pen and her baby gate and squeezed herself out my front door (nearly impossible, but for a determined werewolf...). And the neighbors dog came over and killed her -- one shake that severed her jugular or broke her neck. 

I want to think that I would blame myself for not protecting her. But I probably would be pretty pissed. I would want my neighbors to build a fence to keep their brute contained. I would want them to pay for my dog (although we cannot put a price on dogs, we can demand the going rate for a dog of that breed and good breeding). And I would think something more for the loss/pain and suffering. She is not a service dog, but we all have our attachments, and you cannot replace a dog like you can replace a coffee table. Also, the owners of the other dog should have some sort of punitive damage, a fine, as in our state there is a leash law, and if the dog was on my property, they violated that, so, they should be fined. Mostly, if their dog did other damage, I don't want them to be able to say they were unaware of the possibility. So, yes, I would want the dog labeled in some fashion to require the fence/kennel, and to ensure that bigger, badder consequences would happen if they allowed that dog to run amok again. 

But I would still blame myself for not protecting my dog. 

Dog aggression does not equal human aggression. Killing a dog for killing another dog, especially a very small dog is really unreasonable. These people dodged a bullet, because they were wrong to allow their dog to be in the position it was in. We have formidable dogs folks, and until folks who own them start treating them with the respect they require, all of us suffer consequences of their irresponsibility.


----------



## CatChandler (Jul 25, 2016)

Selzer, I respect your opinion but how do you know that the Mal was running around "like he owned the world" ? How do you know it wasn't the Pom that ran into the Mal's yard, where they were found? In either case, the Pom was also loose and unsupervised if the neighbor just "found" the dogs that way.

I agree that the Mal should've been in a secure fenced yard (like the owner was ordered to build -previous fence had a hole in it, which allowed Jeb to escape) but we just don't know all the facts.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

The original article on the ruling to euthanize. The judge ruled on the criteria that Jeb had killed another animal that he must be put down.

Judge rules service dog must be euthanized

Hulewicz, after going through dangerous dog laws, said if Jeb met the criteria, he had no other choice than to order him put down. According to Michigan law, a dog is considered a dangerous animal if it bites or attacks, causing serious injury or death to another human or animal when it is under the control of its owner.

"(Sawa) has told me the animal was in his yard over top of his animal, which was either dying or dead," he said. "We have to put ourselves in the same circumstances he was in. Any of us that would have our animal in our own yard, we expect our animal to be safe. Fences? Who cares?"
-----------------


but yes, Jeb was out of his yard and in the neighbor's yard. but obviously Jeb was not the one that killed the small dog and there was lots of local coyote activity.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

CatChandler said:


> Selzer, I respect your opinion but how do you know that the Mal was running around "like he owned the world" ? How do you know it wasn't the Pom that ran into the Mal's yard, where they were found? In either case, the Pom was also loose and unsupervised if the neighbor just "found" the dogs that way.
> 
> I agree that the Mal should've been in a secure fenced yard (like the owner was ordered to build -previous fence had a hole in it, which allowed Jeb to escape) but we just don't know all the facts.


The facts are worse than reported in the link you shared. The owners of the suspected dog have 4 dogs and let them run as a pack. I have little tolerance for this sort of thing. There are so many dangers in the world. Sure if you train your dog to stay in your yard, have proofed the dog, and are 99% sure that he will not leave your yard under any ordinary condition including squirrels or deer or rabbits, leaving your dog out your door into your less than secure yard unsupervised is a risk you can take. Letting four dogs run onto other people's property though is irresponsible dog ownership. When irresponsible people own dogs, the dogs suffer and other dog owners suffer from their ignorance and irresponsibility. 

We know enough. 

That the dog was a service dog shouldn't matter. If a disabled person is going to be lax with their dog's safety, than a percentage of those incidents will result in the death of the service animal. Don't give disabled people a break with the safety of their dogs! It will NOT help them (the disabled people)! 

This dog owner is lucky that the neighbor did not shoot the dog, and ask questions later. 

I am glad the dog isn't dead and the truth of the matter came out. But letting the owners off the hook here, big pats on the back for being right about their dog, well it overlooks a serious issue. I hope that the incident does not fade in their mind, because their dog was truly a breath away from being dead. There are no appeals from that court.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

So did one of their other dogs kill the dog then? If all 4 were running at large and this dog was standing over the dead dog?


