December 16, 2008:
"EXTREMELY loving and not aggressive in any way,"
and, "It is my opinion that these dogs are not aggressive, easily trainable, and I see no cause for euthanasia. Destruction of these animals would be a gross injustice."December 18, 2008:
Here is the Judge's Order from November 26, 2008:
"THIS MATTER having come on for hearing on the motion and affidavit of Gail L. Foguth, Crawford County Animal Control Officer, requesting that Ken Minard show cause why the dogs named Shelby and Riley should not be euthanized.
THE COURT, having heard the testimony from several witnesses, and listened to arguments of Defendant, Ken Minard and his wife Dawn Minard and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney David R. Sabin, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that the pittbull (sic) dogs named Shelby and Riley attacked James Gardiner and are dangerous animals;
NOW, THEREFORE it is ordered that said dogs be picked up by the Animal Control Officer and lodged at the AuSable Valley Animal Shelter. Said dogs shall be euthanized on December 18, 2008, unless otherwise directed by the court."
So, what happened to bring this case to trial? Here is the witness statement, in its entirety:
"On July 18, 2008, at approximately 8:30 p.m., I was riding my mountain bike south from Pollack Bridge Road on York Trail. About 1/4 mile before the York Trail intersects with Tomahawk Trail/Little John Ave., I turned east onto a dirt trail that runs (south) parallel to the railroad tracks. Shortly after that, I notice a dog coming up from behind me. I dismounted from my bike and placed the bike between the dog and myself. The dog appeared to be a pit bull (or pit bull mix). It was brown with some white
markings and did not have a collar. The dog was approaching me in an aggressive manner. I sprayed water from my water bottle at it and it backed off (a little). Whiel I was being confronted by that dog, another dog showed up from the same direction as the first one. This one also appeared to be some type of pit bull mix. It was black with white markings and had a red collar on. it moved in along side the frist dog and both dogs barked and moved at me in a threatening manner.
If I raised my arm (like I had something I was going to throw) or if I shook my bike at them, the dogs backed off a little. However, as soon as I made any movement backwards, they immediately came after me. Using my bike as a shield, I was able to pick up a decent size stick (approximately 3' long). I began backing through the woods in the direction of York Trail. As I walked backwards, the black dog would approach me from the front, while the brown dog would circle around and attempt to aggress me from behind.
I used the stick (in my right hand) to keep the black dog at bay, while swinging the bike around with my left arm to keep it between me and the brown dog. Using this method, I was able to work my way into the back yard of the (unoccupied) house on the NE corner of York and Tomahawk trail and Little John Ave.
As I neared the house, the dogs began to back off just a little. It was at that moment that I could hear someone yelling from a house or two over on Little John. The person was yelling for the dogs, although I can not recall exactly what was said. The dogs immediately took off in the direction of the voice. I walked my bike out to York Trail and rode south onto Little John. I passed the first house on Little John (north end, east side of the road) and there was no activity there. I could here (sic) some yelling
from the next house to the south (also on the east side of the road). An individual was holding the door open to the garage yelling, at someone (or something) to get inside. He was looking downward as he was yelling, but there were vehicles blocking my view, so I did not see what he was yelling at. The address of the house was something like 635 or 653 (not exactly sure), and it had "Beware of Dog" signs attached to the trees in the yard.
On my return home, I stopped at Gail Foguth's residence to report the incident.
The stand-off between the dogs and I lasted over 10 minutes (in my estimation). I was yelling at the dogs during that time and the dogs were barking loudly and moving at me aggressively throughout the entire incident. I feel EXTREMELY fortunate that I came out of the situation uninjured. In my opinion, the likelihood of serious injury (or worse) would be very high if this situation had involved a child or elderly person.
I have written the above statement of two pages and attest that it is true and accurate account to the best of my recollection of the events, which took place on July 18, 2008. I gave it freely and voluntarily without fear or threat or promise of reward."
