Man Trying To Bail His Dog Out Of “Jail”

SpartacusSpartacus, a 5-year-old mastiff, is in jail. He is being held in a New York City animal shelter because his owner refuses to have him neutered. When his owner’s truck was broken into, Spartacus escaped. His owner contacted the police and found out that his dog was at an animal shelter in Brooklyn.

When Spartacus’s owner went to the shelter, he was told that New York City law requires that all dogs and cats brought to its shelters are spayed or neutered before being returned to their owners. He refused to neuter Spartacus because his dog helps out on his farm and he believes that it’s immoral and wrong, and he wants to also breed his dog.

More on Spartacus and his owner’s fight to get him out of jail after the jump.

From nj.com:

Spartacus’s owner sued the city of New York and he won, but the city has appealed his case.

“Here we are going to court again,” Geogoutsos (Spartacus’s owner) said, “They’re going to great lengths to neuter my dog.”

Georgoutsos is citing exemptions to the city’s neutering law, particularly one where the life of a “dog or cat would be endangered by sterilization.”

Georgoutsos said his veterinarian told the shelter sterilizing Spartacus will harm his health but the shelter did not agree.

O’Brien Ahlers said “the veterinarians who have examined this dog do not find that the exemption would apply in this case.”

“They’re interpreting the law their own way,” Georgoutsos said, “There’s nothing in the law about the vet certifying to the satisfaction of the shelter.”

But he said the shelter is not satisfied that his dog working on his farm qualifies him as a “service dog.”

Spartacus is still being held at the animal shelter pending the results of the case.

34 Responses to “Man Trying To Bail His Dog Out Of “Jail””

  1. trucorgi says:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....ml?ref=rss
    The city councilman who authored the law being used to keep Spartacus, a 110-pound Cane Corso, locked up in a city animal shelter for more than a month because his owner refuses to neuter him says the measure doesn’t apply to this case.

    “We never anticipated anything like this,” Councilman Peter Vallone told the Daily News last week. “This is someone from out of state. It’s not his fault the animal was loose.”

    Vallone, an animal lover, said the bill, which requires dogs and cats put into city shelters to be spayed or neutered before they are released, was designed to reduce the number of stray animals on city streets and in shelters.

    Pete Georgoutsos, who lives in New Jersey, was visiting friends in Queens one night last month when someone broke into his truck. Spartacus got loose and landed in a city animal shelter.

    The shelter has refused to release the dog unless he is neutered, which Georgoutsos has opposed.

    A Brooklyn judge ruled in Georgoutsos’ favor, but the city is appealing. A hearing on the appeal will be held today.
    —————————————————
    I think it is cruel to keep the dog in a shelter for more than a month over this. The dog is clearly owned and not a stray or give up. If cities keep this up they will loose dog shows.

  2. Cathy says:

    Darn right the dog should be neutered first. The owner says “it’s immoral and wrong”. I heard that crap when I worked at the SPCA. I think the brainless owner need neutering too, don’t need to pass the “stupid” gene along.

  3. mittens says:

    not that anyone should have broken into his truck but why the hell was his dog locked up alone in his vehicle?

    another irresponsible whiney arrogant human.you should have thought of that before you dragged your dog into the city and dumped him off in your truck for your convenience. most of us buy these things called car alarms or have lojack, einstein. i couldn’t imagine leaving my allegedly beloved pet or valuable ‘ ‘natural’ work dog unattended in queens for god’s sake to be stolen or worse.

    i’m starting to think also that neutering or spaying some of the owners should be mandated. humans cause more damage to other humans and property than dogs do anyday and they sure ain’t as smart as a dog.your dog wouldn’t dream of leaving you in danger- that’s how devoted most of them are to their people. sadly, they’re not assured the same regard from their self absorbed dopey owners.

    this man is part of the probelm with pet ownership today, not an unfortunate exception as some are making him out to be.

  4. straybaby says:

    not only did he leave his dog unattended, I wondering WHO in their right mind breaks into a car with a 110lb dog in it. and a Mastiff no less. And then the dog needed to be tranquilized . . .

