Letters to the Editor
Animal laws needing somewhat less of a bite
From James Lombardo
O’Brien
“Dog bite victim wants law changed.” (The Associated Press 3/7/07).
Insurance companies would have to charge higher premiums for dog owners. A lot more for Great Danes, but not much more for Chihuahua owners.
Looking at a Great Dane side of it, you see someone reach into the truck you were raised in, to grab your master. Your master is surprised. Adrenaline is instant. Surprise and fear are the same to a dog.
If it was a deranged killer reaching in, would you want your dog to just sit there? No, you would want it to bite whatever it could reach and hold on to let you make your getaway. Danes as a rule are very mild and don’t make good watch dogs. They love people.
The article mentions your dog killing your neighbor’s sheep. You might have to pay three times its value. But if the sheep came to your place and your dog killed it, you would have to pay nothing.
The same should apply. If the Dane got out of the truck to attack a victim, the owner should pay. The victim leaned into the truck for a hug. She trespassed, she should pay. This was truly an accident.
We don’t need a new law extending liability.
(Example). Two cows on Waldo Road broke into a nursery and vegetable garden one night. The garden was three months old. The cows destroyed all the vegetables the people were going to eat for the next year and thousands of dollars worth of nursery plants.
Sure, they could have shot the cows, but they chased them away and rebuilt the fence. It was too late in the year to replant the garden. I got to buy fruit trees for a buck each as they left (moved to the city.) The owner of the cows didn’t bother to come from the next town to see what his cows did.
The people could not afford a lawyer. It took all they had just to move. Would a new law have helped? I don’t believe so.
