Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Donate to
Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

posted by   |  permalink  |  10 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

Post a Comment

The comment policy.


Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/09/2008 3:42 AM  |  Flag  
Not even Idaho can escape the nutters. Here is a nearby town that is considering pit bull regulations:

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/09/2008 9:41 AM  |  Flag  
Another Pocatello attack:

"The statutes that we have concerning vicious dogs are incredibly inept," says Harding.

Idaho has a one bite rule -- first attack free!

Anonymous dude i bagged ur pit  |  12/09/2008 10:59 AM  |  Flag  
"Mayor Roger Chase was quick to point out that he has no plans to ban any one breed of dog."

Idiot. Replace ASAP.

Anonymous x  |  12/09/2008 11:51 AM  |  Flag  
I think Idaho must have a 2 free bites rule. It was declared dangerous in TWO counties. why would one county declare a dog vicious just because another county did?

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/10/2008 7:12 AM  |  Flag  
There need to be state registries of dangerous dogs, and people who own dangerous dogs

When declared dangerous (though it SHOULD be euthanized) the dog should be photographed, tattooed, microchipped, and entered in a state database so that if the dog is moved and attacks again, it can be traced

These criminals are flaunting the law by just moving the dogs to another county or state so they can kill

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/12/2008 3:13 AM  |  Flag  
"But once again, we fail to receive the information that truly matters: Did either of these women have an insurance policy to pay for the victim's medical costs?"

C'mon...It's becoming clear that you have a better chance of seeing Bigfoot than a Pit owner with liability insurance! The Tax payer will end of footing the bill on this one.

It will be interesting if the the outraged Mayor goes after this pit schuffler for the costs of his employees medical treatment.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  3/31/2009 11:40 PM  |  Flag  
Second dog owner jail time suspended
MARCH 31, 2009 - "Judge Rick Carnaroli sentenced Sabina Adamson 60 days in jail and two years probation for vicious conduct by the dog and for failure to provide proof of a rabies vaccination. Adamson was also ordered to pay a $1000 fine and half of the nearly $36,000 in medical costs incurred by the animal control officer. Judge Carnaroli did suspend the jail time and 950 of the fine. He also ordered that Adamson not own any animals during her probation."

Anonymous Anonymous  |  4/01/2009 4:55 AM  |  Flag  
Lame...This dog was previously declared dangerous and had been trafficked into town.

Why only half the medical costs? Who pays the other half?

No jail time? A slap on the wrist considering the dogs history and her illegal conduct!

Anonymous Trigger  |  11/25/2009 6:58 PM  |  Flag  
Victim speaks out:

Animal Control Officer Thankful to be Alive
Nov. 4 2009 - "Pocatello Police Officer Doug Frei was first to arrive on scene. He used his necktie and spare magazine from his gun as a make shift tourniquet to stop the bleeding. Anderson says without his quick thinking she wouldn't be here today. That sentiment was echoed a few weeks later as Frei was honored by Pocatello Police Chief JR Miller for his heroic actions but at the time Frei said he didn't feel like a hero. Officer Douglas Frei: "I didn't do anything I don't think anyone else would have done. I told the Chief I was just trying to get rid of my necktie." After the attack Anderson missed three months of work while she recovered. Now the mental and physical scars remind her of one more reason she has to be thankful this year. Tammy Andersen: "I'm glad to be here. Because I didn't think I was going to make it."

Blogger responsibledogowner  |  3/30/2010 11:46 AM  |  Flag  
Personally, I would support all dog owners having to carry insurance with the rates being based on the breed and its history of violence. That way, the pit bull apologists won't be able to scream that they're being discriminated against. The cost would be nominal for breeds who do not inflict serious injury but, the cost would increase in accordance with those breeds who cause the most damage. As a dog owner, that seems fair to me.

Post a Comment »