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

"Service dogs", "Therapy dogs" I am sick of seeing them in grocery stores. I saw a guy the other day looking at the cold cuts and down below his "service dog" was licking the bacon. I have seen "Therapy dogs" riding in grocery carts with their anus pressed against the cart where people put their food that goes into their refrigerator. A person would think that another person might be able to withstand the anxiety of being without their pet for a few moments while shopping for human food. I am not talking about dogs trained to recognize immanent seizures or blood sugar crashes. Don't even get me started on Pit bull "therapy " dogs. There are so called "therapy dogs" killing other peoples dogs while riding on buses, etc. People can buy therapy dog vests off the internet. This pet parent business has gone too far. Dogs are animals. They lick their butts. I bet these "therapy dog" owners are aiming to sue the county for kenneling their precious while it sure looked like it killed the yap hound.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Nurse Bishop said:


> "Service dogs", "Therapy dogs" I am sick of seeing them in grocery stores. I saw a guy the other day looking at the cold cuts and down below his "service dog" was licking the bacon. I have seen "Therapy dogs" riding in grocery carts with their anus pressed against the cart where people put their food that goes into their refrigerator. A person would think that another person might be able to withstand the anxiety of being without their pet for a few moments while shopping for human food. I am not talking about dogs trained to recognize immanent seizures or blood sugar crashes. Don't even get me started on Pit bull "therapy " dogs. There are so called "therapy dogs" killing other peoples dogs while riding on buses, etc. People can buy therapy dog vests off the internet. This pet parent business has gone too far. Dogs are animals. They lick their butts. I bet these "therapy dog" owners are aiming to sue the county for kenneling their precious while it sure looked like it killed the yap hound.


Service dogs and therapy dogs are two separate things and different rules apply. Therapy dogs are not allowed in grocery stores. But service dogs are. My guess is that the vast majority of abuses that you mentioned, are committed by fakers. And nothing gets my goat more than people who take handi-capped spots, or take a dog places under the guise of its being a service dog. And built into the rules, you simply cannot ask or accuse without a terribly breach of etiquette. And, being disabled is not a condition that guaranties proper behavior. The only condition that guaranties that is death. So, yes, some disabled people may abuse the accommodation of allowing the dog to accompany them where dogs are generally not allowed. 

People who have actual disabilities would be less likely to do so, because they can be asked to leave if the dog is not behaving, and they rely on the dog. So, they are more likely to maintain good relations for themselves and for other people with challenges. 

The fakers will be standing before the Judge one day and when they do, I hope they are squirming. Well, be that as it may, we probably all of us will do our share of squirming when the time comes. 

I guess I am just not going to be overly concerned about the hygiene-related issues when it comes to dogs. Dog poop is yucky, but human poop is revolting, and yes, we've all seen people of WalMart and possibly worse in real life. Folks not washing their hands after using the bathroom, playing pocket pool, picking their noses, sneezing all over the place, hacking, touching door knobs, food packages, fruits, vegetables, meats, etc. Drunk or homeless people who fouled themselves and the money in their pockets will use the bills and change in their pockets without batting an eye. And flies, that will land here and there, on a pile in the yard and through the door on onto your clean plate when you aren't noticing. 

I think the best bet is to try not to think too much on it. Clean your own hands well and often, wash fruits and veggies, before cooking or consuming, don't allow meat to touch its outer packaging and try not to become germaphobic, or you will probably end up with an ulcer.


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

Actually, the reason I posted the link was because I had never before heard of DNA being used in these kind of circumstances involving animals. That's not to say it hasn't been done before, just that I had never heard of it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

newlie said:


> Actually, the reason I posted the link was because I had never before heard of DNA being used in these kind of circumstances involving animals. That's not to say it hasn't been done before, just that I had never heard of it.


I was wondering if they were able to pay someone off. I mean, doesn't it take a while to get to your court date? Wouldn't the dog be dead and buried by then? But they collected DNA out of the wounds to prove it wasn't their dog that did it? I mean, I was like, really?


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

If you take some time to read the newspaper articles and court records all will be revealed.The little pom's body was kept for evidence and so was available for DNA testing.
No need for conjecture about what REALLY happened.It's all public record.
It was interesting Newlie!I never heard of DNA testing in this sort of case either.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

dogma13 said:


> If you take some time to read the newspaper articles and court records all will be revealed.The little pom's body was kept for evidence and so was available for DNA testing.
> No need for conjecture about what REALLY happened.It's all public record.
> It was interesting Newlie!I never heard of DNA testing in this sort of case either.


Don't make out that I did not read the linked articles, I did. It wasn't in there. I read that a month later -- after the judge ruled the dog be put down, he allowed them to wait for DNA testing. If I owned the Pom, I would have buried my dog after the first trial. I wouldn't want to go to trial if I couldn't take care of the dog's remains. 

And what a lot of expense! Would you donate to someone's GO FUND ME account because they were negligent with their dogs and now one faces death? Well, I prefer to spend money on dogs that are in their predicament do to no fault of their owners, like Paul Upton's dogs. It is irritating when people don't bother to contain or supervise their dogs and then expect other people to pay to clean up their mess, and they want change.org to make petitions to do exactly what? Change laws? Whatever. It is irritating because they do not understand that they did wrong. The still don't get it. Their dog could be dead now and it was entirely their fault. 

So some pom is being kept in a fridge somewhere waiting for DNA samples to be taken until when? Until all the appeals run out? How many appeals does a dog get? How much of the financing of our court system should be spent on irresponsible dog owner? It must be nice to have so much money, to live where people aren't homeless or starving, that we can keep dog's bodies on ice for months. Seems we care more about dogs than we do about people. 

Yes it blows my mind. Don't get me wrong, I'd be horrified and want to do everything if my dog was going to be PTS by the courts, that is why I am anal about management and do not let them run about over to the neighbor's property. Believe it or not, if more people thought like me, and did not expect other people to bend over backwards for my dogs, then there would be fewer incidents of utter stupidity requiring Go Fund Me, and DNA testing, and dogs being kept in the morgue waiting for court cases to be decided and appealed.


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

Well,it does make a for an even more interesting thread when folks get judgemental and creative.But I'm glad that both parties reached an agreement and everyone involved learned lessons and live happily ever after.That's me being creative


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

dogma13 said:


> Well,it does make a for an even more interesting thread when folks get judgemental and creative.But I'm glad that both parties reached an agreement and everyone involved learned lessons and live happily ever after.That's me being creative


It's also you being judgmental. It's amazing how judgmental we can be when we are admonishing others for being judgmental. But I do appreciate your creativity. If only that would come true. I figure it is more wishful thinking.

I agree that I have little patience for people letting their dogs roam out of their yards. It is not because some day their dog might be falsely accused of killing a small dog. It is because there are a myriad of ways a dog can be severely injured or killed whenever it is running loose. 

Wonder what folks did before GO FUND ME. Wait a minute. I'm old enough to know what we did before it was the fashion to go beg on the internet.


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

selzer said:


> Wonder what folks did before GO FUND ME. Wait a minute. I'm old enough to know what we did before it was the fashion to go beg on the internet.


Equating Go Fund Me with begging is really inaccurate and prejudiced towards all the good intentions and uses of crowd funding.

I see it as people voluntarily sharing and helping each other, or achieving a goal collectively where it wouldn't be otherwise possible.

Isn't it a human trait to pool resources and skills to achieve a something.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

MadLab said:


> selzer said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder what folks did before GO FUND ME. Wait a minute. I'm old enough to know what we did before it was the fashion to go beg on the internet.
> ...


I don't know. I see Go Find Me as a begging site too. Sorry. I get inundated with them. I guess I grew up in the "can't afford it, don't get it" camp. But no, I am not going to donate money so your 1500 dollar puppy can get treated for parvo, no I am not going to give you money so you can rent a car. No. 

Now Kickstarter I like. That is really people raising money for cool idea.


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

Lord, my little thread has sure taken some unexpected turns!

I never thought or said it was OK for people to let their dogs run loose. I did think it was interesting that someone used DNA evidence to "clear" their dog, but I am not sure that is the best use of our resources when humans always seem to have to wait so long for these tests to come back.

As far as "Go Fund Me" accounts, I don't know that you can lump everything into one category. Yes, it does seem that that anyone on the internet is inundated with them these days and certainly some are questionable and ones that I would not donate to, but there have been several others that I have supported. Ironically, both originated from something posted on this forum, one involving a dog and another a longtime member who was going to be homeless through no fault of her own. In those cases, I was happy to contribute and wished that I could have done more. No thought of the word "begging" ever entered my mind.


----------

