Dog Court: Bear the Rotweiler
bear300.jpg
Brian Kenney owns Bear the Rottweiler. The 3-year-old, 98 pound male got off property and terrorized a person in late July. "He's never gone after somebody before,” said Kenney. “I'm not sure what happened that morning. I wasn't there. I don't know how close he was to my yard, but he doesn't go after people." The 4-foot high fence apparently is not tall enough. That was the main concern for the dog court panelists. "I think maybe we should give him some leeway to get a fence up, because what he has now is not a proper fence at all I think," said panelist John Boozer. So what is a proper height? In the panelists mind, it needs to be six feet. "I think a privacy fence is it. He has roommates there. He won't have to worry about the roommates,” added Joyce Bradley, also a panelist. “I'm not saying they're not responsible but we see this so often where roommates are involved and all of a sudden you open the door and you say I'll be out there in a minute, but by the time the minute is gone the dog is gone and you certainly don't want this to happen again." Rottweilers are a protective breed and they are quite territorial. Wednesday night the dog court panelists gave Brian Kenney 60 days to install a privacy fence. When this is done the dangerous dog label will be removed for Bear the Rottweiler, and the dog will be found not guilty.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

I hope that 6ft fence holds that sweet little dog. I am sure he would not hurt anyone.What happens if that dog gets out of that 6ft fence? Will the dog court assume the responsibility? Have they thought about the fact that a bite victim can sue them for their decisions. I hope they have an insurance policy covering their decision to raise the fence and remove the dangerous dog title. Tell the parent of a mauled child a Rotweiler is not dangerous.
Rotty's are not bad dogs but there are bad owners. My rotty is 7 years old and female, she is very protective and territorial. She will bite but any dog with a mouth can bite. They are very intelligent dogs to say the least. She stays in a fence when not inside or on a leash. I also have signs " Beware of DOG " but the signs are not for my Rotty but a 120 lb male Lab. I made the mistake of saying "get them " every time there was a knock at the door when he was a puppy. It was funny then but not when he was a large adult dog. He only did what he knew to be right and "get them" like I trained him. Be carefull with what you teach dogs. He never harmed anyone and I mean NEVER because I never gave him the chance. Rotty's are not bad dogs but some owners are. I think the dog owner in this case thought he had his dog contained and is not a bad owner. I do agree with the 6 foot fence.
Define Terrorized? Did the dog bite the person or just bark at them? Was the dog provoked? Is this the first incident? Who makes up this panel and what are their credentials to pass a judgment that will likely cost the owner close to a grand to install a fence for a dog that never actually caused physical harm (it would have stated in the news report if there was a bite). I'm not sure of the details of this case but it seems that the panel makes a "snap" judgment on what they feel is adequate. And how does this make the news? Arent there bigger stories out there besides a dog getting loose?
Its nice to know that once again New Hanover Co. has a panel that consists of a few power addicted better than thou folks who get off on imposing their will on law abbiding tax payers. 60 days is not a lot of time for someone who probably works 40 hours a week just to make the bills to put up a 6 ft. privacy fence. These fences are very expensive, especially if the person is carpentry impaired like myself and it will take quite a bundle of cash to install this type of fence. I really do not think this is fair. I believe this panel is being a bit to quick to deem what is necessary in this case. Maybe they should look into what it really takes to accomplish a feat of this magnitude and then lay down their "judgement". :^( Geez give us a break!
that there is something wrong in the head with *many* dog owners. We've got two on our street that just let their dogs yap and yap at all hours of the day and night. My neighbor lets his poop in the yard and he'd never think of cleaning any of it up; we can smell it in our entire back yard when the wind is blowing wrong. Why is that most trailer trash deem it necessary to bring a dog into their life when they obviously have so many *issues* in their own lives?
Calling someone you have had no contact with trailer trash is a bit extreme. I personally have had to deal with this panel of folks and they are bit quick to hand out costly decisions, and I do not have a powerful breed. Everyone has a tendency to have a very powerful opinion about irresponsible owners; who wouldn't. There are a lot of people that use powerful dogs as a social icon that helps with their own insecurities and they do not accept the great responsibility of owning such a powerful dog. Thats just wrong; but lets not just hand out decisions such as getting rid of a part of what could be a loving responsible family or paying half your mortgage to keep them in the form of a fence (not everyone has that kind of cash laying around). Priorities are priorities and safety comes first but if this is an isolated offense with this person I can see giving them a little more than sixty days. Now if this is not isolated and the dog is proven to have an inadequate handler, more stringent a ruling than this may be needed. As far as your neighbors having dogs that keep you up at all times and others who do not keep their dogs scat in check, confront them with a friendly peer check to let them know their actions are not welcome by their neighbors. Everyone has to be responsible for their family, pets included and being a responsible pet owner does not give anyone the right to cast the first stone, only the right be an example.
the level of responsibility, no matter what it is from kids to cars, may just come with a cost factored in based on YOUR decision. If you "decide" to have an aggressive breed then a higher fence (cost) may just come your way. So folks need to consider and factor in all the possibilities but they usually don't... then cry. Think first then act.