I have no dispute with Mr. Gardiner's witness statement. He should not have had to endure the situation he went through, and did the right thing by reporting the incident and filing a complaint. That's not the issue, here. What we should ask is: should these dogs be euthanized because of this incident? There have been no prior complaints against these dogs. My question: wouldn't a ticket and a warning suffice?
Now, let's take a look at Tracy Holland's statement. Holland is a certified dog trainer and has worked with dogs all her life. She is often requested to assess the behavior of dogs to determine their temperment. After spending time with these two 'dangerous animals' on December 12, 2008, here is her written statement in its entirety:
"Upon examining Riley and Shelby, two Staffordshire Terriers, I found them to be EXTREMELY loving and not aggressive in any way. I got on the ground with them and Shelby put her paws on my shoulders and licked my face with her tail wagging and mouths open the entire time they were out, which is indicitave of a NON-AGGRESSIVE dog.
I took the dogs out individually and together and while out together they were completely uninterested in me no matter what I did, including screaming, running and yelling at them.
It is my opinion that these dogs are not aggressive, easily trainable, and I see no cause for euthanasia. Destruction of these animals would be a gross injustice."
We have two very different conclusions. One one hand, we have a ruling by a judge stating that Riley and Shelby are 'dangerous animals.' Yet, we have a qualified, certified dog trainer that states, in writing, that the dogs are 'not aggressive and easily trainable.'
"Of all dogs, pit bulls possess the single greatest ability to bond with people." - Dr. Frank McMillan, director of well-being studies at Best Friends Animal Society, southern Utah
Cheryl Postma is Director of AuSable Valley Animal Shelter in Grayling. She is caring for the two dogs while they are impounded. She reports seeing no sign of aggressive behavior in either dog. On the contrary, she stated that both animals are very friendly and playful.
Again, I want to be clear about something: the defendants should not have allowed their dogs to roam free, regardless of the circumstances. (It is my understanding that on the day of Mr. Gardiner's confrontation, the dogs dug under their kennel. The following day, the kennel was moved over a cement slab and the dogs have not been at-large since.) The complaintant, Mr. Gardiner, should not have had to defend himself in the manner he did. Although he was not bitten (or had any physical contact with the animals, according to his above statement), he had every right to feel threatened by the actions of the dogs. I think anyone would react the way he did. He immediately reported the incident to ACO Gail Foguth.
Unfortunately, Mr. Gardiner was unable to testify, as I understand he is serving in the military overseas. Tracy Holland, a professional dog trainer who assessed Shelby and Riley, was not called to testify.
UPDATE 12/22/08: I was asked over the weekend what I think should happen. Specifially, nothing can happen unless an appeal is filed by the defendants. The most recent court order of last week indicates that the dogs have been scheduled to be euthanized on January 8, 2009, if an appeal is not filed. If an appeal is filed, I'd like to see an animal behaviorist, someone uniquely qualified to assess the temperment of animals, and dogs in particular, have a look at Shelby and Riley. I would hope the court would take into consideration the professional opinion of this person. If the dogs are deemed 'not dangerous,' the defendants should demonstrate to the court a strong plan of how they intend to keep their dogs contained and never let them run loose again. If, on the other hand, the animal behaviorist finds the dogs dangerous or aggressive, they would need to be destroyed. The safety of people must come first. I just hope that the dogs get the chance to prove one way or the other.
UPDATE 12/31/08: Dog trainer David Lemunyon traveled from Arenac County to assess Shelby and Riley yesterday. Lemunyon has been working with pit bulls and other 'working dogs' for 20 years. He has an extensive knowledge of these animals. He owns 9 pit bulls (rescued from shelters) that live in his home, he has no fenced in yard, and his dogs have never been kenneled. He does not worry about his dogs running at large because he has control of them at all times. He
has never so much has had
a citation for dogs roaming. In addition, Mr. Lemunyon has taken fighting dogs-pit bulls-from shelters and rehabilitated them for use as therapy dogs. I think it's safe to say there are few in Michigan who know the breed as intimately as Mr. Lemunyon. Click here to visit David Lemunyon's training site.