    I’d like to know what the dog actually does at the farm. The owner claims the NYCACC are interpreting the law in their own way, but he seems to have his bases covered in that area also. It’s like he read the law and then came back with reasons (which could be true). I wonder if he would be fighting this so hard if his dog was a female :p

    trucorgi, this has NOTHING to do with dog shows. the laws here are very clear on that. this is also not a MSN for everyone, just those with roaming dogs/cats. it’s also a very handy law for shelters/rescues when dealing with adoptions and the issue.

  5. trucorgi says:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....nippy.html

    He took the dog to Forest Hills, Queens, to visit friends on May 27 and left him in his truck. When he got ready to head home, he found someone had tampered with the vehicle and the dog had escaped.
    Georgoutsos went to the police, who told him a dog fitting Spartacus’ description had just been tranquilized and taken away by animal control officers.
    Hours later, Georgoutsos was at a shelter on Linden Blvd. in Brooklyn, where he got a nasty surprise.
    Shelter officials wouldn’t turn over the dog until he consented to have it neutered.
    They followed up with a letter threatening to euthanize Spartacus or put the dog up for adoption if Georgoutsos didn’t agree.
    After being barred from visiting the dog at the shelter, he got a lawyer and filed papers in Brooklyn Supreme Court.
    ————————————————–
    The fancy has already asked that the Euk Invitational show be pulled out of Long Beach if MSN passes in Calif. You see, show dogs are in tact and there is the possibility that a dog could accidentally get loose (victim of a crime, victim of an accident etc). Remember Vivi? She got loose at JFK airport while she was in the custody of the airline. It can happen. If she had turned up at this shelter in Brooklyn, do you think they would feel differently because she is a champion. I doubt it. If her owners wanted her back they would have to let the shelter spay her or waige a court battle just like this man did. Sadly though, Vivi was never found. The judge heard the case and ruled on it. Why appeal? Give the dog back and stop punishing him and his dog. It’s wrong.

  6. Tamar says:

    He wants to breed the dog? How completely selfish!!! We euthanize millions of healthy animals every year in this country and this man “wants” to make more? Who cares what this selfish person “wants”! We all “want” a lot of things but that doesn’t make them right just becasue we are humans. What kind of a country are we living in where our method of pet population control is to let folks breed away and then to simply kill the excess. I know there will be the folks who manipulate the statstics to try to prove the problem is really behavioral problems and that should not deny them the right to breed, blah, blah. I’ve heard this kind of pathetic reasoning before and all I can say is some folks will go to a lot of trouble to try to convince themselves something that is right so they can continue breeding and/or purchasing pups thereby encouraging breeding without guilt. That simply doesn’t wash with me. Maybe we need to work with all these dogs who have “behavioral issues” instead of simply killing them and breeding more. I really don’t know where we got the idea it is our “right” to have any dog we want despite all the suffering and needless deaths due to pet over population. Some folks tell me I am wrong because if they could not have their purebred they would not have a dog at all. I say then do not have a dog. It is true everytime we breed or buy another homeless animal dies.

    And for trucorgi: Who gives a damn if a dog is considered a “champion”. I can assure you the healthy but homeless pups being euthanized because some champion just HAD to be bred really don’t care if the pups came from “champions”. Maybe all of you people who think this is wrong need to go spend a week at the local shelter and hold the dogs being euthanized. In my county alone, they annually euthanize 33,000 out of 35,000 animlas brought in. That is truly sickening. Maybe if my county also refused to return animals unsterilized, we would not end up with 35,000 a year in animal control here!

  7. mittens says:

    trucorgi-

    the point of this isnt whether he has a right to assert his ownership rights or not-his own irresponsibility gave rise to this situation and now he’s trying to weasle out of the repercussions of his stupidity .it doesn’t matter what the shelter demands or does or requires after the fact of a dog becoming stray-he left his dog he’s so damned concerned about now alone,unattended in a truck in the summertime in the city. that’s his foul. the dog is his responsibility . what happened happened because he left his dog alone locked in a truck in the city- an act i think few here would find responsible pet ownership.

    we’ve had recent posts about people leaving their dogs unattended in cars and there were several people who opinied they’d smash the windows or whatever to free an animal in this situation. maybe someone wasn’t trying to steal the truck but broke the dog out because they considered it cruel to leave the dog in it alone.

    it’s his own damn fault his dog is in this situation-if he’d left his dog home or had the dog with him like a responsible owner he wouldn’t be being subjected to the laws of the city he happened to drag his dog into and left unsupervised. his dog could well have escaped from the truck on his own, sired pups, attacked someone, got run over, got stolen, got rabies from a stray animal etc. now the government is the evil one for attending to the owner’s self generated mess? at least his dog is alive-worse could and does happen to dogs who stray for whatever reason. he should be grateful they rescued his dog from the streets not contemptuous because they caught him basically being irresponsible and selfish vis a vis his dogs safety.

    the dog is clearly the only real man in the bunch-perhaps it’s the irresonsible human who needs neutering. real men are responsible for the animals not using them to flont what is clearly their own twisted machismo sickness. “oh look at the big bad unfixed manly dog i have and leave in my bad ass truck”…what a tool. hopefully they’ll do us all a favor and let the dog breed and geld the human.

  8. Mary says:

    Get your baby out of CACC confinement, any unnecessary confinement. It is wrong to make him a martyr for your cause. You are taking years off his life by keeping him caged needlessly in unfamiliar surroundings. Decrease his risks for prostrate cancer and have him neutered (there are too many homeless pets as is.)

  9. straybaby says:

    trucorgi,

    as i stated earlier, there are exemptions in place for active dogs in AKC/other REPUTABLE registries. all anyone has to do is show entry receipts. or if the dog is young and hasn’t started yet, they just contact the breeder etc. it’s not hard to do, especially if the animals are chipped and/or dna’d. the people i know at the CACC are reasonable people and any responsible person wouldn’t have a problem. period. by giving the dog back, they are going against the law (and weakening) and I think they should challenge it. the law is in place for a reason and it has done some good stuff like stopping 30+ CKCS from continuing to be used as breeding machines . . . and who knows how many litters of pit puppies . . .

    tamar, not often the offspring of champions get euthed at the pound. those are NOT the dogs showing up at shelters. you might want to check stats.

  10. Tamar says:

    straybaby I don’t think you read very well. I never said pups of champions were being killed at the shelter. (Or anything even close to that.)

    In my world, you take care of the pets that ARE ALREADY HERE before you go producing more. Obviously other foks have different ethics … explains why our method of pet overpopulation is to simply kill healthy animals instead of limiting our production of them. Very sad so many folks think this is perfectly fine … but hey if you can get enoiugh people to go along with it and make it the ‘norm’, it cuts down on the guilt eh?

  11. trucorgi says:

    We are making a lot of assumptions here. The article says “Pete Georgoutsos, who lives in New Jersey, was visiting friends in Queens one NIGHT last month when someone broke into his truck.” Now, if it was at night then the dog was in no immediate danger. We don’t know how long the dog was in the truck either. Could be a half hour, could be many hours. The point is the judge heard the case and ruled in favor of returning the dog intact. This man was never charged with a crime. He brought the case to get his dog back. Why do we want to assume he is cruel to his dog? I’m not going to assume he is evil just because he has an intact dog. And I am not going to assume he is a responsible owner either. I don’t have enough information to make that decision but the judge did. The shelter does seem to be in the wrong here according to the judge and the councilman that authored the law. He said “It’s not his fault the animal was loose.” I don’t know who would break into a vehicle with a 100lbs dog inside, but it sounds like a teenage prank to me not someone trying to rescue a dog in danger.

  12. DW says:

    Okay you anti-intact whiners who don’t respect the owner’s right to take care of their own animals and want to penalize everyone because some people are irresponsible. Deprogram yourselves and engage your brains for a minute.

    Let’s change the circumstances. You and your pet are visiting the house of a friend. Maybe someone you or the homeowner have welcomed onto the property ….maid, lawn mowing service babysitter, or a visiting relative lets your pet out of the house. You are really lucky. Your pet is picked up by animal control and taken to a shelter.

    You go to retrieve your pet and you are told you can’t do it until you animals has a rabies shot. The last time your pet had a rabies shot there was a really bad reaction. Your vet says no more shots and has given you the paperwork explaining this decision. Your vet also has done titer tests and reassures you that your inside pet is still immune, not that there was likely to be a rabies exposure.

    You take proof of your vet’s professional recommendation to the shelter. The shelter vet says, “Nope we don’t believe this vet. We don’t believe you. You are a weasely, irresponsible owner who wants to jeopardize the public safety of this community.” (Never mind that you are just visiting and after the horror of having your pet taken you will certainly never again so much as drive through the area with or without your pet.)

