Dog court hears case of pit bull

It is true, it's about the owner and how a pit bull is raised. At this point, it's a question of the owner following the rules and restrictions placed upon her the first time. When the dog was originally deemed "potentially dangerous", a letter was delivered to the owner. She was told in person, and in the letter, that she would have to confine the dog to her home, only walk it on a leash with a muzzle, and when left unattended in the back yard, the dog would have to be kept in an enclosure with a pad-lock on the door, a concrete base and a roof. She did none of those things. She did not comply with the conditions mandated by North Carolina Law, not County Animal Control, that would permit her to keep her dog. Therefore, when animal control was notified and given proof of her failure to comply, they took her dog and determined it should be put to sleep. As far as sending the dog to live with someone else across the country, the owner said that was plan the first time around, but it never happened. This is a case of an owner whose dog attacked a person, killed a cat, killed and ate a dog right in front of the neighbors, their frightened children and guests. On the last occasion, she didn't even know where the dog was and had to be called to come get it. That was shortly after it had gotten free and killed a cat. Bottom line, the owner was given a chance several times and failed to exercise caution or follow the restrictions set by North Carolina State Law and administered by County Animal Control. She was given plenty of chances. Even the guy who got bit didn't press any charges and tried to be the good, understanding neighbor. So, preach on about training, the breed, and how bad animal control is, or how uneducated they are, but remember this, the owner has proven she can't even obey simple restrictions that were designed to allow her dog to continue to live in this county in a manner that would prohibit it from destroying other people's pets and injuring someone again.

One of the unfortunate things regarding this situation is the lack of information that the media as well as Animal Control have failed to report to the general public. Remember sensationalism sells papers and evening news spots. If the complete story were revealed I believe people would look at this more objectively and less emotionally. There are circumstances that haven't been made public or have been covered over that would possibly open the eyes of many of NHC citizens on just how this county department really works. I urge any attorneys and animal advocate groups out there to contact this owner and help bring this biased, as well as many other animal issues out in the open. The owner presented to the panel a very viable alternative to this situation, in lieu of having the dog euthanized. As an animal advocate myself, I sat in on this appeal hearing Wednesday night as a silent spectator to better understand the procedures of such hearings. The Animal Control Supervisor, Ms. Evonko, was asked by the hearing panel if in the past 30+ days the dog has been in their care, had he shown any type of aggression towards any of the personnel or animal handlers. She replied, not at all and that in fact he was very friendly to the employees there and really likes people. But the main spokesperson on the panel, Ms. Joyce Bradley, claimed a 13 week training and rehabilitation would not make that much difference to this "ticking time bomb", and upheld the original ruling of having the dog euthanized. Had Ms. Bradley engaged in any interaction with this animal prior to upholding the decision? The owner, along with her attorney presented a plan which included relinguishing the dog to an out of state Animal Rehabilitation Facility willing to accept the dog, put him through an extensive training program and evaluate him upon the completion of training to deem whether or not the animal was truly aggressive, but the panel just glazed over this option. It was also promised by the owner that the dog would be immediately be removed from the state upon his release, and not to return, which was beyond the request of her neighbors who just wanted the dog removed from their neighborhood. If the owner was willing to go to such lenghts as to have this determined by a professional Animal Behavioralist, at her expense, why wasn't Animal Control willing or held to this standard instead of making a knee jerk reaction to euthanize this animal. This whole procedure seems flawed and seems to have a lot of political over tones. Like Guest 1111 commented on this site, "What I am concerned about as well is the qualifications of these judges on this dog court. How many of them have degrees in animal psychology?" So again I urge any attorneys,legal organizations, animal advocacy groups as well as prior victims of this court that are true animal lovers to contact the owner, Ms Edwards. This needs to be brought out into the open and hopefully better regulation of this county department will be mandated for this case and all cases in the future. We have to be the voice for all of these animals wrongly put to death without prior evaluation by a licensed Animal Behavioralist. Please get involved. Make a difference. There is only a 10 day appeal window which will expire September 9th.

Sure, yeah, ship the dog to another state, give it a new name and let the mauling begin all over again with unsuspecting people of the dog's background. Just like those of us who don't want sex offenders living next door in a halfway house, we don't want convicted aggressive dogs doing that either. What are these people thinking? Put that dog down before it goes off on another person. Two pits, that we know of, were "rehabbed" by so called rescue groups that went on to kill people. Even with all that temperament testing because TT doesn't work with pits, they are not normal dogs. Don't ship the problem off to others. Disgusting that people don't accept that pits are beasts, not dogs.

