GLEN AVALON
LOG IN SEARCH POST NEW MESSAGE HEADLINES MIMI !! DIVERSIONS MEDITATIONS BIORHYTHMS
 


  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Back To Board  

'Twice-Killed' Dog Lives

October 3 2001 at 1:01 PM
Mike F. 

'Twice-Killed' Dog Lives
By David J. Cieslak
Staff Writer
Tucson Citizen
10-3-1

Pima County sheriff's deputies asphyxiated a dog and then struck it on the head with a blunt object Monday night to try to kill the animal humanely after it was hit by a car, sheriff's officials said yesterday.

Investigators said they have not determined what type of object was used.

The Sheriff's Department did not disclose the incident until a Citizen reporter received a tip and contacted department officials yesterday.

The male dog, a 2-year-old shepherd-chow mix, was left for dead by the deputies near where it was struck on the Southwest Side.

On Tuesday morning, a Pima Animal Control Center officer discovered the animal was alive. Sheriff's Capt. Kathleen Brennan said the deputies believed the dog was suffering and close to death after it was hit at about 8:30 p.m. by a hit-and-run driver.

Deputies called Animal Control, but by 10 p.m., the officer had not arrived.

Deputies then decided they would euthanize the dog, Brennan said.

She said deputies will shoot an animal that is suffering, using their service weapons, if other methods are unavailable.

Brennan said the deputies were not allowed to shoot the dog by their supervisors, who were concerned about the safety of bystanders.

And they did not want to disturb area residents with the sound of gunfire, said Brennan, who is in charge of the department's uniform operations.

The dog was hit near West Calle Lerdo and South Victor Drive, near West Valencia Road, eight miles west of Interstate 19.

"There was some concern that if they heard the gunshots, it could be traumatic for the people in the area," Brennan said.

"They felt that for the people in the neighborhood to have to hear gunshots going off, it was not in the citizens' best interest."

The deputies, whose names were not released by the department, first tried to asphyxiate the dog, Brennan said.

The deputies were then advised by a bystander that striking the dog on the bridge of its nose would kill it.

"I think they hit him between the eyes. It renders them unconscious immediately," Brennan said.

The deputies checked the dog's pulse and breath.

They found neither, assumed the animal was dead, and left it in a desert area near the intersection, Brennan said.

An Animal Control officer, dispatched to pick up the dead animal Tuesday morning, found it alive. Brennan said the deputies involved in the incident violated no department policy.

"We prefer that, if possible, they shoot the animal."

"I was surprised," Brennan said. "The deputies acted in a manner they felt was in the best interest of the public, and the most humane they had available."

Brennan said she did not know how long the deputies have been with the department.

The dog was recovering yesterday at a Southwest Side veterinary clinic after undergoing surgery. Doctors said the animal's prognosis is good. The animal had a gash on the bridge of its nose, scrapes on its chin, a cut on its left front leg and right front shoulder, and bruises.

Brennan said she plans to adopt the dog for her family.

Kathleen Dunbar, a state legislator from Tucson and a board member of the Foundation for Animals In Risk, said she is appalled by the incident and wept when a reporter told her what happened to the dog.

Dunbar, a former Humane Society of Southern Arizona community relations coordinator, said, "I'm just horrified."

"If that's from lack of training, that desperately needs to be addressed," she said. Dunbar said she did not understand why deputies didn't put the dog in a patrol car and take it to a veterinarian.

Brennan said the deputies' safety can be jeopardized if they try to move an injured dog and it bites or scratches them.

Marsh Myers, Humane Society education director, said deputies should have taken the dog to a veterinarian.

"It was inexperienced officers without the knowledge and the tools to handle this better," Myers said.

The Animal Control officer did not respond to the deputies' call because he had left his pager at home and did not get messages until 10 p.m., Brennan said.

Jody Burns, a Pima Animal Control spokeswoman, declined comment on the case.

Animal Control director Dr. Rodrigo Silva could not be reached.

Copyright © 2001 Tucson Citizen

 

 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - 'Twice-Killed' Dog Lives
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Back To Board  
Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  

DISCLAIMER
Definition:
Skeptic: skeptic in our parlance is someone who examines the subject from all viewpoints with an open mind. Otherwise we do and will call them pseudoskeptics.

Any copyrighted work reproduced on this page is displayed under protection of the Fair Use Doctrine.
If your copyrighted work appears here and you wish it removed, please post a complaint and the work will be removed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "fair use" doctrine allows limited reproduction of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes. The relevant portion of the copyright statue provides that the "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is not an infringement of copyright. The law lists the following factors as the ones to be evaluated in determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is a permitted "fair use," rather than an infringement of the copyright:
• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work; • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Although all of these factors will be considered, the last factor is the most important in determining whether a particular use is "fair." Where a work is available for purchase or license from the copyright owner in the medium or format desired, copying of all or a significant portion of the work in lieu of purchasing or licensing a sufficient number of "authorized" copies would be presumptively unfair. Where only a small portion of a work is to be copied and the work would not be used if purchase or licensing of a sufficient number of authorized copies were required, the intended use is more likely to be found to be fair.