    They tell you , “You want you pet back, it gets a rabies shot from us.”

    Never mind that they use the cheapest vaccine out there. (There are specific recommendations for vaccine brand and type, especially for cats. Darn hard finding the stuff sometimes but no flipping public shelter will be using canary type rabies vacccine on their cats.) They don’t seem to understand their shot will kill likely kill your pet, maybe within minutes of administering the shotl Never mind that they have possession of your property and it is being kept and modified without you getting a hearing or a trial and without regard to your rights.

    It’s not about the dog or his testicles, people. It’s about the right of citizens to live without the fear all their choices will be stolen by petty little government officials. The law gave the shelter the right to follow (enforcement authority) the neuter policy. The judge (interpretation of the law) and the councilman (writer of the law) said that in this case the law was not being applied correctly and the enforcing agency was acting out of scope. With a level of hubris normally reserved for the most psychotic home owners associations or the most relgious zealots, the shelter officials thumbs their noses at the judge and refuses to accept the just application of the law.

    Stop focusing on leaving a dog in a car. Stop regurgitating the anti-breeding agenda. (Duh, if you automatically neuter every animal, then therewon’t be any left …but then that IS what you want, isn’t it?)

    This case exposes one of many little erosions of your rights to make decisions. They think by taking away the decisons they can remove the break point where a person (in this case pet owner) must choose to act responsibly or not. It may make financial sense for a community to enact an all encompassing sterilization law, but as these financially, and feel-good policies expand they’ll turn us all into criminals. ( …or as a recent caller to a talk show said, “I just went through a yellow light with a monitoring camera, I’m not using a hands free device on my cell phone, and the dog next to me still has his testicles. I feel like Billy the Kid.”

    While it is appropriate to take decisions away from small children … for example, keeping the door locked so they can never choose to wander in the streets at 3 am, it’s not appropriate to also lock in most adults. If you are of a mind to think that everyone who disagrees with you should be legislated into submission then …well, I hear parts of China are still operating that way. If you are male there is always the Taliban for you. They operate like that too.

  13. straybaby says:

    “You go to retrieve your pet and you are told you can’t do it until you animals has a rabies shot. The last time your pet had a rabies shot there was a really bad reaction. Your vet says no more shots and has given you the paperwork explaining this decision. Your vet also has done titer tests and reassures you that your inside pet is still immune, not that there was likely to be a rabies exposure.”

    well, if your pet is licensed, then this would be on record. non-issue.

    my focus isn’t so much that he left the dog unattended, it’s all the other b.s. after. he obviously didn’t convince the shelter people on his reasons/responsibility. his taking them to court and getting a judge to say leave the balls intact hurts the law. i’d like to know how much this judge really knows about the issues. and what job this dog is doing that his “stamina” will be hurt by neutering :p and I still want to know who messes with a car with 110lb dog in it! most dogs alarm bark pretty darn quick in those situations . . .

    sorry for the mis-read Tamar, scrolling up and down sometimes challenges my comprehension

  14. trucorgi says:

    straybaby Says:
    as i stated earlier, there are exemptions in place for active dogs in AKC/other REPUTABLE registries.

    If you are speaking about California, those exemptions expire 1/1/2009, then what?

    The proposed Ohio law has exemptions too. You know what they are?

    I’m told Ohio SB 173 will end show breeding in the State of
    Ohio. It requires dog breeders to be fingerprinted and
    undergo background checks. I’m told 19 out of 33 Senators
    are behind this bill.

  15. Leigh-Ann says:

    DW, has your proposed rabies scenario ever actually happened? I find it hard to believe that any shelter/clinic wouldn’t accept records from a licensed vet, and/or titers, as per AVMA recommendations. Are there any states with laws which specifically reject titers?

    The dog in the news story in this thread has no medical need to avoid being neutered, and no vet seems to be speaking up in the owner’s defence. I don’t really see how the two issues are related.

  16. Cathy says:

    You go to retrieve your pet and you are told you can’t do it until you animals has a rabies shot. The last time your pet had a rabies shot there was a really bad reaction. Your vet says no more shots and has given you the paperwork explaining this decision. Your vet also has done titer tests and reassures you that your inside pet is still immune, not that there was likely to be a rabies exposure.