It is not pitbulls' faults for the way they are bred. They are bred to be intense and focused hunters, not mauling killers like the media and ignorant people like to believe. Because they are such a powerful breed, they have to be owned my a responsible person. Just like children, if you dont have guidance and boundaries you are bound to have problems. If you look up the dog with the most dog bites, I bet you will be surprised that it is retrievers/labs. That doesnt mean they are all bad dogs, it just means people are irresponsible. And we trust criminals to be "rehabilitated", why not dogs?

The Pit Bill was originally bred for Bull-Baiting... A sport in England during the 1600's/1700's. A bull was placed in a 30' ring with pepper blown into its nose to enrage the Bull. The object of the sport was for the dogs to immobilise (kill) the bull. Later on, farmers used Pits to bring down unruly bulls. A bull weight 1/2 a ton to a full ton. It is not the breeds fault that they were bred for these purposes, but it does make their bloodline dangerous... (yet still trainable) What is MOR dangerous is how badly the breeds have been inbred.. Now you don't know what to expect from one minute to the next.. And that is dangerous... Although the AKC does register the American Pit Bull, most individuals buying Pits are buying inbred and misbred Pits which equals a very bad situation... Is the breed dangerous? Sure... We as people must feel to the dog senses as small as tennis balls.. I don't weigh a ton.... But is the breed trainable with a resoonsible owner? Yes..... Are most owners with a pit responsible? No.... The breed should not be banned but it SHOULD be controlled..... So what about this dog? There is an old kennel saying... "Once they taste blood in their mouth, they will forever crave it..." After all. It is a dog (pack animal's) natural born instinct.... The saying is true... This dog can be trained to an extent, and if kenneled (unfair to the dog) or housed (also unfair) it would be ok IF it were the only animal and IF there were no small children...... But this dog given it's history and looking at it can never be trusted without barriers of defense in place.... Sad story but the dog needs to be put down.....

I have paid close attention to dog court over the past year and it seems like anyone who enters is subject to the whims and personal opinions of the dog court judges, not actual facts. If this lady is prepared to go to such lengths to save this dog, and he will no longer be under the jurisdiction of their court, there is no logical reason to kill this dog. The owner is taking on this responsibility for an animal she will no longer even have the company of. Animals fight, and dogs chase and sometime catch cats, to the cat's unfortunate end. It is nature. As far as the person getting bit, how seriously injured was he? Snapped or viciously mauled? There is a big difference. What I am concerned about as well is the qualifications of these judges on this dog court. How many of them have degrees in animal psychology? It is a joke. I believe it is just a stop gap measure to make it seem like the county is giving the dog owner a fair shake to avoid possible lawsuits. It is really just a kangaroo court. Since Ms. Edwards already has an attorney, maybe that should be her next step and to file a lawsuit against the county, and request permission from a civil court to relocate the animal. I would also seek to get an injunction to stop this farce of dog court until some properly trained and documented judges were found to administrate it. I'm sure if Ms. Edwards simply contacted prior victims of this court, she may be able to obtain a substantial number of backers.

The owner is willing to relocate the dog, problem solved and everyone wins-including the dog. What is the problem with that? Seems "dog court" has a control problem that needs to be addressed.

Well, if you're going to punish the dog by putting him down for his behavior, which by the way is learned behavior, from guess who? Go ahead and put down the owner. Makes about as much sense as killing the dog. The dog can be rehabilitated, it's just that society finds it easier to just kill him. Maybe, just a thought, send the dog to live with R.C. Soles, he wouldnt have to shoot anyone then. Watch the Discovery Channel and Cesar Millan and just maybe you will see that not all hope for dogs like this are lost.....I even contacted him myself, hopefully, he will feel as concerned with this as I am....

Why are people so uptight about a dog being put to sleep? Some people think that a dog life is more improtant then a human life.If this dog kills one of there kids how would they like that. I know people that let them dogs go and put everyone in danger. If they want to keep them then buy a farm. So that the dog can hunt out there. People do not want to take chances on a dog that have killed before. If a person had did what this dog did they would want to hang them.

maybe my input will not matter,i installed cable at this address about 6 months ago-reason i remember this dog is i'm always confronted with numerous encounters with dogs and sometimes cats.i do recall this dog,which i was very concerned about.the dog look very menacing,but upon meeting the dog and letting the dog meet me.this dog was the nicest and very loving dog i've seen.i've installed cable on carolina beach for 21 years-i've been bitten many times by both dogs and cats.the problem i have is you're letting someone who has no previous contact with this animal but yet they can decide who lives or dies based upon their own opinion.you do my job for 6 months and you'll know what pets need to be killed....whatever the aminal court says....