I've seen many articles on this website regarding the local dog court. I also see nasty comments (from people that claim to be dog owners) thrown at the panel of people making the judgments. So far, I haven't seen anything unfair done by them. I am a dog lover to the extreme, but also believe that dog owners should be in complete control of their animal AT ALL TIMES, especialy when allowing a territorially powerful dog such as a Rott or a Pitt to intimidate and endanger the public. Being threatened with knashing, barking, dripping jaws can be a very scary and intimidating scenario at the least. Depending on the victims reaction, it can prove to be deadly. Control your dog within a reasonable means or get rid of it! An appropriate fence is not asking too much at all. As a matter of fact it is a generous 2nd chance. As I've mentioned, I love all animals, especially dogs, but let one get out of control with me or my family and I survive it, you won't have to worry about dog court. The dog will have to worry about mine! I always win.
No one likes to be threatened by a dog or anything else for that matter, but it sounds as if you are letting everyone else see your insecurities. always having the tough guy image with quotes as mine always wins; I mean really, come on we can all do without that type of attitude. That is just asking for confrontation and thats not healthy. Having an opinion is one thing but making those types of accusations does not signify a responsible dog owner. Maybe we all just need to take a moment to check ourselves before we go knocking on our neighbors door. Maybe the person you see is not so different from yourself.
I will absolutely guarantee you that his attitude is more practical and realistic than your Pollyanna/Mister Rogers naivety. You obviously have no idea what a large, strong dog such as a Rottweiler can do. Case in point: In the mid-Eighties the Virginia Beach Police Department started experimenting to determine the suitability of Rottwilers for K-9 duty. The dogs were smart; they responded well in training and exhibited extreme loyalty and a protective attitude toward their handler. The first real-world application ended the experiment immediately. An officer released the dog to assist in breaking up a fight on Atlantic Avenue, the dog made a bee-line to an innocent observer who was watching the fight, the guy lost his entire calf muscle, and the city wound up writing a check with lots of zeroes in the number. That incident was on my mind when I was charged by two adult Rottweilers and a Chow when a noisy brake on my bicycle alerted them to my presence. They charged across a busy road barking and snapping their jaws and were it not for their owner screaming for them to return, I have no doubt that I would have been attacked. It was pure luck that their owner saw them called them back in time. As it was, he had to call them several times and I wound up off the bike and holding it between the "slower to obey" Rottweiler and me. Since that time, whether I'm running or biking, I have a small 9mm with me. It's a royal pain, but it could save my life. If you've read any of my posts you will know that I value dogs more than most people I meet. I hope that I never have to use that pistol on a dog, but rest assured that whatever the circumstances, if I am attacked by man or beast while I am on public property, I'm coming out on top.
Actually i was raised in a family w/two Napolean Mastiffs named Gus and Lula, and they were the epitome of powerful. Also, I am sure there is a law against bringing up the words Mr. Rogers and 9mm handgun in the same conversation. Finally I appreciate your being so frank in your comments and I enjoyed the mental images portrayed in your re-telling of such a brutal event; however your brief and unsucessful attempt at comparing me to a trivial book of tales by Borton was crude at best. "Standing, as I do, in the view of God and eternity I realize that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone."
I love my fellow man. Okay, I TOLERATE my fellow man... ....most of them, anyway. Based upon past experiences, I can assure you that taking a life does not give me a moment's pause when I am in the right... ...that's a human life, of course. It would pain me greatly to have to put down a dog, so I encourage all owners to keep their pets safely contained.
Cmon now, I bet ya Mr. Rogers is packing in his neighborhood. There's some seedy characters around there.
The primary focus of my post was to praise the dog court for their generosity toward irresponsible dog owners and to inform the whiners and critics of dog court that "someone" has to be reponsible as it usually is not the dog owners in cases that dog court has to review. They have a vaild purpose in their existence. Your psychiatric diagnosis of my "insecurities, attitudes and opinions" regarding my reaction to violent animals is solidly without foundation and should keep you reserved to your lack of real "couch" candidates for your therapy sessions. I made no accusations at all, I simply will not tolerate a mean, aggressive and powerful animal to attack me or my family. No brag...just fact.
At least they are giving them a chance, rather than having the dog put down.