Friday July 3, 2009, 5:57 am
:( Thanks Maria!

The following could happen anywhere, given the right circumstances. It is germane to every city; a tale of how legislation, unfiled court pleadings, and politics can coalesce to ensure that an innocent dog is killed with no due process or recourse, in direct contravention of the law. Apparently, LA's Animal Services have gone wild. An object lesson on how you never want your city's animal care services to operate.

A dog named Stu has been kept from his owner at LA Animal Services for more than 4 years after biting the owner's assistant in the arm while she was trying to harness the dog after he had his ear torn by another dog. There is nothing unusual about a dog in pain biting someone. Three weeks later, the assistant sues for $6 Million (really?). The dog's case circumvented the legal process set up to adjudicate "dangerous dog" designation, and the dog was simply designated "dangerous" without due process. From all reports, politics between agencies appeared to be involved. Stu had no bite history, and has not bit anyone since.

Well-known dog behaviorists, Dr. Richard Polsky, and Bobby Dorofshar of New Leash on Life both of whom worked with the City to write standards for assessing dangerous dogs, have stated that Stu is not aggressive toward humans. Dorofshar has housed Stu at his own City sanctioned facility for months. Their opinions are based on behavioral evaluations, assessments of his behavior prior to the incident, and understanding the circumstances under which the bite occurred.

Several Animal Services Commissioners themselves believe there are too many discrepancies in this case and that Stu is innocent of the dangerous dog charge and should go home. Commissioner Archie Quincey stated the dog was kept in a locked kennel found to have been tampered with, allegedly found by an unidentified private citizen and brought into a City shelter. "I don't see a report. Who picked up the dog? That's a big discrepancy" Quincey said. The single biting episode occurred inside a private residence, and was "not a violation of the municipal code. There's no way that dog could have been impounded [by Animal Services]."

Stu has had his life stolen, piece by piece, separated from those who love him. And now--after 4 years of that cruelty--now, they decide to kill him. Stu's owner, Jeff de la Rosa, has had his funds drained and his emotions laid raw, fighting to get his dog home. Will it take a pardon from the Governor to allow this dog to live out the few years he has left with de la Rosa? Is there no leadership in the City Council or the Mayor's office that will review all the facts of the case and give back to this dog what little is left of his life? Remarkably, the City Attorney will not drop the case. Despite his owner's best efforts, Stu is scheduled to be euthanized July 23, 2009. So what is it going to take to inject some sanity into this perversion of the legal system? Are there no leaders in LA with a modicum of common sense?

When this kind of news hits a national chord, city agencies are forced to see, perhaps with new eyes, what they have done. Let's hope this is one case where common sense, egged on by outside polite but insistent interference, will rule the day. LA City Attorney's office at: (213) 978-8100. The Mayor could also be petitioned: (213) 978-0600. Time is running out. Stu has until July 23rd. He could be your dog; he needs everyone's help.

There's more to the story at the LA Daily, and don't miss the first comment by Marie Atake, a former Commissioner who quit because of this case. Check out her link for more contact choices. Thanks also to Kate Woodviolet, LA Pet Rescue Examiner, for her coverage on this topic.

Friday July 3, 2009, 12:03 pm
Thank You Maria!