WTF on sandbar dogs?

Apparently there will be no serious sanctions filed against the 130-pound bull mastiff that mauled a woman on the Kaneohe Bay sandbar or the dog’s owner.

The unleashed animal was returned to the owner with a warning from the city under Honolulu’s dangerous dogs law, but no citation was issued or criminal case opened. The state says it’s a gray area whether its leash law applies on the sandbar.

Meantime, the 36-year-old victim of the unprovoked attack remained hospitalized for a second day in serious condition from injuries to her neck and head.

This is insanity. Dog owners who irresponsibly fail to control their animals need to be held accountable, and dogs that prove themselves vicious need to be taken out of circulation before they attack again.

The Legislature passed a slew of bills this session protecting animals from human cruelty, such as the new law Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed yesterday making it a felony to promote or participate in dogfights.

How about some tough and enforceable laws protecting humans from dangerous animals and the idiocy of their owners?

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Volcanic Ash

Tags: ,

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

6 Comments on “WTF on sandbar dogs?”

  1. Cute Lunatic Says:

    Let’s bar the owner of that dog from going back out to the sand bar. It’s clear that dogs behave in the way they were trained and the owner/trainer should be penalized more so than the animal.

  2. Richard Gozinya Says:

    If all the mad dogs in the State were put down, where would we go to recruit politicians?

  3. zzzzzing Says:

    There will most certainly be a civil lawsuit, and if I were the woman who was mauled, I’d be on the phone to my representatives in office, stat. Not saying all that would help, but I sure as hell wouldn’t let this go without a fight. The owner should be fined heavily for allowing his animal to attack the lady, leash law or no.

  4. hugh clark Says:

    Problem is most folks who own vicious dogs are dumb and poor — possibky less able to be edeucated than than their animal. Suing them is a wasted gesture most often.

  5. Kolea Says:

    Dave,

    I’m with 100% on this one.

    I grewup with dogs unleashed on the beach and it the waves. Part of me thinks they have as great a right to enjoy the beach as humans.

    But the owner of a dog has to be held to account for a dog’s actions. By bringing the dog into a place where they will interact with people, the owner is essentially vouching for the safety of the dog.

    If the owner does not have the resources to compensate for the damage the dog has done, the owner forfeits the right to supervise the critter and the dog should be confiscated. I am not a believer in “putting dogs down” due to the irresponsibility of the owner.

    I am judging this from a distance and it might take the wisdom of Solomon to craft the ideal solution for the circumstances of the case. But I am stunned the authorities would wash their hands of the matter so quickly. Must we craft specific statutes to anticipate every circumstance or can we allow enforcement folks– and judges some discretion to handle these sort of things?

  6. ppcc Says:

    Hugh Clark

    Just the opposite might be true that the dog owner has connections suc as family ties to government officials. The owner must have some money to be able to afford to maintain at least 2 dogs, one over 130lbs. In this case there should be BOTH civil and criminal cases lodged against this dog owner AND in this process needs to be identified. Got the feeling this guy or his family is known in the community. To reiterate, how many people in Hawaii can afford to keep multiple dogs, with one over 130 lbs?


Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: