Family pet mauled to death in bucklin

[dodgegurl]

Fact: Owner of the rott is not a Dodge City PD employee, he is a Ford County Communications employee

[lurker]

It's hard to take a "kill" out of a doG and more than likely they will do it again.

Now, to wait and see what the rott-owner will do.... besides pay more for insurance, if he can get coverage...

[Cain]

Who does the ford county communication work for? a subcontractor of the city? this situation has played out many times so what makes this one different? knowing the right people? if this is the first time either of these dogs have displayed vicious tendencies then liable is questionable if either of these dogs have shown vicious behavior before then then owner is liable.

At the very least the owner should except responsibility apologize and offer to pay for damages. The little girl and her mother were traumatized to the point they are afraid to leave their house alone. It pays to know the right people.

[Lone Gunman]

Originally Posted by pootsy

Lone I think your wrong on that because I had a friend in Bucklin who kept getting letters in the mail telling her to do some thng about her Rott and she didn't even have a Rott LOL!

Bucklin may have passed an ordinance of their own but the one here was cussed and discussed and finally passed by the city commissioners and I don't think they control what happens in Bucklin. Here is a story about the ban maybe I'm just reading it wrong I have been wrong before.

Leaving Dodge
AP


Starting February 1, pit bulls will have to get the heck out of Dodge.

Commissioners in Dodge City voted last year to ban the pets with
a bad rap.

But a dog owners' advocacy group in the southwest Kansas town
tried yesterday to get commissioners to reconsider the ban. It would force pit bull owners either to register their pets by March for 50 dollars, or get rid of them.

The ban would forbid pit bulls from residence in Dodge City in the future, following a series of pit bull attacks last year on smaller pets and against a woman.

The Dodge City Canine Corporation would rather see a vicious dog
law for irresponsible owners, to include heavy fines or even jail
time.

But city commissioners say they're comfortable with the unanimous decision they made last November.

[TexKan]

OK mitUSA....... I'm gettin ready to don my mourning clothes for the lil sausage dawg.......... keep an eye on me........LOL

Back to the REAL thread.......... I still say civil law suit - and I'm not a suin kind. In this case tho I think I would go get the paperwork, pay the $25 or so for small claims if I couldn't afford a real attorney and have my day in court. At least I would be doin sumthin to honor my dead pet. Just waitin for someone to do sumthin FOR me has never been very successful. I'm sure the owner of the lil dog can reason as well as we do. I'm sure the are contemplating what to do next. I'm REALLY sure the Rot's owner has checked it out to cover their asses............

[lurker]

Double "if" their insurance carrier was notified about those doGs, then they have increased the policy to protect their client; or they dropped the coverage.

Most insurance companies reject coverage.

[Detector]

Well I don't know about the legalities, but what about because its just the right thing to do.

[lurker]

Reluctantly, I had a renter that elected to impound her doG because the doG nipped two people. The warning came after the first nipping event. The fact that the doG was not fixed and growing boobies indicated future problems.

The real issue was landlord liability.

[Detector]

While talking with a neighbor I'm told this is not a first for these dogs. "They all but killed the neighbor across the streets dog also" No report was filed. He also said they nipped someone some time back and no report was filled. See a Pattern?

I heard the mother had to hold the girl back from trying to help Woody as the rotts played tug a war with his carcass.

Just a guess, but I'd say if they work for Ford County Communications that would make them a county employee?

[K C Muffin]

doG, you're right. Vicious animals on the premises is a legitimate reason to decline or nonrenew homeowner or landlord liability policies. The only thing is, they have to know they're vicious. I don't know many of them that nonrenew or cancel because a dog is present. If, however, the dog seems vicious to the inspector (the companies usually inspect at some time), it gets reported and the company requires the owners to either subdue the dog on a chain or get rid of the dog altogether. Which absolutely doesn't mean it will happen, but just covers the insurance company's butts if the dog bites/mauls again and the homeowner/landlord is sued. All of a sudden, coverage doesn't apply.

My take is this. If I own my home, I will get insurance because my mortgage co will make me. If I don't own, I may or may not have renter's coverage for my liability. If I'm the type of person who knowingly harbors a dangerous animal and doesn't care, I probably don't care enough to carry any kind of insurance that's not required. Bottom line? If the guy doesn't own his home, there's probably no insurance coverage applicable here.

About passing new laws: use Dodge City as a marker. How many times has nuisance-pet ordinances been brought up? How many have passed? How many are really needed because none are enforced? So why bother. I agree with Detector - it's the right thing to do and we (as a country) seem to have lost sight of that.