    You take proof of your vet’s professional recommendation to the shelter. The shelter vet says, “Nope we don’t believe this vet. We don’t believe you. You are a weasely, irresponsible owner who wants to jeopardize the public safety of this community.” (Never mind that you are just visiting and after the horror of having your pet taken you will certainly never again so much as drive through the area with or without your pet.)

    DW, where do you get your info from? Obviously your just talking out of you butt making up a story. I worked for a shelter & this did happen. As long as you have proof from your veterinarian regarding the shot, we had no trouble returning the dog.

  17. straybaby says:

    trucorgi,

    i’m refering to NYC/NYS laws and the CACC where this is actually happening. the only MSN we have here is coming out of shelter/rescues. the pet stores some how ($$$$$) got themselves ammended out of it.

    I haven’t read the Ohio one, but I have heard rumblings about the showing/breeding, so I will be looking into it and follow it as I have with the CA bill. I tend to fall on the side of responsible breeders and promoting responsible pet ownership, when the responsible part becomes questionable, then I look at the situation on a case by case basis, such as this dude that seems to have a load of reasons while i tend to think it’s just one specific ;) he reminds of of folks that can’t keep their surrender story straight: it’s allergies/landlord/no time/etc and you stand there looking at them going “well, which is it?!”. the people who challenge and go whining to the press or courts on the MSN law here, generally don’t fall into the exceptions by a long shot. Not once have I heard of a reputable breeder pitching a fit about it (not saying it hasn’t happened, just haven’t heard it has) the exemptions are pretty clear. i had NO problem understanding, especially regarding showing/breeding dogs/cats. there’s even a period of time to allow for animals to mature before resuming showing or time out for a litter. and I believe the intact after Championship is also well covered. This law is about stopping the irresponsible as well as any law can with complicated scenarios. not perfect, but better than many others out there, imo.

  18. elegy says:

    Georgoutsos said his veterinarian told the shelter sterilizing Spartacus will harm his health but the shelter did not agree.

    uh huh. it will harm his health. now, granted, i agree that in some cases this is true. but i think “he wants to also breed his dog.” is more to the point. if his health is so precarious, he absolutely should not be bred. period. the end.

    but hey, it’s all about what the owner wants, not what’s best for the dog or his offspring.

    and no, i am not anti-breeding by any means. but i am anti-crappy breeding.

  19. the Asocial Ape says:

    all domestic animals should be spayed or neutered. period. if this guy won’t do that, he’s not a fit guardian for the poor dog.

  20. trucorgi says:

    If all domestic animals were spayed and neutered there would be no more domestic animals when living domestic animals die off.

  21. Mary says:

    Ummm… sorry, folks, DW is right. This argument is not about the merits of spaying and neutering. The argument is about the erosion of rights.

    There are already spay neuter laws, laws limiting the number of dogs/cats/antisocial apes one can own, breed specific legislation, ownership versus guardianship laws…. how much do you control to you want to give to the same government that is responsible for allowing contaminated food and water supply?

    Do you *really* want to give them more power than they already have?

    The answer is not in legislation. It lies in education.

  22. straybaby says:

    “Do you *really* want to give them more power than they already have?”

    Um, the law is already in place here. That is what this about. Not the merits of S/N. Or the errosion of rights. The dude is saying he fits within the exceptions and he doesn’t from what it seems like so far. If he did, the dog would be home. Hard to say how savy the Judge was on animal issues vs what the law says/working dogs/breeding/etc. And It sounds like it took some heavy tranq to bring the dog in, on the personal front, I’d like to know it was a sound dog before it multiplied! Breeding unsound dogs could actually breed more restrictions. More BSL, more insurance issues, more housing issues, more limit laws and effects all dog owners.

    I realize AR folks have their S/N agenda, but as responsible dog owners, we need to keep an eye on the big picture beyond MSN. Responsible dog ownership.

  23. HighNote says:

    The pet was his and not a stray. If he had his tags then all they should have done was give him back his dog. Whether he wants to neuter it or not is his business. A lot of people like to use their pets as sires. This is totally wrong. WE pay an extra ammount for tags for unneutered pets around here. An animal can dig under a fence and get out and things like that. I am a very responsible pet owner but my dog has got out before and I was very upset and looking for my baby too. I would not like them telling me what I was going to with my pet because he was mine and not a stray!