Among his observations after assessing Shelby and Riley, he had two very important comments. Number one, he stated: "I don't find these two dogs have any more potential to be any more dangerous than my personal dogs running loose in my community." Click here to listen to David Lemunyon describe Riley and Shelby. (Dog trainer Tracy Holland, above, came to this same conclusion.) Number two, he had the opportunity to speak with Shelby and Riley's
owners and gave them a stern message: "Take responsibility, take some dog training lessons, and be responsible
dog owners. YOU are the reason these dogs are in
this position, not the dogs." Mr. Lemunyon has zero tolerance for dogs running at large no matter what the breed is, and I couldn't agree more. Every resident should have the right to feel safe in their community, whether they are walking, running, biking, etc. No one should have to worry about whether or not a dog is going to chase them (or worse). I would note here that the owners agreed with Mr. Lemunyon, and agreed to take dog obedience classes in addition to having Shelby spayed and Riley neutered.
Here's a clip of what Lemunyon had to say after assessing Riley
What will happen from here? I can't say. I don't know if an appeal has yet been filed. Even still, the owners must be able to convince the court that they have learned their lesson and this situation won't happen again. I hope they can.
UPDATE 01/08/09: On Tuesday, an appeal was filed on behalf of Riley and Shelby, granting them some more time (they were scheduled to be put down today). This is encouraging, as it gives them more time. I do not know when the court date is yet. If you have not done so, please scroll to the top of this page and see my video message posted earlier this week
Also this week: The owners followed up on their promise to have Riley and Shelby spayed and neutered. Both dogs are doing fine.
In this week's Crawford County Avalanche, the plight of Riley and Shelby made the front page. It's a good article, and very fair to both sides of the story.
If you have not done so, please take a few minutes to watch the video at the top of this page. I hope it will clear up a lot of things. This issue has become very heated, and I don't want anyone to lose sight of what this is really about.
In last week's issue of Sports Illustrated, there is a fantastic article about pit bulls, specifically Michael Vick's fighting dogs. Click here to read the article on line.
UPDATE 02/03/09: Sorry for the delayed update, but there really hasn't been much to report. I understand that there has yet to be an appeal date set, and won't be until at least April 10th. This, of course, means that Shelby and Riley will be lodged in kennels at AuSable Valley Animal Shelter (at the taxpayers expense). The owners continue to visit their dogs every day. Both dogs were spayed/neutered without complications, and are doing fine. Shelter director Cheryl
Postma reports no aggressive behavior from either dog.
There have been several articles and letters to the editor in the Crawford County Avalanche; The articles have done a fair and accurate job of detailing both sides of the story. The letters to the editor have been positive and (for the most part) supportive of the two dogs. Some people have started petitions, others have wanted to protest outside the County Building. At this point, I'm not sure if that will help. But the good thing about petitions/protests is that it's getting people involved, and getting continued
attention. April 10th is a long ways off, when you consider Shelby and Riley are going to be kenneled the entire time. Plus, as time goes by, people have a tendency to let things slide. Let's not allow that to happen, but understand there isn't a lot that can be done until we know more from the court.
What can you do to help? BE IN CONTROL OF YOUR DOG AT ALL TIMES. That will prevent issues like this in the future. YOU are responsible for your own dog(s). YOU are responsible for the dangers created when/if your dog(s) leave your supervision/control. In the past few weeks, I've searched and found DOZENS of malicious dog attacks that have occurred in the US. Some are absolutely horrific. There is no need for these attacks to occur. Yet, in every state, in virtually every county, dogs running at large and dog
attacks continue to be a problem. Why? The answer is very simple: four-legged problems (domestic dogs) are the direct result of two-legged problems. Case closed, end of story.
If anything develops between now and April 10th, I will post it here. Feel free to e-mail with any questions.
e-mail the author of this site