make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Dog Court in Wilmington

READ MORE:
dogcourt300.jpg
Dangerous Dog Appeals Court is held in New Hanover County once a month. Last night there was just one dog on the docket. Annissa Leggett was the complainant. She said her Yorkshire terrier was attacked when a German Shepherd owned by Barbara and Val Johnson came through a screened-in porch at the Stillmeadow Apartments near Monkey Junction. The Yorkie had to undergo surgery, and lost 3 teeth. The council upheld animal control's original ruling that the dog deserves the dangerous dog label. The ruling means that Ilean, the German Shepherd, will have to always wear a head collar or a muzzle when taken off her own property. Val Johnson said he was impressed with the professionalism of last night's hearing.

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.

»

MORE

waste of my tax dollars for a flippin ANIMAL!

Re: tax dollars

>"waste of my tax dollars for a flippin ANIMAL!" It's this kind of misguided, antiquated attitude that perpetuates the pet overpopulation and other animal/pet-related problems we have in southeastern NC. Unfortunately we all have to share this limited space together. Regarding animals like they don't matter or are unworthy of our consideration, respect, provision and protection just hurts everybody in the long run; and makes coastal North Carolina a less pleasant place to live.

Head Collar and Muzzles

The court ruled that this dog should either be muzzled or wear a head collar. So, if an injury results from wearing a head collar, shouldn't those who made this ruling be held liable for the bill? I looked up information on head collars. The article(wikipedia) stated that some people believe them to be dangerous to the animal. The head collar doesn't look very comfortable, nor does a muzzle. A dog that is with its owner doesn't need to wear this type of collar or a muzzle. A better ruling would have been for the owner to be held liable if harm comes to any person/animal and the possible loss of the dog.

Re: Head Collar and Muzzles

>"A better ruling would have been for the owner to be held liable if harm comes to any person/animal..." This has already happened. The Yorkie was harmed, presumably without provocation. In what way and to what degree, then, should the owner have been "held liable"? >"...and the possible loss of the dog." There's already been a pit bull in the local area who was taken away from his owners and euthanized earlier this summer...all basically for the want of a basic simple hundred-dollar outpatient surgical operation. Should we wait until it happens again -- perhaps when a child is mauled or killed, before preventative action is taken? Having said this, it's not ultimately the dogs that are causing the trouble. Generally speaking, it's irresponsible owners who either neglect proper training or deliberately train for aggressiveness. Too bad we can't euthanize THEM! (j/k). :P

---it's irresponsible owners

---it's irresponsible owners who either neglect proper training or deliberately train for aggressiveness. Too bad we can't euthanize THEM! (j/k). :P-- I know right? I have said that MANY times. Unsocialized,improperly trained dogs are all over. People want to ban this breed or that breed..let's blame the OWNERS and not the breed..please and thank you. Eh..a people ban..nodding.

are these hearings open to

are these hearings open to the public and where are they held?