  24. HighNote says:

    He may have to pay a fine to get his pet back though because he got out, but nothing more should have been expected of him.

  25. trucorgi says:

    http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/.....thispage=1

    Pete Georgoutsos was thrilled to learn that his beloved brindle mastiff, a hefty 120-pound dog named Spartacus, had been found hours after a burglar broke into his vehicle and released the dog in Queens last month. But his elation was short-lived
    Within hours he was told that the return of his pet from a Brooklyn animal shelter would be no easy task. Spartacus would have to be neutered, the city told him. A 2000 city ordinance designed to reduce the number of stray, abandoned and unwanted cats and dogs on city streets mandated the procedure.
    The policy led to a heated and expensive legal battle in Brooklyn Supreme Court, prompting officials and animal-rights activists to question whether it is applicable to pet owners just passing through New York.
    “It makes you want to hit your head against the wall and say, ‘Stop wasting taxpayers’ money,’” Georgoutsos said yesterday. “The law was meant to protect the health of citizens in New York City. But by neutering my dog you’re not protecting their health; you’re violating my property rights.”
    Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Schack ruled in Georgoutsos’ favor June 15 and ordered the unmolested return of his pet of five years. But the city appealed the decision the same day, extending Spartacus’ incarceration.
    Since the appeal may not be heard for months, Georgoutsos agreed to post $10,000 bail and was reunited with his dog yesterday.
    If the city wins, however, Georgoutsos may be ordered to drive his dog from his Warren County farm, located in Asbury, back to New York to be neutered.
    “I’m the victim of a crime, and yet they want to fight me tooth and nail to keep me from getting my dog,” he said.
    Georgoutsos was visiting friends late Sunday of Memorial Day weekend while Spartacus remained Georgoutsos’ truck, caged, with the windows partially open. Georgoutsos returned to find the truck broken into and the dog missing. He said he immediately filed a police report.

    Passed in 2000, the city administrative code noted that 67,000 unwanted, stray or abandoned dogs and cats entered city animal shelters in 1998. Of those, about 70 percent were not spayed or neutered.
    “While wandering the city streets, homeless dogs and cats reproduce at alarming rates, exacerbating a potentially unhealthy and dangerous situation,” the ordinance reads.
    It grants exceptions, however, for show dogs and cats and in cases where neutering can lead to adverse health effects.
    Georgoutsos’ attorney, Gabriel Tapalaga, argued the health exception in court. He said the mastiff, which already suffers from an ear infection, was struck by five tranquilizer darts and taken to the shelter.
    “Any further sedation may cause Spartacus more harm,” Tapalaga said yesterday, citing a letter from the dog’s vet in Ridgefield Park, who advised against the procedure.
    The city health department, which oversees the animal shelters, referred calls to the city law department because of the litigation.
    In a statement, city senior attorney Paula Van Meter said several city veterinarians found that the procedure would not harm Spartacus.
    “Neutering and spaying procedures are critical — and humane — methods used to curtail animal overpopulation in the city,” she said.
    Lisa Weisberg, a senior vice president at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in New York, said she doesn’t believe the law applies to Spartacus. “If the person (owner) is just passing through the city for whatever reason, the spay-neutering requirement does not apply,” she said.
    Privately, several city officials said granting an exception in what has become known as “The Spartacus Dog-Neutering Case,” could open a Pandora’s box of litigation.
    Meanwhile, back in New Jersey for the first time in four weeks, Spartacus frolicked on the grass in front of his owner’s Bergenfield construction company yesterday. The dog was released about 2 p.m., after Georgoutsos posted $10,000 in cash, noting that he could find no bondsman interested in bailing out a dog.
    “The dog jumped up in my arms,” Georgoutsos said of his pet’s release from the New York Animal Care and Control shelter, where he said he visited him daily. “He was ready to play. It was adorable.”
    But Georgoutsos, 42, a former Montclair State University wrestler and wrestling coach, said it may be months before he can relax.
    “You go to court and spend thousands of dollars,” he said. “I don’t know what’s going to happen.”

