However, Alfonso was unable to obviously establish the canine that attacked him from images.
“It positively seems to be loads like (I) bear in mind him, even earlier than the pics I remembered the patch over the attention however I (can’t) bear in mind if the coat had that a lot gray (sic) or extra dominated by white,” Alfonso texted the Animal Services officer.
“I could have lost my life if I had panicked… I would be more than willing to do my part to make sure the justice is served.”
After Animal Services mentioned they had been pursuing a harmful canine designation, the sufferer stop responding. The investigator then gave the house owners the advantage of the doubt, information present.
The dying of Tagg
The investigation into the dying of Tagg was derailed due to the shortage of an eyewitness.
The two pit bulls apparently had been in a position to seize the smaller, white canine by means of a gap in a wooden fence created by a damaged slat.
However, as a result of neither proprietor noticed Mac and Maggie break down the fence, Animal Services mentioned that they had no witness to indicate Tagg didn’t enter the 18350 Sierra Drive property on his personal.
“Ms. Bolt has said that she turned around and the dog was on her property,” Whipple mentioned.
However, the report from the company states “due to the construction of the fence, the pits were probably the ones that pushed out the fence board.”
Despite the conclusion made within the report, Animal Services — with out a formal witness to the breakdown of the fence — was unable to declare Mac and Maggie probably harmful based mostly on the shortage of a proper witness, in keeping with Animal Services.
Tagg’s proprietor mentioned, “she didn’t believe that her dog could have or would have gone (through) the fence on its own.”
Other incidents
Another report towards Mac and Maggie on Aug. 20, 2020, only a month later, was dismissed as a result of Bolt and Kniss acknowledged the sufferer was drunk and trespassing on their property. Under the rules, that’s thought of a provocation and wouldn’t benefit a harmful animal designation.
Another report of a non-fatal attack towards a Chihuahua on Aug. 8, 2021 at a Mirabel RV Park by one of many pit bulls was dismissed as a result of the Chihuahua’s proprietor didn’t want to cooperate with Animal Services.
It was not till a Feb 16, 2022 incident when Mac and Maggie could be declared probably harmful animals. A person went to 18350 Sierra Dr. property to go to a mechanic, the report states.
“A black pit bull came out and got very close to him. It sniffed his hand and then jumped for his throat,” the Animal Services report of the incident states. “(redacted) was in a position to block the canine along with his left arm, however the canine bit his forearm.
The sufferer tried to get the canine off, nevertheless, two different pit bulls started to interact within the attack. Eventually, two ladies on the property had been in a position to separate the dogs from the sufferer.
On Feb. 28, an Animal Services officer contacted the sufferer who wished to pursue a probably harmful canine designation towards all three pit bulls that attacked him. Animal Services officers took a photograph of the accidents to the sufferer’s arms and again and took his written assertion as proof.
Animal Services officers spoke with Bolt on a name on Feb. 28. She “speculated” that the sufferer was trespassing — which might have protected Mac and Maggie underneath a provoked incident — and she or he knowledgeable the officer she could be shifting out of the county to Hollywood that day, in keeping with the report.
Bolt agreed to voluntarily designate Mac and Maggie, along with one other pit bull named Hennessy concerned within the Feb. 16 incident, as probably harmful dogs on Feb. 28.
Gabriel Kaplan, Public Health Division director, mentioned Sonoma County Animal Services has instituted a brand new overview course of prior to now six months pertaining to instances with deaths or accidents. In instances with poor outcomes, the management crew critiques the details of the case and asks, “what could we have done differently?”
One such overview involved the death of a horse in Petaluma earlier this yr after months of a canine’s harassment led to the horse dying of exhaustion. Animal Services was constrained to take motion as a result of each animals had been owned by the identical person.
“Like it or not, animals are considered the property of the owner. And so they’re subject to those same constitutional protections,” Kaplan mentioned. “That might surprise some people in the sense that how that limits our ability to intervene.”
While Whipple and Kaplan confirmed empathy to the conditions, they defended Animal Services’ responses to the incidents involving Mac and Maggie, arguing that if comparable incidents sooner or later are to be averted, the legal guidelines governing the company might want to change.
“These ordinances have been in place for some time,” Whipple mentioned. “Do we think there could be some cleanup and improvement? I believe so.”
“If the county wants to have a conversation about those principles and about the powers that Animal Services has in these instances,” Whipple mentioned. “I think that’s an interesting and important policy conversation that this board of supervisors may want to have with the citizens.”
Contact Chase Hunter at [email protected] and comply with @Chase_HunterB on Twitter.