  26. trucorgi says:

    straybaby says: Hard to say how savy the Judge was on animal issues vs what the law says/working dogs/breeding/etc.

    The Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice, a senior vice president at the ASPCA, the dog’s own vet and the Councilman who wrote the law all say the MSN law does not apply in this case, yet the AR’s want to appeal the decision and as a result he had to post $10k to get his dog back until that appeal is heard. This is beyond ridiculous. All of these new MNS laws can and will be challenged in court because they are unconstitutional.

    straybaby says: I’d like to know it was a sound dog before it multiplied!

    The dog is 5 years old and has never been bred so I tend to think this guy is not the reckless backyard breeder he has been made out to be.

    straybaby says:I realize AR folks have their S/N agenda, but as responsible dog owners, we need to keep an eye on the big picture beyond MSN. Responsible dog ownership.

    This is not the way. Education is the answer, not unconstitutional laws that violate our property rights and threaten the extinction of our pets.

  27. Pit Bull Lover says:

    There is no one true (or should that be “tru”?) way. Thousands of states, counties, cities, and communities each have a limited right (within reason) to determine solutions to their various problems, including Animal Control issues. Laws and policies get modified all the time after trial and error reveal flaws in the terms and application of a rule.

    I agree with New York’s law, but also believe rare, non-medical exceptions should be allowed as long as there is a hefty punitive cost to do so. Mr. Georgoutsos wants his dog back without having to comply with the S/N requirement? Then he should be willing to pay for it. A $10,000 bail/bond forfeiture sounds fair to me.

  28. trucorgi says:

    Pit Bull Lover says: Mr. Georgoutsos wants his dog back without having to comply with the S/N requirement? Then he should be willing to pay for it. A $10,000 bail/bond forfeiture sounds fair to me.

    We’ll see. According to the NY post today “Georgoutsos is suing the city for $30,000″

  29. straybaby says:

    “This is not the way. Education is the answer, not unconstitutional laws that violate our property rights and threaten the extinction of our pets.”

    responsible pet ownership IS educated pet ownership.

    now, what i found interesting about the newest articles, this farm working dog (?) was with the owner in front of his “Bergenfield construction company yesterday”. lol!~

    and i never said he was a reckless byb, HE said he may want to breed his dog. ONE of the reasons he didn’t want to neuter his dog, that yes, was technically a stray when picked up.

    and i wouldn’t really refer to the City Health Dept as ARs, there are reasons for persuing this, re-read your post.

    i still want to know who breaks into a truck with 110 dog in it, even if caged. and 5 tranq darts?!

  30. Pit Bull Lover says:

    Straybaby, I wondered about that farm vs. contruction company discrepancy myself.

    Heaven knows I place my full journalistic trust in the NY Post. Alas, I can’t find *why* he’s suing the city for $30,000. Anyone?

  31. trucorgi says:

    straybaby says: and i wouldn’t really refer to the City Health Dept as ARs

    You’re kidding right? Ed Boks was Executive Director Animal Care & Control, New York City 2003-2005. He’s moved on to LA now where he and Judie Mancuso AR activist, authored CA AB 1634. You don’t think he left his AR mark at NY AC&C?

  32. straybaby says:

    No. I’m not kidding. He’s not here (and wasn’t here long at all). Yes, we still have the programs he helped put in place, but S/N is something that goes hand in hand with reducing pet overpopulation and is a state wide law here. NOT something Boks put into place. I’m sure there’s AR minded folks in our shelters and rescues (they were here before Boks!), but there are also just as many, if not more, AW folks. Are you involved in the system here?

    Please visit the NYCACC website and let me know which ‘AR progams’ you object to. Also feel free to visit the City Health Depts and let me know about their’s also.

  33. straybaby says:

    PBL,

    yeah, my main problem with this whole thing is the way this story *fits* together (or doesn’t . . . ) He who whines the loudest, prob only has that to go on ;)

    It will be interesting to see if his “just passing through, I’m a victim” holds up with all the MSN and BSL laws around the country already in place . . .

  34. Traci says:

    S/N is not the law in Seattle but liscensing cats as well as dogs is (with a hefty cost to retrieve your pet if Animal Control catches your animal). What they do is reduce the liscense fee if you show them the S/N documentation from a vet.


Close
E-mail It